How about the part of the Bible that says "Interpret this passage any way you like to agree with your own biases."
Homosexuality
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
I take it that means you can't find any statements Jesus made condemning pedophilia. What do you think that means?
Torturing animals is bad? By not commenting on it, people like Gerry might think it's acceptable.
That's from Matthew 7 and is part of Jesus' sermon on the mount (hence not part of the old testament). You may notice that I'm not going to bother calling you "stupid" or an "a$$hole" simply because I disagree with you on what is or isn't part of the old testament. I will say this much though, I never realized Jesus was a PETA member.
It's like trying to find a quote that says there will be a rapture.
That's a tough one for the small c christians to figure out.
The flaw in the logic of the OP is self evident. Trying to justify or condemn any action based on nothing more than what Jesus said (or failed to say) is an exercise only attempted by those with an agenda. The Bible can be a very dangerous weapon if handled improperly.
You're kind of arguing against yourself.
Man is the source of the problem. The instant you forget that, you're opening the door to forget that all positions of power are prone to corruption and abuse, and the instant you give any ideology unquestioned authority over your life, you're condemend to repeat the errors of our past.
Whether it's conservatives, liberals, The Brights, feminists, animal rights activits.... putting blind faith in your cause, and considering yourself to be better than other, above their mistakes, is a dangerous path.
It is possible to marry critical thinking with religion, and to stand back and not demand adherence to ones belief set. That's a skill that few possess even outside of religion though, even when they don't realize it.
Last edited:
What that means, Cannuck, that Jesus thought the subject didn't need any clarification because common sense in itself would clarify it, not realizing there were idiots so stupid as to have to question it.
Is that not the definition of the word?
It's the Revised Standard Version.. the first full translation of the English Bible since the King James Version.. and was produced at the end to the 19th Century. It was intended to retain as much of the poetic language of the KJV as possible, while omitting anachronistic terms and errors from original sources. Hence the thee's and thou's. It's the most reliable of all the contemporary translations.
From Genesis to Revelation God spoke through his prophets.. and none is greater than Paul.
I see again and again from agnostics and such.. that the Bible is all about 'love' and that's all.. freely and subjectively interpreted. That treats the entire Scripture as Irony.. in the literary sense of the word.. as something where the intended meaning of text is at variance or the opposite of its literal meaning.
Never is this used more often than with homosexuality.. which is clearly and unambiguously condemned in both the New and the Old Testaments. It states that some amorphous, undefined 'love'.. supercedes all personal moral obligation AND responsibility.. as clearly identified in the text.
I say take your chance that God deals only in Irony.. without structural and natural integrity with His moral law.
It's what is peached by that idiot Vermont Anglican Bishop, Gene Robinson.. an overt and practicing homosexual.. and it is tearing that Church apart. It is simply, completely and irreconcilably at odds with the Christian ethos.
Last edited:
hehe It's simple; practise what you preach. That's part of the "do unto others" bit. Religion, politics, whatever; people use them as excuses.
Whether the Gallilean with the Puerto Rican name verbally or otherwise objected to homosexuality or not is a bit irrelevant and what IS relevant is that he suggested people condemn the sin, not the sinner.
Whether the Gallilean with the Puerto Rican name verbally or otherwise objected to homosexuality or not is a bit irrelevant and what IS relevant is that he suggested people condemn the sin, not the sinner.
Where?
I've already to referred you to Romans 1, Timothy 1:10.. there are lots of others.. i don't think i need do that over and over.. especially for someone as uninterested in the message as you clearly are LG.
Do a google search of Biblical proscriptions to homosexuality if you really are interested.And as far as i can see, if you look at the accepted secular ethos.. the intent is to extol the sin.. in fact to deny there is any sin at all.. merely personal points of view in morally subjective and relativistic universe. There is a big difference.
Last edited:
It is NOT clear, as you stated. If it were clear, there'd be no mention of interpretations.I've already to referred you to Romans 1, Timothy 1:10.. there are lots of others.. i don't think i need do that over and over.. especially for someone as uninterested in the message as you clearly are LG.
Anti-homosexual 'clobber passages:' 1 Timothy 1:9-10
As far as Romans 1 goes, I have already shown that homosexuality is NOT against nature. It has been fairly steady in humans at a rate of between 1% and 4% all through human history. It's no more against nature than being left-handed or blue-eyed. Grow up.
Your opinion.
Between your interpretation of things and others'? I agree.
I read a book written by an author by the name of Greene, in our BC public library over10 years ago, Today this book is nowhereto be found, even on the internet. It must have been censored. The book went back into Catholic history during the Jerusalem crusades where same sex marriage was condoned and performed by the Catholic Church for knights fighting the crusades. It was only years after the crusades ended that the Catholic Church repealed same sex marriage.
A gay girlfriend told me she has studied the bible and the old testament mentions men must not laydown with men as they would with a women, but this may have been for health reasons as the statement was written with other health factors such as not to consume meat. Nowhere in the bible does it say women cannot have sexual relations with other women. So being a lesbianis not a sin whereas *n*l sex is.
If anyonecan find this book from Greene about the church once condoning marriage between gay men will own a very powerful and priceless book.
good luck with your search
There have been many gods and religions over the existance of mankind, but there is only one common denominator of all gods and religions which is that of spirit. Why do we need gods or religion before we can respect our spirit? Gods do not own our spirit. How we choose to use spirit is what makes spirit divine. Spirit is a state of being. Time to get rid of religion who use the Bible, Koran, and Torah to judge others and prevent the masses from connecting with their spirit. - Just my thoughts...........
A gay girlfriend told me she has studied the bible and the old testament mentions men must not laydown with men as they would with a women, but this may have been for health reasons as the statement was written with other health factors such as not to consume meat. Nowhere in the bible does it say women cannot have sexual relations with other women. So being a lesbianis not a sin whereas *n*l sex is.
If anyonecan find this book from Greene about the church once condoning marriage between gay men will own a very powerful and priceless book.
good luck with your search
There have been many gods and religions over the existance of mankind, but there is only one common denominator of all gods and religions which is that of spirit. Why do we need gods or religion before we can respect our spirit? Gods do not own our spirit. How we choose to use spirit is what makes spirit divine. Spirit is a state of being. Time to get rid of religion who use the Bible, Koran, and Torah to judge others and prevent the masses from connecting with their spirit. - Just my thoughts...........
I don't see that at all, because...
...man is also the source of religion, and all ideologies, and power structures. Nothing has been handed down from on high, or passed up from below for that matter, there's just us, and we're very good at seeing patterns where there aren't any, fooling ourselves into believing what we'd like to be true, and making stuff up. Critical thinking applied to religion is pretty corrosive to it. Surely it has struck you that the more we know the less we attribute to supernatural causes?
Until about the middle of the 19th century, for instance, pretty much everybody in the Judaeo-Christian world was what we now call a Young Earth Creationist and the Argument from Design seemed almost self-evident. Critical thinking has since exposed both as false. Anthropology shows that religions are historical products of evolving human cultures, belief in any particular concept of god depends critically on that. One need only point out how different is contemporary Christianity from its mediaeval version; except for a few lingering boneheads like the Westboro Baptists, it has evolved. Geology shows that the earth is clearly many orders of magnitude older than the few thousand years allowed by the original teachings of any religion I've examined. Astronomy shows that all religiously derived cosmologies are wrong, and not just a little bit, but egregiously wrong, the cosmos is far bigger and older and more dramatic and interesting than any religion ever imagined. Much of the history of the last 400 years in what we still call the Judaeo-Christian world, for lack of a better term, can be understood as religion retreating from making claims about reality in the face of the scientific revolution.
Any logical person examining such a consistent trend wouldn't hesitate to extrapolate to the conclusion that the postulated anthropomorphic deity most likely doesn't exist, the scriptures that it supposedly inspired came entirely from the minds of men, and thus have no more special authority than any other writings.
Then again we have many scientists that have religious beliefs - and they have no problem separating the 2.
According to an earlier post you stated that religion corrupted man. So the invention corrupted the ones that invented it. What about the ones it did not corrupt or are all persons with a religious belief naturally corrupted.
Not off topic - Do you believe that man is alone in the universe -the only sentient creature, excluding all other life forms on earth -
Last edited:
Religious scientists are very much in the minority.
On your second point, that'd depend on what you mean by corrupt. The Christian doctrine of Original Sin really means everybody is corrupt regardless of what they believe. I find that a corrupt notion in itself, so I'd say anybody who thinks it's true has had their thinking corrupted. I also think the notion of scapegoating one man for the sins of everybody is a corrupt idea.
On the third point, we haven't enough evidence to know whether or not we're alone in the universe. Given the scale of the place it seems unlikely, but the question is in principle answerable, and is not a matter of belief, it'll be a matter of fact if and when the answer is ever determined. I have no belief on the question, but I do know of various arguments to shade the probabilities one way or the other.
On your second point, that'd depend on what you mean by corrupt. The Christian doctrine of Original Sin really means everybody is corrupt regardless of what they believe. I find that a corrupt notion in itself, so I'd say anybody who thinks it's true has had their thinking corrupted. I also think the notion of scapegoating one man for the sins of everybody is a corrupt idea.
On the third point, we haven't enough evidence to know whether or not we're alone in the universe. Given the scale of the place it seems unlikely, but the question is in principle answerable, and is not a matter of belief, it'll be a matter of fact if and when the answer is ever determined. I have no belief on the question, but I do know of various arguments to shade the probabilities one way or the other.
Do you have links for the statement of scientists that have or do not have religious beliefs. Otherwise it is opinon
On the third point, we haven't enough evidence to know whether or not we're alone in the universe. Given the scale of the place it seems unlikely, but the question is in principle answerable, and is not a matter of belief, it'll be a matter of fact if and when the answer is ever determined. I have no belief on the question, but I do know of various arguments to shade the probabilities one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
Based upon logical deduction, the amount of planets in the billions that could/can support life - We cannot be alone.