Jesus on Marriage...

[Ravi]

And on your edited point, the one that you added in. I agree 100%. IMO, no church should be made to perform a ceremony that they don't believe in. And no church that wants to perform said ceremony should be disallowed from doing it.

See, I didn't think you wanted to force the churches to do something they don't want to do. IMO, that's just as un-American as denying equality under the law.

It seems as if mal is accusing you of wanting something you are totally against.

He does seem to have an agenda.

 

[Si modo]

I don't Agree that Jesus is about Faith in Humanity... I Think it's Absurd point that she Thought Sounded good when she Posted it.

It really makes NO Sense in Releation to Jesus and the Bible.

Faith in Humanity is what Christianity is all about?...

Wow.



peace...

Hmmmm. As it has been a long time since I had any religious instruction, I still recall a few things from it.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" rings a bell with me.

And, as I hear the Lord's prayer quite a bit, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Oh well, I guess I got it wrong. But, I sorta like what I DO recall from it.

Christianity was never intended to be a religion. It is a relationship. But, people being people, they are more comfortable with rules and rituals and they have made a religion out of it. Or more correctly hundreds of religions out of it, each one developing their own scriptural interpretations, installing they own customs and practices, and each attempting to be the most Christlike. In the process to many judge the others as inferior or in error or sinful. Or that group that rejects it all and considers those who believe as the bad ones.

And thus we have exchanges like too many on this thread--people blaming each other, accusing each other, insulting each other, and feeling self righteous about their own sense of virtue and purity and demonstrating smugness about how superior their point of view is to that of everybody else.

And I feel pretty safe in thinking that it probably makes Christ weep.

As I said before, I never really bought much about my religion, but the Gawd I learned about would be in favor of living and letting live, as long as you don't hurt others in the process. Yeah, he's not a big fan of sin, but He loves everyone, even sinners like me.

 

[Cenotaph]

Jesus was not saying people are born homosexual. Is that what you were trying to get Jesus to say?

Yes, some believe that the eunuch was a metaphor and... Eh, just read this.

There is no other way to address this. God created us male and female. Homosexuality is not normal.

Not really.

I mean, yea, it's not normal when looking number of heterosexuals in comparison to that of homosexuals, but that doesn't make it "immoral."

Anyways, I'm not arguing what the bible said... just what Jesus said. The bible clearly states its opinion on homosexuality...

There are rules and guidelines to biblical interpretation. Some things are literal, some poetic, some historical, and some are parables. Jesus never condoned homosexuality. To do so would have been against the Word of God. The Words of Jesus and the Word of God are one and the same.

Yes, and in this sense it is clearly poetic. I don't believe there were any instances of holy men at the time who were castrating themselves in an attempt to stay celibate... they just refused to partake in marriage. The other instance that describes eunuchs who were eunuchs from birth could mean two things: homosexuals or those born without testicles. The fact that the latter is so rare and not quite known during that period of time points more to the former... especially with the poetic context of the statement.

So... Jesus could have condoned homosexuality in this sense.

 

[koshergrl]

Hmmmm. As it has been a long time since I had any religious instruction, I still recall a few things from it.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" rings a bell with me.

And, as I hear the Lord's prayer quite a bit, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us".

Oh well, I guess I got it wrong. But, I sorta like what I DO recall from it.

Christianity was never intended to be a religion. It is a relationship. But, people being people, they are more comfortable with rules and rituals and they have made a religion out of it. Or more correctly hundreds of religions out of it, each one developing their own scriptural interpretations, installing they own customs and practices, and each attempting to be the most Christlike. In the process to many judge the others as inferior or in error or sinful. Or that group that rejects it all and considers those who believe as the bad ones.

And thus we have exchanges like too many on this thread--people blaming each other, accusing each other, insulting each other, and feeling self righteous about their own sense of virtue and purity and demonstrating smugness about how superior their point of view is to that of everybody else.

And I feel pretty safe in thinking that it probably makes Christ weep.

As I said before, I never really bought much about my religion, but the Gawd I learned about would be in favor of living and letting live, as long as you don't hurt others in the process. Yeah, he's not a big fan of sin, but He loves everyone, even sinners like me.

Yes he does.

But that doesn't make it right to bastardize the word in order to attempt to convince the world that your own particular sin of choice isn't REALLY a sin.

Repentance is a big part of what Christians are about...you repent and ask forgiveness for your sins, and you make a good faith effort to live sinlessly. Impossible, of course...we all know that. But the point is..you don't go around insisting that sin is okay with God.

 

[Si modo]

Christianity was never intended to be a religion. It is a relationship. But, people being people, they are more comfortable with rules and rituals and they have made a religion out of it. Or more correctly hundreds of religions out of it, each one developing their own scriptural interpretations, installing they own customs and practices, and each attempting to be the most Christlike. In the process to many judge the others as inferior or in error or sinful. Or that group that rejects it all and considers those who believe as the bad ones.

And thus we have exchanges like too many on this thread--people blaming each other, accusing each other, insulting each other, and feeling self righteous about their own sense of virtue and purity and demonstrating smugness about how superior their point of view is to that of everybody else.

And I feel pretty safe in thinking that it probably makes Christ weep.

As I said before, I never really bought much about my religion, but the Gawd I learned about would be in favor of living and letting live, as long as you don't hurt others in the process. Yeah, he's not a big fan of sin, but He loves everyone, even sinners like me.

Yes he does.

But that doesn't make it right to bastardize the word in order to attempt to convince the world that your own particular sin of choice isn't REALLY a sin.

Repentance is a big part of what Christians are about...you repent and ask forgiveness for your sins, and you make a good faith effort to live sinlessly. Impossible, of course...we all know that. But the point is..you don't go around insisting that sin is okay with God.

And, if you're not a Christian? YOU find it to be a sin. So what?

And, so what IF someone "bastardizes" some Word?

Really. So what?

No one is forcing YOU to do a thing you don't want to do.

 

[koshergrl]

You brought it up, harridan. I was responding to your comments about God being okay with it, and was speaking to that, as a Christian, to people who attempt to justify sin by lying about the bible.

So what? You sound painfully like Luissa on a retard rant. If you want to beat people over the head with the bible, then they will respond. YOu want to piss and moan about how God is okay with homosexuality, I'm going to call you a liar, and state that you're bastardizing the word to suit yourself. Is it a crime? Nope. Is it indicative of a small and twisted soul? Yes.

 

[Buford]

Yes, some believe that the eunuch was a metaphor and... Eh, just read this.


Not really.

I mean, yea, it's not normal when looking number of heterosexuals in comparison to that of homosexuals, but that doesn't make it "immoral."

Anyways, I'm not arguing what the bible said... just what Jesus said. The bible clearly states its opinion on homosexuality...

There are rules and guidelines to biblical interpretation. Some things are literal, some poetic, some historical, and some are parables. Jesus never condoned homosexuality. To do so would have been against the Word of God. The Words of Jesus and the Word of God are one and the same.

Yes, and in this sense it is clearly poetic. I don't believe there were any instances of holy men at the time who were castrating themselves in an attempt to stay celibate... they just refused to partake in marriage. The other instance that describes eunuchs who were eunuchs from birth could mean two things: homosexuals or those born without testicles. The fact that the latter is so rare and not quite known during that period of time points more to the former... especially with the poetic context of the statement.

So... Jesus could have condoned homosexuality in this sense.

I disagree that this passage is "poetic". Does "poetic" in your mind mean saying one thing and meaning something else? Jesus could not condone homosexuality because to do so would be against what the Word of God said. Homosexuality was not condemned and then condoned. God isn't schizophrenic.

 

[Si modo]

You brought it up, harridan.

I brought WHAT up, moron? (Since you feel the need to name-call, let's go for it.)

 

[koshergrl]

God (or, as you so intelligently and classily refer to him..."Gawd"), nitwit.

 

[Buford]

Some people look at the bible through secular eyes. That's where the problem starts for the unbeliever. It's like a child playing with a stick of dynamite and a match.

 

[Si modo]

Some people look at the bible through secular eyes. That's where the problem starts for the unbeliever. It's like a child playing with a stick of dynamite and a match.

Nice tautology.

Illogical, but nice example.

 

[Buford]

Some people look at the bible through secular eyes. That's where the problem starts for the unbeliever. It's like a child playing with a stick of dynamite and a match.

Nice tautology.

Illogical, but nice example.

Thanks, it is a good example. People who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. That's what the bible says.

 

[Cenotaph]

There are rules and guidelines to biblical interpretation. Some things are literal, some poetic, some historical, and some are parables. Jesus never condoned homosexuality. To do so would have been against the Word of God. The Words of Jesus and the Word of God are one and the same.

Yes, and in this sense it is clearly poetic. I don't believe there were any instances of holy men at the time who were castrating themselves in an attempt to stay celibate... they just refused to partake in marriage. The other instance that describes eunuchs who were eunuchs from birth could mean two things: homosexuals or those born without testicles. The fact that the latter is so rare and not quite known during that period of time points more to the former... especially with the poetic context of the statement.

So... Jesus could have condoned homosexuality in this sense.

I disagree that this passage is "poetic". Does "poetic" in your mind mean saying one thing and meaning something else? Jesus could not condone homosexuality because to do so would be against what the Word of God said. Homosexuality was not condemned and then condoned. God isn't schizophrenic.

Due to the numerous contradictions that exist within the bible's texts, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe that this is a contradiction as well.

I mean... Jesus's teachings most definitely contradicted some of the principles found within the old testament. For example, Mary Magdalene was a prostitute (an adulterer)... Didn't it say somewhere in Deuteronomy that adulterers must be put to death?

Jesus certainly didn't kill her. Instead, he forgave her... and she became one of his disciples.

EDIT: My mistake, I failed to answer your question. Poetry is usually rather subjective (within reason) and can be left up to the reader's own interpretation (within reason). My viewpoint on the possibility of Jesus's condoning of homosexuality is very much a valid interpretation.

 

[Si modo]

Some people look at the bible through secular eyes. That's where the problem starts for the unbeliever. It's like a child playing with a stick of dynamite and a match.

Nice tautology.

Illogical, but nice example.

Thanks, it is a good example. People who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. That's what the bible says.

And, as it seems the topic of the thread is, are we so sure that what you see as the current scriptures are all that close to what they originally were?

History indicates otherwise.

They aren't bad as they exist, so no one is making any "accusation".

 

[Buford]

Nice tautology.

Illogical, but nice example.

Thanks, it is a good example. People who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. That's what the bible says.

And, as it seems the topic of the thread is, are we so sure that what you see as the current scriptures are all that close to what they originally were?

History indicates otherwise.

They aren't bad as they exist, so no one is making any "accusation".

I believe God is able to keep his word regardless of man's attempts to alter it to fit man's agenda.

 

[Cenotaph]

I don't really have an agenda.

As I previously mentioned, I don't care what you people believe just so long as it doesn't affect my way of living.

I'm here to debate just for pure entertainment purposes, and if I am wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it (as evidenced by the discussion in the 'Sexual Orientation: What Are Its Causes' thread).

 

[koshergrl]

Nice tautology.

Illogical, but nice example.

Thanks, it is a good example. People who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. That's what the bible says.

And, as it seems the topic of the thread is, are we so sure that what you see as the current scriptures are all that close to what they originally were?

History indicates otherwise.

They aren't bad as they exist, so no one is making any "accusation".

We have the scholars who look at the ancient texts, and tell us yes, the current scriptures are close to what they originally were.

"In his book, What Mean These Stones?, Millar Burrows wrote, “Archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.” Burrows was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

"The following is a compilation of biographies of archaeologists and associated scholars, who through their research, have become convinced of the veracity of the ancient documents collectively called the Bible. Among them are former critics -- William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, George Ernest Wright, Sir William Ramsay, A. H. Sayce, and Dr. Clifford Wilson – whose views changed as they examined, first-hand, the archaeological evidence."

To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work

 

[koshergrl]

"
Sir Frederic George Kenyon. Our Bible and Ancient Manuscripts, New York: Harper & Bros., 1941, p. 23. “One word of warning already referred to, must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. ...
“It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
“Scholars are satisfied that they possess substantially the true text of the principal Greek and Roman writers whose works have come down to us, of Sophocles, of Thucydides, of Cicero, of Virgil; yet our knowledge of their writings depends on a mere handful of manuscripts, whereas the manuscripts of the new Testament are counted by hundreds, and even thousands.”

To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work

 

[Si modo]

Thanks, it is a good example. People who twist the scriptures do so to their own destruction. That's what the bible says.

And, as it seems the topic of the thread is, are we so sure that what you see as the current scriptures are all that close to what they originally were?

History indicates otherwise.

They aren't bad as they exist, so no one is making any "accusation".

We have the scholars who look at the ancient texts, and tell us yes, the current scriptures are close to what they originally were.

"In his book, What Mean These Stones?, Millar Burrows wrote, “Archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine.” Burrows was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem at the time the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered.

"The following is a compilation of biographies of archaeologists and associated scholars, who through their research, have become convinced of the veracity of the ancient documents collectively called the Bible. Among them are former critics -- William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, George Ernest Wright, Sir William Ramsay, A. H. Sayce, and Dr. Clifford Wilson – whose views changed as they examined, first-hand, the archaeological evidence."

To further illustrate, probably the three greatest American archaeologists of the twentieth century each had their liberal training modified by their archaeological work

Well, a TV evangelist says so, so it must be true.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I don't really have an agenda.

As I previously mentioned, I don't care what you people believe just so long as it doesn't affect my way of living.

I'm here to debate just for pure entertainment purposes, and if I am wrong, then I'll be the first to admit it (as evidenced by the discussion in the 'Sexual Orientation: What Are Its Causes' thread).

You're a breath of fresh air.