what if your god is gay?

[deep]

If you believe God to be gay wouldn't that make you a polytheist.

?

am I slo


w

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well presumably a God with gender would have sex with other God's with gender.

 

[financeguy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytheism


(I had to refresh my memory on the meaning of polytheism)

 

[deep]

ok
thanks for the explanation

most of my gay friends shun polyester

 

[U2democrat]

 

[Irvine511]

Well presumably a God with gender would have sex with other God's with gender.

mmmm ... gay gods having sex.

now, that's hot.

 

[Irvine511]

Because fornication is a sin. A "torrid affair" of such a nature would be fornication. The Lord Jesus Christ is Holy - he has never commited sin.

sez you.

 

[80sU2isBest]

sez you.

Not just "sez me". The Bible "sez" so. The Bible is my holy book; it is what I believe.

 

[Irvine511]

Not just "sez me". The Bible "sez" so. The Bible is my holy book; it is what I believe.

and not everyone who believes in God, or in Christ as the savior, believes in the infallability, let alone the literalness, of the Bible.

it's a text, like any other book, and it's meaning is subject to interpretation.

and the postmodernist in me knows that there are no correct readings, only endlessly contested valid readings.

it seems to me that if Jesus were a man, he wanted to have sex. one so charismatic as he would have no problems finding willing partners.

i make no claims, but only offer observations

 

[Liesje]

and not everyone who believes in God, or in Christ as the savior, believes in the infallability, let alone the literalness, of the Bible.

it's a text, like any other book, and it's meaning is subject to interpretation.

inerrant, yes; infallable, never.

 

[80sU2isBest]

and not everyone who believes in God, or in Christ as the savior, believes in the infallability, let alone the literalness, of the Bible.

Nope, but I do, and that's why I'm going to speak out every single time I hear anyone defaming him. You have the legal right to say what you believe, and Ihave the legal right to say what I believe.

it's a text, like any other book, and it's meaning is subject to interpretation..

Everybody will have an interpretation, but not every interpretation is correct. Truth is absolute. I'm either wrong in what I'm believe about Christ, or I'm right.

and the postmodernist in me knows that there are no correct readings, only endlessly contested valid readings.

And the absolutist in me knows that there has to be one truth, and that there is indeed a "correct reading" of the scriptures. So I guess we're at an impasse. We hold extreme opposite world views; you are a relativist, and I am an absolutist.

it seems to me that if Jesus were a man, he wanted to have sex. one so charismatic as he would have no problems finding willing partners.

It may "seem" that way to you, but that doesn't make it so. First, not every male wants to have sex. Second, the Bible says that Christ was tempted by the devil, but that he never gave in to temptation. If the Bible is true, and I believe it is, Christ always wanted to do what his Father willed. Even in the garden, when he prayed in agony over what he knew would happen, he didn't want to feel the pain of the cross, but he always wanted to stay true to God. And he did.

 

[80sU2isBest]

inerrant, yes; infallable, never.

I don't understand the distinction. Would you mind explaining to me?

 

[financeguy]

and the postmodernist in me knows that there are no correct readings, only endlessly contested valid readings.

But isn't postmodernism "out of fashion" now in philosophy circles?

I'm inclined to believe that there are indeed absolute truths.

 

[Liesje]

I don't understand the distinction. Would you mind explaining to me?

Sure. "Infallable" means you believe everything in the Bible, word for word, LITERALLY, "without error in anything". And yes one is a hypocrite if one thinks s/he can pick and chose.

"Inerrant" means "without error in purpose", the Bible IS the authority on what it's SUPPOSED to be the authority on (ex. the Bible is not the authority on and does not claim to be the authority on scientific matters, such as the value of pi), the Bible as a vehicle for special revelation via the Holy Spirit, etc.

Very VERY different words w/ very different implications. As a Calvinist and member of a Christian Reformed church, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.

 

[unosdostres14]

Some people are so narrow minded. Isn't it possible that things aren't the way you thought them to be???? Isn't it possible that "everything you know is wrong"?

 

[financeguy]

Isn't it possible that "everything you know is wrong"?

Consider the converse - isn't it possible that everything you know isn't wrong?

 

[melon]

I've questioned the concept of "fornication" in recent years. People in Jesus' time married at around the age of 13. Pretty much, that means the minute you had a sex drive, you were married, so you couldn't commit the modern definition of "fornication." You could only commit "adultery." So that makes me wonder what they were referring to in the Bible, which we translated as "fornication"? It wouldn't be the first time that we misinterpreted a foreign cultural concept.

I guess that means that Mary "fornicated" with God to create Jesus?

Melon

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

ok
thanks for the explanation

most of my gay friends shun polyester

!

 

[80sU2isBest]

Sure. "Infallable" means you believe everything in the Bible, word for word, LITERALLY, "without error in anything". And yes one is a hypocrite if one thinks s/he can pick and chose.

"Inerrant" means "without error in purpose", the Bible IS the authority on what it's SUPPOSED to be the authority on (ex. the Bible is not the authority on and does not claim to be the authority on scientific matters, such as the value of pi), the Bible as a vehicle for special revelation via the Holy Spirit, etc.

Thanks, I was quite bumfuzzled.

Goodnight

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Some people are so narrow minded. Isn't it possible that things aren't the way you thought them to be???? Isn't it possible that "everything you know is wrong"?

So if I am true to any personal belief I have that you don't share, I'm narrow minded? Would you mind explaining how this is so?

 

[learn2kneel]

I guess that means that Mary "fornicated" with God to create Jesus?

Melon

That's actually what Mormon's belive except they call it celestial sex.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I was actually thinking that, too.

 

[Liesje]

Thanks, I was quite bumfuzzled.

Goodnight

which one do you prefer, if I may ask?

 

[Irvine511]

That's actually what Mormon's belive except they call it celestial sex.

that's hot.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So if I am true to any personal belief I have that you don't share, I'm narrow minded? Would you mind explaining how this is so?

I didn't think it was possible.

 

[imogen]

There is nothing ( no thing ) that is not of God.

The only truth is love.

 

[deep]

Thanks, I was quite bumfuzzled.

bumfuzzle?

i guess you got with the theme of this thread

 

[-macphisto-]

That's actually what Mormon's belive except they call it celestial sex.

Oh really, are you sure about that?

 

[BonosSaint]

If my God is gay then gay's don't exist.

*find the logical fallacy

Logical fallacy found, assuming you don't believe in God.

 

[80sU2isBest]

bumfuzzle?

i guess you got with the theme of this thread

shame shame


that's not exactly what bumfuzzled refers to...