Episcopal Bishop Homosexuality is not a Sin

[BVS]

Excellent....

And I am more than willing to be your flower girl when the time comes

Sweet, can I be the ring bearer?

 

[Muggsy]

Thank GOD that Sodom was destroyed to save this f'd up bunch

[Q]Finally, the two virgin daughters hit upon a plan. They found some grapes. They made them into wine. They prepared the wine for their father. Their father, not knowing what their plan was, drank the wine. Finally, their father became completely drunk. They carried Lot into his cave and laid him down.

One daughter left the other alone with Lot in the cave. The daughter in the cave with Lot had sex with her father. Lot was completely drunk and did not know what he was doing. The next day, Lot had no memory of this.

The next night, the two daughters brought some more wine. Lot drank the wine and got drunk again. Again, they took them into his cave. This time, the other daughter had sex with her father. The next morning, Lot had no memory of any of this.

The two now no longer virgin daughters both became pregnant from having sex with their father. Each daughter gave birth to a baby boy. The name of the first boy was Moab. The name of the second boy was Benammi. These two boys each became the founder of a great tribe.

[/Q]

It must be all about the sex......

since I was little, I always found that text quite disturbing...

And because of texts like that I started to think that the Bible isn't a book from God. The Bible is the History of our relationship with god, about how the people shapes their own god according to their prejudices, their fears, their needs. Because if God is love, how we can explain all those laws against women, foreign people and gays?... it is evident that those laws aren't from God , those laws and precepts are from the Men (male, aristocratic men) who tried to put their words in God's mouth.

 

[Irvine511]

And I am more than willing to be your flower girl when the time comes

i'm sure you'd look smashing in a dress -- tell me, just how enthusiastically can you toss flower petals?

 

[Irvine511]

Sweet, can I be the ring bearer?

of course.

somehow, i always knew my ring bearer would be a red head ...

 

[BVS]

of course.

somehow, i always knew my ring bearer would be a red head ...

 

[AEON]

Who are you to say that romantic love is a cheap thing? and don't come with more bible stuff because I want to know what the real AEON (if there is a real one) thinks.

I am actually very happily married. While our marriage does have all three forms of love - it is the Agape love that is the foundation. This is why pastors refer to it - because it is what remains when your are not necessarily "feeling" romantic love.

I promised I would quote 1 Corinthians 13 - the best definition of Agape love in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 13

Love
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 1but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love

This type of love is the foundation of marriage, as well as the foundation for my love of my brothers and sisters. This is the kind of love that motivated Christ to die for us, and the type of love that motivated the Apostles to die for spreading the message of Christ.

 

[BVS]

Now I've seen it all.

 

[melon]

since I was little, I always found that text quite disturbing...

And because of texts like that I started to think that the Bible isn't a book from God. The Bible is the History of our relationship with god, about how the people shapes their own god according to their prejudices, their fears, their needs. Because if God is love, how we can explain all those laws against women, foreign people and gays?... it is evident that those laws aren't from God , those laws and precepts are from the Men (male, aristocratic men) who tried to put their words in God's mouth.

Genesis is a fascinating book, because it is probably the least touched from Zoroastrian-influenced Judaism (Pharisees), versus original Judaism (Sadducees).

These rather xenophobic texts get even more complicated if you realize that all the "enemies" surrounding them were actually fellow Semitic tribesmen. "Yahweh," in the Semitic hierarchy, was actually the "Thunder/Mountain God" (El Shaddai), while actually being a subordinate to the supreme Semitic deity, El. Yahweh even had a "consort," the Semitic goddess, Asherah.

While Yahweh was eventually transformed into the supreme God (not much different from how Ahura Mazda was merely one in a pantheon of gods in Vedic Hinduism, but elevated to a supreme god in Zoroastrianism), Genesis does give rather cryptic clues to its origin. I have to wonder if the early Jews would have worshipped Yahweh as their protector God, while recognizing the existence of the entire pantheon of Semitic gods. It would have been highly common 3,000 years ago or so.

The Ten Commandments don't particularly help either, considering the first commandment merely states not to put any god before Yahweh. It does not state that He is the only God.

Anyway, I digress. My point is that Genesis is quite interesting for many less obvious reasons.

Melon

 

[maycocksean]

since I was little, I always found that text quite disturbing...

And because of texts like that I started to think that the Bible isn't a book from God. The Bible is the History of our relationship with god, about how the people shapes their own god according to their prejudices, their fears, their needs. Because if God is love, how we can explain all those laws against women, foreign people and gays?... it is evident that those laws aren't from God , those laws and precepts are from the Men (male, aristocratic men) who tried to put their words in God's mouth.

You think that's disturbing? Oh there's lot's worse as I'm sure you know.

I don't suppose it matters much to point out that there's nothing in Scripture to indicate that God told these two women to do what they did, nor is there anything to indicate that he approved of it (or the decision Lot made earlier in the chapter about handing his daughters over to a gang of men to be raped).

There's a line from one of my favorite singer/songwriters, Rich Mullins where he says "Well, it's right there in the Bible so it must not be a sin." He was being sarcastic of course. Everything that Biblical people, even his "followers" did should not be construed as automatically gaining God's approval. Not that that solves everything because God told people to do some things that were pretty whack too.

I guess I came to a different conclusion. I believe that the Bible is from God. But it was written by men in their words, with their perspectives, in a particular time and place. There is a lot that I still don't understand in scripture, but I understand Jesus (well enought anyway) and that's my starting place.

There's no question that the Bible is male oriented, but the same Bible says that in Christ there is no differentiatian between male and female in Christ. Those barriers are broken down. I think Jesus was the beginning of shift away from the patriarchal model of the old testament.

 

[Muggsy]

You think that's disturbing? Oh there's lot's worse as I'm sure you know.

I don't suppose it matters much to point out that there's nothing in Scripture to indicate that God told these two women to do what they did, nor is there anything to indicate that he approved of it (or the decision Lot made earlier in the chapter about handing his daughters over to a gang of men to be raped).

There's a line from one of my favorite singer/songwriters, Rich Mullins where he says "Well, it's right there in the Bible so it must not be a sin." He was being sarcastic of course. Everything that Biblical people, even his "followers" did should not be construed as automatically gaining God's approval. Not that that solves everything because God told people to do some things that were pretty whack too.

I guess I came to a different conclusion. I believe that the Bible is from God. But it was written by men in their words, with their perspectives, in a particular time and place. There is a lot that I still don't understand in scripture, but I understand Jesus (well enought anyway) and that's my starting place.

There's no question that the Bible is male oriented, but the same Bible says that in Christ there is no differentiatian between male and female in Christ. Those barriers are broken down. I think Jesus was the beginning of shift away from the patriarchal model of the old testament.

Yes I know that there are more disturbing things ... but as I said before I read that passage when I was very little... I was in primary school, a catholic school by the way, and the nuns let us to read the Bible freely in the spare times and I remember how impressed I was when I read that story... I mean I was to young to even imagine a girl having a kid from her own dad; i didn't even know that sometimes that happens in our time.

As a woman, raised in a catholic enviroment I realised how much the religion have treated women as sinful beings and not deserving of significant place in the Church. It is true that Jesus treated men and women as equals and that's a huge advance, but that's not seen in the Church, this year the Pope said that women can't be priests. I'm not talking about God here, I'm talking about the human institutions that wants to speak for Him. For me God is not represented in the Church, at least not in the best way, and (maybe unfortuantely) I came to the conclusion that , if the Bible has so many contradictions is because we haven't get the message.

 

[maycocksean]

I am actually very happily married. While our marriage does have all three forms of love - it is the Agape love that is the foundation. This is why pastors refer to it - because it is what remains when your are not necessarily "feeling" romantic love.

I promised I would quote 1 Corinthians 13 - the best definition of Agape love in the Bible:

1 Corinthians 13

Love
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 1but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love

This type of love is the foundation of marriage, as well as the foundation for my love of my brothers and sisters. This is the kind of love that motivated Christ to die for us, and the type of love that motivated the Apostles to die for spreading the message of Christ.

AEON, I'm wondering if you have any idea how you sound? Or if that matters to you?

I know you may not intend to but you sound very blithe and condescending.

I'm very familiar with the politicized Christian view of homosexuals, that they are all radicalized activists bent on doing whatever they want and shouting "God approves of it." But do you actually know any gay people personally? Any gay Christians? Have you ever personally known anyone who has gone through this struggle? And if you do, how do you reconcile what you clearly believe about what the Bible teaches about homosexuality with what it teaches about sin? (i.e. that sin is a CHOICE? A choice to seperate ourselves from God. That we are all sinners because we've all made that choice).

There is great comfort in knowing, for certain that you are right. That you have the Truth. (And I know you've said you don't have all the answers, but clearly you are certain that what answers you do have are right). Believe me, I know. . .many in my denomination believe that we, above all other Christians, really have the Truth and we've got the rest of ya'll beat. But there is a lot of danger in it too. The danger of pride, of closing your mind to new light, to growing in your understanding of Scripture, the danger of making God and the Scripture over in our own image. Yes, we conservative Christians can--and do--do it too.

Look, I don't know you. I can't judge you or your walk with the Lord. You seem sincere. All Iknow is how you're coming across.

One thing that is really telling, if you read the gospels, is who Jesus really got worked up about. It wasn't the tax collectors. It wasn't the whores. It wasn't the homosexuals (and you know they were around at the time. Homosexuality--as described by others in earlier posts, the idolatry of the male body, the older man--young boy pairings--was common in the Greek culture of that time). It was you and me. The religious people. The good churchgoers who had it all together. The ones who prayed "Lord, I thank you that I am not like this sinnner over there. . .). The one group of people Jesus really laid into were the religious people. I don't know about you but I think there is an important lesson there for us.

Don't take me wrong. I'm not trying to pile on. I know you're already taking an unpopular stand and that takes courage. But that doesn't automatically mean it's the right stand either.

 

[maycocksean]

Yes I know that there are more disturbing things ... but as I said before I read that passage when I was very little... I was in primary school, a catholic school by the way, and the nuns let us to read the Bible freely in the spare times and I remember how impressed I was when I read that story... I mean I was to young to even imagine a girl having a kid from her own dad; i didn't even know that sometimes that happens in our time.

As a woman, raised in a catholic enviroment I realised how much the religion have treated women as sinful beings and not deserving of significant place in the Church. It is true that Jesus treated men and women as equals and that's a huge advance, but that's not seen in the Church, this year the Pope said that women can't be priests. I'm not talking about God here, I'm talking about the human institutions that wants to speak for Him. For me God is not represented in the Church, at least not in the best way, and (maybe unfortuantely) I came to the conclusion that , if the Bible has so many contradictions is because we haven't get the message.

I hear you. This is off-topic, but I believe that not all parts of the Bible are appropriate for young children (like say the book of Judges). That doesn't make it bad or wrong. They're just not ready for it yet. I feel the same about movies. Some really conservative Christians (believe me. . .my denomination is VERY conservative) that Rated R films are wrong. I don't. I just don't think they're appropriate for kids. And what rating would the Bible get if you filmed it word for word? Ouch.

But back to topic--sort of. I agree that the Church is a poor representative of God a lot of the time. Course that's easy for me because I'm Protestant. But still...my church won't ordain women as ministers either and I think my church is wrong too. (What's silly is that they can be ministers. Just not "ordained" ones. Ridiculous. Reminds me of this whole thing the Episcopalians got going on. Which is finally back on topic

 

[AEON]

One thing that is really telling, if you read the gospels, is who Jesus really got worked up about. It wasn't the tax collectors. It wasn't the whores. It wasn't the homosexuals (and you know they were around at the time. Homosexuality--as described by others in earlier posts, the idolatry of the male body, the older man--young boy pairings--was common in the Greek culture of that time). It was you and me. The religious people. The good churchgoers who had it all together. The ones who prayed "Lord, I thank you that I am not like this sinnner over there. . .). The one group of people Jesus really laid into were the religious people. I don't know about you but I think there is an important lesson there for us.

This is a great post. I couldn't agree more. Jesus hated hypocrisy and self righteousness above all else.

But we as Christians are also called to defend the faith against false teachers, the "wolves in sheeps clothing." Many Christians are confused by the types of questions being raised here. I am just showing them that not everyone agrees with the answers that Melon provides. The stance I am taking is unpopular here, it may not be politically correct, and almost certainly cast me in a negative light in the Interference crowd. However, if I didn't stand up to what I believe is a false representation a what Christ taught, then I would be failing my duty.

Whether I am right or wrong, you will have to discover that on your own.

 

[maycocksean]

This is a great post. I couldn't agree more. Jesus hated hypocrisy and self righteousness above all else.

But we as Christians are also called to defend the faith against false teachers, the "wolves in sheeps clothing." Many Christians are confused by the types of questions being raised here. I am just showing them that not everyone agrees with the answers that Melon provides. The stance I am taking is unpopular here, it may not be politically correct, and almost certainly cast me in a negative light in the Interference crowd. However, if I didn't stand up to what I believe is a false representation a what Christ taught, then I would be failing my duty.

Whether I am right or wrong, you will have to discover that on your own.

I know I seem as if I'm picking on you AEON and I'm not. It's just that you seem to be a sincere, loving Christian and so I guess I'm just trying to get you to think a little bit about what you believe as well. You are right that we have to defend the faith against false teachers, but we have to be careful about that as well. Remember that's what the Pharisees were doing--defending the faith against a "false teacher" i.e. Jesus.

I sense that you feel that just because your stance is unpopular, politically incorrect, and will make you look bad then you must be right (after all "if they hated Me, they will hate you" right?). And I guess I'm just suggesting you might want to reconsider that.

Again, I ask do you actually know any gay people? Any gay Christians?

It's fun to be right. Believe me, I love it more than most. But sometimes there are things more important than being "right."

 

[Dreadsox]

If you claim to be a Christian, please, do me a favor and read up on a little Scripture before making grand statements about the faith. This woman obviously "cut and pastes" what she likes from the Bible and "deletes" what she doesn't like.

So again, your brand of Christianity does not cut and paste? Still waiting for my answer to that.

In two threads you attack the leadership of my church and my church itself implying we are not Christians.

I do not agree with maycocksean's post at all.

 

[melon]

But we as Christians are also called to defend the faith against false teachers, the "wolves in sheeps clothing." Many Christians are confused by the types of questions being raised here. I am just showing them that not everyone agrees with the answers that Melon provides. The stance I am taking is unpopular here, it may not be politically correct, and almost certainly cast me in a negative light in the Interference crowd. However, if I didn't stand up to what I believe is a false representation a what Christ taught, then I would be failing my duty.

Ah yes...the nuclear bomb of Biblical debate: when all else fails, call your opponent a false teacher.

And then we tell the Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq to get along with each other, when liberal and conservative Christians cannot reconcile themselves.

Melon

 

[AEON]

So again, your brand of Christianity does not cut and paste? Still waiting for my answer to that.

In two threads you attack the leadership of my church and my church itself implying we are not Christians.

I do not agree with maycocksean's post at all.

To answer your question - no, I do not believe I am a cut and paste Christian. As Jesus said, all of the law and prophets can be summed up in the Great Commandment. And as most Biblical Scholars will say, Jesus is referring to the 10 Commandments - not the Leveticus laws - which are not followed today because they were believed necessary to carry the Jews through history until the arrival of the Messiah. The Bible itself informs us that this is the case in Paul's letters and the Book of Acts - as Melon correctly pointed out.

Now you'll say ha ha! But you quoted Leviticus! You ARE cut and paste! But I only quoted Leveticus because Paul refers to it and to put his stance on homsexuality into context. So why is Leviticus still in the Bible? To see how God sustained the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah.

Now, back to the Great Commandment. Included in the 10 commandments which Jesus is referring to is adultery. I believe that homosexual sex falls into this category as well as porn, premarital sex..any sex outside of the marriage between a man and woman. I believe Jesus and the Book of Ephesians cleary describe what marriage is, and how it should work. At no time is male and male or female and female marriage either discussed or encouraged. The term "marriage" is self defining - the union of man and woman.

Regarding my criticism of the Episcopal Church - am I not allowed to? Are their views off limits for debate? And I don't believe I ever said they weren't Christians...the debate was whether or not non-repentant gays should be church leaders and whether or not the church itself is correct in asserting that homosexual sex is not a sin.

I do not feel I am "right" because so many disagree (at least here). Because I tend to take an Orthodox viewpoint, I can find consideral agreement in other forums on other websites. As a matter of fact, in my Christian circle of friends and family - I am the one with the more "liberal" viewpoints of the Bible.

Do I have gay friends? Not that I know of. Not because I refuse to have a friendship with anyone gay - it just hasn't happened. I don't seek out friends to fill some quota or make a statement of social justice. However, if I happen to really get along with someone I meet - I would not "cease" being his freind because he was gay.

Because I do not have gay friends, it does not change what the Bible says about gay sex. I do agree that it would "soften" my tone - but it wouldn't make what Jesus and Paul said any less true.

I find it is the tendency for people to always try and justify their behavior. Myself included. Again, I ask, what is your motivation? Usually it is because you want to keep doing what you are doing because changing is so difficult. However, as time goes by, the Spirit does reveal the Truth to you. This is part of the Sanctification process.

Melon is someone who seems to love research. But he does not strike me as someone who is really seeking God's will in the matter. (That is only my opinion based on the nature of his posts and nothing else - so I admit before hand - I could be wrong about this). Irvine strikes me as someone who wants to be loved by God and not denied what he called a "normal" life: love, children, family...etc. I want to assure him that God does love him and that God accepts him just as his son upon the moment of his faith in Jesus Christ. As Christians, God no longer sees our hangups, but only the blood of Jesus Christ. God then uses the Holy Spirit's power to tranform us into the image of Jesus Christ.

I know I need work on my "presentation." I think I do come across a little more friendly in person, but probably only a little
It is really difficult to commuicate in this manner, but I still give it a shot because I know there are other people who read this who may be "on the fence" regarding this issue and I want them to know that there are some people out here that are not intimitated by the hateful, misguided attacks that usually result. I would not be suprised if I were banned because I DARE claim that the Bible thinks that homosexual sex is a sin.

I promise - I am done posting on this subject for now. You can accuse of me of backing down or say that I am avoiding the tough questions, but that isn't the case. I simply think I have said what needed to be said and that if you go through these threads - I have answered the questions completely and honestly.However, you will only see the Truth if you want to. Otherwise you will only find a mirror that justifies your own desires.

I pray all goes well with everyone on their quest.

God Bless

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Because I do not have gay friends, it does not change what the Bible says about gay sex. [/q]


but it might change your interpretation and understanding of what the bible says about "gay sex" -- again, AEON, you're reducing me to ass fucking when i'm so much more than that.

i enjoy oral sex too.

 

[BonosSaint]

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have to say that AEON is making a great case against the religion, or for it if thats what floats your boat.

But seriously how can a religion claim ultimate truth, divine revelation and all the rest of that if it is opened up to interperatation by humanity? Once a religion stops laying claim to truth what can it offer by way of belief, what are people putting faith in?

All this understanding and interperatation strikes me as justification of belief, something that the finest minds in the history of the world have engaged in. Making the absurd sane and rationalising that change in view.

 

[Liesje]

To answer your question - no, I do not believe I am a cut and paste Christian. As Jesus said, all of the law and prophets can be summed up in the Great Commandment. And as most Biblical Scholars will say, Jesus is referring to the 10 Commandments - not the Leveticus laws - which are not followed today because they were believed necessary to carry the Jews through history until the arrival of the Messiah. The Bible itself informs us that this is the case in Paul's letters and the Book of Acts - as Melon correctly pointed out.

I guess I've always thought Jesus' Great Commandment was to love to accept everyone. Christians are no longer judged by how well they adhere to the 10 Commandments, we are judged by whether or not we accept Jesus. There's NOTHING in the Bible that says gays cannot accept Jesus. I don't care if the Bible says gay sex is wrong. Your precious Leviticus condemns having relations with menstruating women. But.....I don't see any articles about banning women from being part of the clergy while they're on their periods. You got called a "copy and paster" because you're doing such a great job of defeding Leviticus, yet if you REALLY believed all of those Laws, your life would be hell! All those laws about sex, childbirth, animals, food, blood, pus...you name it. If that's really how you live I truly feel bad for you and admire your absolute devotion to Mosaic Law.

Anywa, I understand that you're not saying you don't love gay people, but I'm not seeing what Paul's letters have to do with homosexuals as bishops.

To me, this is not an issue of homosexuality (well, it is but....), it's about people thinking they have the God-given right to CHOOSE which sins they feel are applicable. If gays can't be bishops simply because they are gay, than you have no choice but to extend this logic and say that alcohol or drug users/abusers can't be bishops, men/women who have affairs or get divorced can't be bishops, anyone who's ever had a lustful or hateful thought can't be a bishop....see what a mess this creates?

AEON - Why do you personally have a problem with gays being leaders in the church?

 

[Dreadsox]

I know I need work on my "presentation." I think I do come across a little more friendly in person, but probably only a little
It is really difficult to commuicate in this manner, but I still give it a shot because I know there are other people who read this who may be "on the fence" regarding this issue and I want them to know that there are some people out here that are not intimitated by the hateful, misguided attacks that usually result. I would not be suprised if I were banned because I DARE claim that the Bible thinks that homosexual sex is a sin.

It is difficult in this manner, I agree.

I have attended many churches. I have looked for many a home. My friends range from Evangelical Born Again, Catholic, Episcopal, Unitarian, Jehovah's Witnesses....and on and on. We debate, go back and forth, and still have respect and love for one another.

AS for you being banned...I doubt it. I think you held your own fine.

 

[Dreadsox]

To me, this is not an issue of homosexuality (well, it is but....), it's about people thinking they have the God-given right to CHOOSE which sins they feel are applicable. If gays can't be bishops simply because they are gay, than you have no choice but to extend this logic and say that alcohol or drug users/abusers can't be bishops, men/women who have affairs or get divorced can't be bishops, anyone who's ever had a lustful or hateful thought can't be a bishop....see what a mess this creates?

You have summed up exactly how I feel perfectly. The only point of contention that I have is in the viewing of homosexuality as being any more sinful than heterosexuality.

I think sexual immorality at this stage of my life has a much different picture.

 

[maycocksean]

So again, your brand of Christianity does not cut and paste? Still waiting for my answer to that.

In two threads you attack the leadership of my church and my church itself implying we are not Christians.

I do not agree with maycocksean's post at all.

Just curious, dreadsox. Which post did you disagree with?

 

[maycocksean]

[q]Because I do not have gay friends, it does not change what the Bible says about gay sex. [/q]


but it might change your interpretation and understanding of what the bible says about "gay sex" --

I hope you haven't given up reading this thread, AEON now that you've "withdrawn from the battle" because this is it right here. What Irvine says nails it on the head.

At least that's what's happened with me. You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that your stand on homosexuality might be in actual CONFLICT with other parts of scripture.

 

[BVS]

AEON, I find your last post extremely disturbing. You've missed almost every point. Especially the great commandment...

You'd get along great with the pharisees.

Good luck.

I'm out of this discussion.

 

[stammer476]

*ahem*

Matthew 22:36-37

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

 

[Irvine511]

^ if this were the message i heard most from Christianity, then i might actually consider becoming an active, practicing Christian (as opposed to a collapsed Catholic who's simply curious about such things, but probably worships skepticism above everything else)

 

[nbcrusader]

I understand the appeal to the verse. Break everything down to love. And since we can define love our own way (I am not speaking of homosexuality here), we can fulfill this any way we want.

What does it mean to love God? To obey His Commands!

 

[Irvine511]

What does it mean to love God? To obey His Commands!

how do you know this? is obedience the only form of love god wants? can obedience ever be love, at least a mature kind of love?