ahhh Dexter - we're on the same page, and I gotta say, you show more spirituality within you than many who claim they believe....
....I meant that as a compliment, btw.... lolll
....I meant that as a compliment, btw.... lolll
Christian Nation?
- Thread starter Crusader
- Start date
Crusader, you might consider that the least changeable
orientation of a human being is sexual orientation.
Why do you like girls ?
You just do.
You ever like boys?
Probably not.
Why ?
Because it never occurred to you. And even if
someone forced you to like boys, you wouldn't like
it anyway.
Society has a lot to learn here.
And it's puzzling for all of us, as we see divorce rates
skyrocket and one parent families struggling to raise
their kids. I know I could have used a partner in crime
to balance my approach with my daughter, but then
there's another level of a non parent joining with
a parent to raise a kid not their own, and it all gets
dicy and I look for any moral guidance I can navigating
through the temptations.
Religions are something for the interior of our souls
to be debated, rejected or embraced.
orientation of a human being is sexual orientation.
Why do you like girls ?
You just do.
You ever like boys?
Probably not.
Why ?
Because it never occurred to you. And even if
someone forced you to like boys, you wouldn't like
it anyway.
Society has a lot to learn here.
And it's puzzling for all of us, as we see divorce rates
skyrocket and one parent families struggling to raise
their kids. I know I could have used a partner in crime
to balance my approach with my daughter, but then
there's another level of a non parent joining with
a parent to raise a kid not their own, and it all gets
dicy and I look for any moral guidance I can navigating
through the temptations.
Religions are something for the interior of our souls
to be debated, rejected or embraced.
I don't mind organized religion but when people take the word of those who thought the world was flat, and stuff it down everyone's throats at any cost, they aren't much different from the Taliban or any other extremist group. Being a believer is one thing. Being a religious lobby intent on ruining the lives of other people for the sake of their own beliefs is borderline criminal.
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
Ummmm, you don't think Jews and Muslims would have a problem with being part of an organization called the Christian Federation?
Hehe! :lol:
Crusader said:
Ummmm, you don't think Jews and Muslims would have a problem with being part of an organization called the Christian Federation?
Hehe! :lol:
Yeah, and who's had more wars with each other than Christian Scotland & Christian England (over whether the crown would be Catholic or Protestant) and Christian France under Napoleon invading just about every other Christian country in Europe or the U.S. Civil war fought between the Christian Northern States and the Christian Southern States, or the Christian U.S. in invading just about every Christian country in Central and South America not to even mention invading Christian Canada in 1812.
Yeah, we need more Christian countries like Jonestown needs more Kool-Aid.
Lord, save us from fools and Christians (and please excuse the redundancy).
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
Lack of unity. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the language of the New Testament. As we all read that text each i our own naitonal tongues (already interpretations to some extent) we then add interpretation upon interpretation until our understanding of the NT is as divided as the people were at the Tower of Babel.
The language of the Greek New Testament would not only give us direct access to the pearls of wisdom hidden in the original Greek New Testament, but also serve as the key to accessing the hearts of one another, thus firmly uniting Christendom under one common Faith and one common speech.
jimmoyer said:
Lack of unity. That's why I'm a strong supporter of the language of the New Testament. As we all read that text each i our own naitonal tongues (already interpretations to some extent) we then add interpretation upon interpretation until our understanding of the NT is as divided as the people were at the Tower of Babel.
The language of the Greek New Testament would not only give us direct access to the pearls of wisdom hidden in the original Greek New Testament, but also serve as the key to accessing the hearts of one another, thus firmly uniting Christendom under one common Faith and one common speech.
quote="Dexter Sinister"
Not quite. Some are more equal than others. If you're hetero you're allowed to act on your "impulsions"--I presume you mean impulses, though that's far too flimsy a word for what we're actually talking about here--within certain restricted limits, but you'd deny male homosexuals any possibility of a physically intimate relationship, though I seriously doubt that their need for it is any less than any heterosexual's. What about female homosexuals? Sodomy isn't generally part of their sexual activity, they don't have the tools, so to speak, so what's their particular sin?
I'm well aware That there is a debate re: the Biblical stance on female homosexuality. Certainly if there is no clearly defined law on that in the Bible, then we may have no choice but to accept it. And if God left that out, then maybe there was a reason for it beyond our limited understanding.
And why are some people homosexual? God made 'em that way for some mysterious purpose of His own? You come on like a Christian fundamentalist, which would suggest that might be your position. And if you tell us homosexuality is a choice you will only reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, because that is known to be false.
I'm not a christian fundamentalist; I'm just a Christian. I never said homosexuality is a choice; you're making big assumptions about me. I do not base my interpretation of the bible upon anything or anyone other than the Bible itself. As to why God created homosexuals is a mistery to me; perhaps a way to test them and us? We all have tests in life, different and unique tests for every people. They strengthen our character. For all I know homosexuality is to test the homosexual himself against lust, and the rest of us against bigotry? Just my guests.
Crusader said:
Not quite. Some are more equal than others. If you're hetero you're allowed to act on your "impulsions"--I presume you mean impulses, though that's far too flimsy a word for what we're actually talking about here--within certain restricted limits, but you'd deny male homosexuals any possibility of a physically intimate relationship, though I seriously doubt that their need for it is any less than any heterosexual's. What about female homosexuals? Sodomy isn't generally part of their sexual activity, they don't have the tools, so to speak, so what's their particular sin?
I'm well aware That there is a debate re: the Biblical stance on female homosexuality. Certainly if there is no clearly defined law on that in the Bible, then we may have no choice but to accept it. And if God left that out, then maybe there was a reason for it beyond our limited understanding.
And why are some people homosexual? God made 'em that way for some mysterious purpose of His own? You come on like a Christian fundamentalist, which would suggest that might be your position. And if you tell us homosexuality is a choice you will only reveal the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, because that is known to be false.
I'm not a christian fundamentalist; I'm just a Christian. I never said homosexuality is a choice; you're making big assumptions about me. I do not base my interpretation of the bible upon anything or anyone other than the Bible itself. As to why God created homosexuals is a mistery to me; perhaps a way to test them and us? We all have tests in life, different and unique tests for every people. They strengthen our character. For all I know homosexuality is to test the homosexual himself against lust, and the rest of us against bigotry? Just my guests.
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
please do not make assumptions about me.
1. I do not take the Bible literally as a science tex; I take it, rather, as a legal text.
2. Please try to show a tad more respect in the discussion. Tackle the issue, not the poster. thanks a million
Kreskin said:
please do not make assumptions about me.
1. I do not take the Bible literally as a science tex; I take it, rather, as a legal text.
2. Please try to show a tad more respect in the discussion. Tackle the issue, not the poster. thanks a million
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
I tackled THE issue. I'm not the one claiming homosexuality is a test of one's character. I tend to believe everyone deserves respect, the ability to live their lives and be who they are without a group running them down, judging their character, or working in an organized fashion to deny them the rights to be happy - especially when their actions and lives having nothing to do with members of that group.
Try and show a little more respect for people who don't believe the same things you do. There are members of this board who don't appreciate your judgment of their character.
Crusader said:Kreskin said:
please do not make assumptions about me.
1. I do not take the Bible literally as a science tex; I take it, rather, as a legal text.
2. Please try to show a tad more respect in the discussion. Tackle the issue, not the poster. thanks a million
I tackled THE issue. I'm not the one claiming homosexuality is a test of one's character. I tend to believe everyone deserves respect, the ability to live their lives and be who they are without a group running them down, judging their character, or working in an organized fashion to deny them the rights to be happy - especially when their actions and lives having nothing to do with members of that group.
Try and show a little more respect for people who don't believe the same things you do. There are members of this board who don't appreciate your judgment of their character.
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
Weaselling. All the question required was a yes or no, and you've convinced me your answer is yes, which makes you a dangerous demagogue. You're certainly entitled to abide by the law of the gospel, whatever you think that is, in your personal life, but you're not entitled to force it on anyone else. The laws of the nation take precedence. You're full of false dichotomies, like the claim that you can't be both a Canadian and a Christian, faulty logic, and an arrogant certainty that a text written millennia ago by a tribe of desert nomads with no concept of modern science or philosophy is the ultimate guide to how we should live our lives. After millennia of scientific, philosophical, political, and social, progress, you'd take us back to the 4th century if you could. I'm glad you can't.
Evidently you don't read very well either. I did not say, or even suggest, that you'd said homosexuality was a choice. A lot of serious Christians do take that position, I thought there might be a possibility you'd take it as well, so I headed it off before you could say it. All I said was that if you did take that position, you'd be wrong.
Crusader said:
Weaselling. All the question required was a yes or no, and you've convinced me your answer is yes, which makes you a dangerous demagogue. You're certainly entitled to abide by the law of the gospel, whatever you think that is, in your personal life, but you're not entitled to force it on anyone else. The laws of the nation take precedence. You're full of false dichotomies, like the claim that you can't be both a Canadian and a Christian, faulty logic, and an arrogant certainty that a text written millennia ago by a tribe of desert nomads with no concept of modern science or philosophy is the ultimate guide to how we should live our lives. After millennia of scientific, philosophical, political, and social, progress, you'd take us back to the 4th century if you could. I'm glad you can't.
Evidently you don't read very well either. I did not say, or even suggest, that you'd said homosexuality was a choice. A lot of serious Christians do take that position, I thought there might be a possibility you'd take it as well, so I headed it off before you could say it. All I said was that if you did take that position, you'd be wrong.
Re: RE: Christian Nation?
Taken as such, and blessings upon your household for the tolerance and charity you show, here and elsewhere. I think Crusader would have me killed. Being atheist doesn't preclude spirituality, it just produces a different understanding of it.
Zan said:
Taken as such, and blessings upon your household for the tolerance and charity you show, here and elsewhere. I think Crusader would have me killed. Being atheist doesn't preclude spirituality, it just produces a different understanding of it.
I don't see a problem with it, as long as it's a Christian nation, meaning "of Christ" rather than a "fundie" nation or a Catholic nation. Immediately, we can ignore the Old testament since Jesus said:
Since no human can begin to describe the attributes of God, loving His Creation is enough. So people who talk to a personal man-God are in the same boat as people who reject the man-God, but appreciate the beauty of Nature, or the value of other people, who, of course, are in the image of God.
Since any conception of God is hopelessly inadequate, none is better than any other.
Every religion (even satanism) has a version of the second commandment, otherwise known as the Golden Rule:
So, a Christian nation would ahve two basic laws (the first to be obeyed at the discretion of each person) and would not discriminate against homosexuals, atheists or even silly Biblical literialists. i don't see a problem....'course the Devil is always in the details... :wink:
Since no human can begin to describe the attributes of God, loving His Creation is enough. So people who talk to a personal man-God are in the same boat as people who reject the man-God, but appreciate the beauty of Nature, or the value of other people, who, of course, are in the image of God.
Since any conception of God is hopelessly inadequate, none is better than any other.
Every religion (even satanism) has a version of the second commandment, otherwise known as the Golden Rule:
So, a Christian nation would ahve two basic laws (the first to be obeyed at the discretion of each person) and would not discriminate against homosexuals, atheists or even silly Biblical literialists. i don't see a problem....'course the Devil is always in the details... :wink: