Is America more accepting of gay men than gay women?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That begs the question: if homosexuality is good - because, as you say, it's an expression of love - why not incest? WHY NOT PEDOPHILIA?

A good question worthy of a good answer, I will attempt one.

Primarily, I never said homosexuality is 'good', I said that homosexuality isn't bad, which is not mutually exclusive. Notice there is a distinction, I am not encouraging everyone to be homosexuals. I am not standing outside with a banner saying 'YES, LET'S ALL BE GAY!' the same way I don't have a microphone to scream out 'HETEROSEXUALITY IS THE WAY!' I think it is both arrogant and wrong to attach morality to someone's sexuality when speaking of matters such as homosexuality and heterosexuality. If a man loves a woman, you don't say that its an immoral love, that it is wrong for him to love her. Yes, it may be wrong if they are both married and they engage in an affair, however, the act of loving someone can not be wrong.

However, you can not say that true love applies to the pedophile; how can you? How can a love that is true cause pain and suffering? How can you compare homosexuality to sexual abuse, rape, physical manipulation and psychological torment? That is NOT love. Therein lies the difference.

An elderly man of forty does not share his soul with a young girl of eight, especially when he lies to her, manipulates her and then sexually abuses her - that is NOT love. Now, you tell me, when does homosexuality involve the suffering of one of the parties? When?

And as for incest, that is a complicated matter worthy of someone who can see it for what it is; I don't think it is morally wrong as long as they do not reproduce, then it involves an innocent third party who can suffer at the hands of their actions and THAT is immoral. Morality and immorality come into the equation when suffering is created, that is all.

As for incest, I never much agreed with it until I read the 'God of Small Things'. You tell me; if a brother and a sister loved each other more than anyone else in the planet, and therefore loved blindly without the ability to define what they feel, a love that went beyond 'sisterhood' and 'brotherhood', why should it be deemed wrong? Such a love is more truthful and more beautiful than the heterosexual marriage that goes wrong at the hand of infidelity, alcoholism and physical abuse. Not to mention the destruction of the human Spirit.

As for Jesus being the holy incarnation, I don't believe he was or is the only one. However, that is a question of faith, and your faith is not the same as mine.

Ant.

[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 03-03-2002).]
 
Hmm...I really hate replying to your posts, only because, for some reason, all of your message before the last "QUOTE" is truncated. I wish I knew why....cut and paste time!

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
That still doesn't address whether you think God had a hand in the work and why you reached that conclusion.

Yes and no. On one hand, if it weren't for the Old Testament, He would likely have been forgotten. On the other hand, these books singe with so much judgmentalism, hatred, and executions, I don't think God had any hand in any of these parts. What it was, to me, was humanity using the name of God to inspire hatred, not so much different than Osama bin Laden evoking the name of "Allah" to declare war against America. These Jewish rabbis had so much power that they very easily changed the scriptures to suit their will. "Their will" is not God's will.

Secondly, on the issue of Jesus, I believe He was both 100% human and divine, and, due to His humanity, He did not know everything, unlike God the Father, who knows everything. Hence, Jesus knew enough to know which laws to overturn, but was not privileged to the nature of how those books were written in the first place. Besides, assuming that Jesus did know everything, can you imagine that anyone would have believed Him if he had stated that the Old Testament was a lie? Seeing the reactions here tends to seem that would have been disastrous, and He would have been very ill-received.

However, with the New Testament, I believe it to be divinely inspired, but not "divinely written." Imagine, now, if you went to class and heard a lecture from your professor. Then, imagine that this lecture was spread around by word-to-mouth around the entire campus. Would it be fully correct? Then, amplify that by 40 years down the road, whereas this is the first time that this famous lecture was written down. It would likely be accurate in terms of the main points, but missing in the minute details and full of errors and misconceptions, along with details that never even happened.

My question is, if you believe that you can be led by God's spirit, why is it not the case that the writers of the Bible were also led? That they were at LEAST as in tune with the will of God, and perhaps MORE in tune with His will?

And who is to say that I'm not MORE in tune? Just because I was not living 2000 years ago and had my personal writings canonized in the New Testament does not mean that my beliefs are less valid.

I do not believe that God ceased to change things after A.D. 397.

Let's take a more extreme, hypothetical example. Let's say a mad scientist wanted to make as deformed a human as possible. He takes a donated egg and donated sperm, allow them to join, and - before performing in vitro fertilzation - exposes the zygote to massive, NEARLY lethal doses of radiation to mutate its genes. (In fact, genetic testing pre-radiation and post-radiation reveal that the genetic makeup of the zygote has been changed significantly.) The woman miscarriages, or the child is born and quickly passes away; either way, the random mutations went horribly awry.

This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life.

Assuming it could happen, the sin would not be on the child that was mutated. He/She was changed without any choice in the matter.

By what you suggest, I take it that you would think that what transpired is the will of God: "I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be."

Aside from tales worthy of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books, like the one above, I think we are all created under the will of God. As it stands, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb.

I see only two ways that your belief could fit: either we have no effect on the universe around us (which clearly doesn't seem to be the case), or the mad scientist was merely a tool of God's perfect will (which eliminates free will from the picture).

So, assuming now that you think that fetuses have free will, why don't they fight when some are being aborted?

Mutations are part of nature. A species that does not mutate goes under so much genetic strain that it goes extinct. With every great potential for good, there is equal potential for evil. For example, the same element that gives us life, oxygen, kills us slowly, as our cells oxidize from it. Shall we now cease to breathe, due to this knowledge?

So being born homosexual - whatever that means, either through genetics, development in the womb, or whatever - doesn't necessarily mean that the condition was approved by God.

Oh this argument reeks of latent stoic philosophy. The belief was that all fetuses were inherently male and that, due to the interference of Satan, some fetuses were made female.

Regardless of Satanic influence, females were still able to be saved as females. They didn't have to go through some "cure" to become male.

How funny is that all fetuses are inherently intersexed, but without the presence of a handful of hormones, they will become female by default--hence XY females. Or, if a hormone is missing or a gene is mutated to lack a receptor for that hormone, the process can be rendered incomplete, hence resulting in "intersexed" individuals, who remain both male and female.

I know this idea must boggle your mind, but I think that the intersexed, along with homosexuals, Down's Syndrome individuals, Siamese twins, those afflicted with genetic protein diseases (Nieman-Pick Disease, Huntington's Disease, etc.), and any other condition imaginable, are normal and worthy of God.

Otherwise, if they are the result of some mistake out of the influence of God, then why don't we do genetic tests to find these Satanic spawns and abort them?

I find such a notion to be preposterous. God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of "perfect" that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it.

That said, perhaps homosexuality and bestiality aren't precisely comparable - they do both seem to be inappropriate expressions of the human desire for sexual pleasure, but as you said, it's not "as if the soul can be shared with an animal in terms emotional and physical."

I find the fact that you tried to compare the two to be revolting. But I have heard it from other sources before. It is almost interesting what crap "Christian" ministers indoctrinate into people.

That begs the question: if homosexuality is good - because, as you say, it's an expression of love - why not incest? WHY NOT PEDOPHILIA?

Because, CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT TO SUCH BEHAVIOR. I'm surprised that this is such a shock to you. Pedophiles rape children. It is certainly reprehensible under every circumstance. Rape under any fashion, whether it be with children, with animals, straight, or gay, is reprehensible. Yes, that is why you cannot compare even bestiality to homosexuality. Last I heard, sheep could not consent to sex, nor enter into any legal contract. The same is with children.

And, in fact, I'm surprised you even mention "incest." Consensual "incest" amongst first cousins is quite legal in many states, and is legal in some Christian faiths. In fact, that's the small town joke about how they all marry their cousins. However, incest, under normal circumstances, is wrong due to lack of consent! If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse.

Alas, I'm starting to see that this argument is starting to go in circles, with very little new material.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[This message has been edited by melon (edited 03-03-2002).]
 
I only have one thing to say in this thread. It's addressing melon, when he asks "why don't fetuses try to fight when tehy're being aborted?"

The answer is that after a certain age, fetuses do indeed try to move away from the instrument of abortion. I've seen it on video. They also try to emit a scream, and this is commonly known as "the silent scream".
 
Ant:

Thanks for your reply - even though I disagree with much of what you say, it was quite well thought out, worthy of being part the discussion melon and I have been advancing.

If a man loves a woman, you don't say that its an immoral love, that it is wrong for him to love her. Yes, it may be wrong if they are both married and they engage in an affair, however, the act of loving someone can not be wrong.

Honestly, I think one of the weaknesses of the English language is its many uses of the word "love."

We can "love" others by showing a concern for their needs that is at least as great as our own concer: feeding them when they're hungry, clothing them when they're cold, etc. Historically, this form of love is called "charity."

We can "love" others as close friends, brothers and sisters in every way but geneology. For lack of a better word, let's call that "filia", or "brotherly love."

And, we can "love" others in a sexual way, feeling a desire, an erotic attraction, towards another. Again, for lack of a better word, let's call that "eros", or erotic love.

Now, being charitable to all is not only morally permissable, it's Biblically demanded.

Exhibiting filia, brotherly love, towards friends is certainly morally permissable.

(And let me state the obvious: brotherly love is not necessarily sexual, and in many cases it's not sexual at all. A close same-sex friendship, like the one I have with my old roommate, isn't a homosexual relationship - just as my close friendships with girls throughout the years haven't been heterosexual. The "-sexual" label simply doesn't have to apply.)

Finally, eros is, I believe, restricted by the will of God; that he intentionally created the two sexes so that a man and a woman would join together in a permanent bond of love, intellect, emotion, spirituality, and sexuality. Every other expression of eros seems to be out of bounds.

(And, as I've said before, feeling these desires is not a sin; embracing immoral desires is.)

However, you can not say that true love applies to the pedophile; how can you? How can a love that is true cause pain and suffering? How can you compare homosexuality to sexual abuse, rape, physical manipulation and psychological torment? That is NOT love. Therein lies the difference.

An elderly man of forty does not share his soul with a young girl of eight, especially when he lies to her, manipulates her and then sexually abuses her - that is NOT love. Now, you tell me, when does homosexuality involve the suffering of one of the parties? When?

And as for incest, that is a complicated matter worthy of someone who can see it for what it is; I don't think it is morally wrong as long as they do not reproduce, then it involves an innocent third party who can suffer at the hands of their actions and THAT is immoral. Morality and immorality come into the equation when suffering is created, that is all.

As for incest, I never much agreed with it until I read the 'God of Small Things'. You tell me; if a brother and a sister loved each other more than anyone else in the planet, and therefore loved blindly without the ability to define what they feel, a love that went beyond 'sisterhood' and 'brotherhood', why should it be deemed wrong? Such a love is more truthful and more beautiful than the heterosexual marriage that goes wrong at the hand of infidelity, alcoholism and physical abuse. Not to mention the destruction of the human Spirit.

To play the Devil's Advocate, I'm not at all sure every pedophilial relationship involves manipulation on the elder (remembering that it's not always a older man that preys on a young girl). As the younger party gets closer to adolesense, it may be possible that the younger party becomes closer to understanding the nature of the relationship (and feeling reciprocal sexual desires). Just to say that the vast majority of cases of pedophilia are abusive and manipulative, it doesn't mean that there couldn't a rare exception where the two people share in a beautiful relationship.

To further play the Devil's Advocate, if suffering prevents incestual relationships from bearing offspring, wouldn't reproduction through "normal" relationships also be morally impermissible. After all, every human being suffers, and bringing a child into the world (under any circumstances) causes suffering. Further, aren't you denying the incestuous relationship the ultimate end of procreation?

Ultimately, I don't believe suffering is a proper yardstick to judge whether an action is moral. Some actions that cause suffering (punishing your child for doing wrong) may in fact be the RIGHT thing to do, as such suffering would improve the person. And some actions that end suffering or prevent potential suffering (an excuse that could be used to abort a child with indentifiable birth defects) could be very, VERY WRONG.

Finally, on the question of the "incarnation", your beliefs notwithstanding, "God incarnate" refers to God in a physical form. To say that "love is God incarnated" is like saying "I literally died on stage on last night."

(If you LITERALLY died, then we've just seen a miracle.)

It was a nit-pick on grammar, not belief.
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by melon:
Yes and no. On one hand, if it weren't for the Old Testament, He would likely have been forgotten. On the other hand, these books singe with so much judgmentalism, hatred, and executions, I don't think God had any hand in any of these parts. What it was, to me, was humanity using the name of God to inspire hatred, not so much different than Osama bin Laden evoking the name of "Allah" to declare war against America. These Jewish rabbis had so much power that they very easily changed the scriptures to suit their will. "Their will" is not God's will.

I've heard the revisionist theory on the Old Testament, and one glaring thing stands out: it seems far too damning to be propaganda. If Israel's leadership crafted the books to fit their own wills, they probably would have followed in the pattern of the rest of the world, skewing the past to their favor.

Instead, their greatest leaders are murderers (Moses, David); their people CONSTANTLY rebel, including at the foot of God's mountain in Exodus; and the nation is being regularly punished for its transgressions. It's not putting the Jewish historical figures, the Jewish people, and the Jewish leadership ITSELF in a good light.

Further, in order to reject the judgmentalism and hatred of the Old Testament, you have to further reject the specific instances where Christ is judgmental:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 7:21

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:24

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and F15 Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." - Mark 6:11

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Luke 3:16-17

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." - John 8:44-45.

(Note that I found fairly judgmental, angry verses in all four Gospels, not just mean old Matthew.)

THEN, you'd have to throw out Revelation, since it has God ultimately judging all of mankind.


Secondly, on the issue of Jesus, I believe He was both 100% human and divine, and, due to His humanity, He did not know everything, unlike God the Father, who knows everything. Hence, Jesus knew enough to know which laws to overturn, but was not privileged to the nature of how those books were written in the first place. Besides, assuming that Jesus did know everything, can you imagine that anyone would have believed Him if he had stated that the Old Testament was a lie? Seeing the reactions here tends to seem that would have been disastrous, and He would have been very ill-received.

On the idea that Christ either didn't know about the falsehood of the Old Testament - or that he knew and didn't say anything:

"And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." - Matthew 7:28-29

"And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." - Mark 1:21-22

He spoke as if He KNEW what He was talking about, and yet He confirmed the validity of the Old Testament by quoting it ALL THE TIME.

With the "He didn't know" theory, you're basically asserting that you know more about the nature of the Bible than Jesus Christ Himself. With the "He knew and withheld" theory, the implication is that he basically lied about the validity of Scripture. Obviously, I reject both theories.

However, with the New Testament, I believe it to be divinely inspired, but not "divinely written." Imagine, now, if you went to class and heard a lecture from your professor. Then, imagine that this lecture was spread around by word-to-mouth around the entire campus. Would it be fully correct? Then, amplify that by 40 years down the road, whereas this is the first time that this famous lecture was written down. It would likely be accurate in terms of the main points, but missing in the minute details and full of errors and misconceptions, along with details that never even happened.


You miss my meaning.

Let's take your example and say, forty years after the original lecture, you're attempting to summarize it, and the ORIGINAL professor (a man with a photographic memory or an audio/video tape of his lecture) comes by and helps you out. THAT what's I mean by divine inspiration - not that the author was inspired by thinking about God, not that God wrote the work in that the scrolls magically appeared, but that the author was actually assisted in the writing.

I believe it possible that the writers of the Gospels (whoever the writers may be) may have been guided by the Holy Spirit in what to write. What's so impossible about that theory?

This is so hypothetical that it doesn't even happen in real life.

Assuming it could happen, the sin would not be on the child that was mutated. He/She was changed without any choice in the matter.

I believe I've been misunderstood.

(Amusing: the first example was too realistic, thus it wasn't clear that the mother caused the birth defect. This example's too hypothetical, thus it somehow doesn't apply to reality. Though, it seems gene therapy will soon make it very possible a mother could have altered the genes of her unborn child.)

On the idea that "the sin would not be on the child that was mutated," I didn't suggest that the mutation is a sin, per se.

Yes, I've defined a sin as an action outside of the will of God, but it seems to me that action has to be deliberate - and thus what happened to an unborn child (and what a child does in the first few years of life) wouldn't fall under sin.

I'm suggesting that, while God does influence the universe in many subtle ways, He CANNOT force the universe to His will and keep humanity's free will intact. That idea DOES allow for birth defects that aren't his specific will, and it would further allow for human tendancies (the tendancy to alcoholism, homosexuality, and even the urge to procreate with as many humans as possible) to be outside His will.

The alternative reduces the state of man to "I have this desire, the desire must be okay because God made me this way, thus I'm allowed to indulge this desire." That's not morality; that's hedonism.

Aside from tales worthy of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books, like the one above, I think we are all created under the will of God. As it stands, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb.

Certainly, no one does anything to make their child gay in the womb. BUT, the ability to alter a child in the womb implies that children in the womb aren't ENTIRELY within the will of God, regardless of how people become homosexual.

Oh this argument reeks of latent stoic philosophy. The belief was that all fetuses were inherently male and that, due to the interference of Satan, some fetuses were made female.

Regardless of Satanic influence, females were still able to be saved as females. They didn't have to go through some "cure" to become male.

How funny is that all fetuses are inherently intersexed, but without the presence of a handful of hormones, they will become female by default--hence XY females. Or, if a hormone is missing or a gene is mutated to lack a receptor for that hormone, the process can be rendered incomplete, hence resulting in "intersexed" individuals, who remain both male and female.

I know this idea must boggle your mind, but I think that the intersexed, along with homosexuals, Down's Syndrome individuals, Siamese twins, those afflicted with genetic protein diseases (Nieman-Pick Disease, Huntington's Disease, etc.), and any other condition imaginable, are normal and worthy of God.

Otherwise, if they are the result of some mistake out of the influence of God, then why don't we do genetic tests to find these Satanic spawns and abort them?

I find such a notion to be preposterous. God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of "perfect" that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it.

...and your arguments remind me of the idiotic philosopher in Candide who thought that we're in the best of all possible states.

I'm NOT suggesting that humans are born with Satanic genes or some such silliness. ALL I'm suggesting is that we're not born perfect. We are born INNOCENT, in that we have all yet to commit sin, but none of us are born PERFECT.

If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.

THAT is the crux of my argument, something I haven't seen you seriously address.

I believe I have addressed pedophilia and incest in my post above - it only remains for me to emphasize that everything I can think of that defends homosexuality (short of my defense of heterosexuality; i.e., it's the will of God) can also be used to defend exceptional cases of pedophilia and incest.

To play Devil's Advocate once again, you say, "If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse." What if the daughter is a consenting adult and the father a widow? Hmmm?

It does indeed seem we're going around in circles. But it also seems that you're avoiding or misunderstanding the central points of my arguments - which is what's compelling me to repeat myself.
 
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
I only have one thing to say in this thread. It's addressing melon, when he asks "why don't fetuses try to fight when tehy're being aborted?"

The answer is that after a certain age, fetuses do indeed try to move away from the instrument of abortion. I've seen it on video. They also try to emit a scream, and this is commonly known as "the silent scream".

Well, this was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. Fetuses do react, I will agree with that, because I've seen similar video before. However, they cannot stop the abortion. That was my main point of argument, which was on the basis of "free will." "Free will" does have its points, but there is an obvious limit as to what we can control around us. A person's sexual orientation is not one of those things.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Originally posted by melon:
Well, this was more of a tongue-in-cheek response. Fetuses do react, I will agree with that, because I've seen similar video before. However, they cannot stop the abortion. That was my main point of argument, which was on the basis of "free will." "Free will" does have its points, but there is an obvious limit as to what we can control around us. A person's sexual orientation is not one of those things.

Melon


I've been searching in my mind for an example more clear-cut than the pregnant woman drinking her way to birth defects in her child, and more realistic than the hypothetical mad scientist, and I *believe* I have it.

What I'm trying to do is disprove the suggestion that all humans are born precisely as God intended. Or, as Melon put it:

"I think that we are all perfect upon birth: we are exactly what God intends us to be."

"God has created us all in His image and all perfect. If that conflicts with the superficial definition of 'perfect' that humanity has, then I'm sorry. You'll have to deal with it."

If we are all born the way God intended us, then the fetuses that didn't make it to birth were also part of God's perfect plan: they didn't survive to their birth because THAT was in God's plan.

Well, then.

WHAT ABOUT ABORTIONS?

CONSERVATIVE estimates suggest that over twenty million unborn children have died due to legal U.S. abortions (that is, those after Roe v. Wade).

Regardless of whether you think the fetus is human, regardless of whether you think abortion is murder or a Constitutionally protected right, can you HONESTLY suggest that THAT was part of God's perfect plan?

Honestly, you can suggest that, but then SURELY there are only two logical conclusions: either the human actions had nothing to do with the death of the fetus, that God just happened to make the fetus die at the same time the doctor did his work. OR the doctors committing the abortions and the women choosing to have them are mere automatons doing PRECISELY what God wanted them to do.

THAT's the loss of free will I'm talking about; either human actions are irrelevant (God would have caused a miscarriage anyway) or they don't REALLY have any real choice in the matter.
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
I've heard the revisionist theory on the Old Testament, and one glaring thing stands out: it seems far too damning to be propaganda. If Israel's leadership crafted the books to fit their own wills, they probably would have followed in the pattern of the rest of the world, skewing the past to their favor.

Are you sure? A nation under a constant state of siege is easier to control. Look at America, for instance? Using the guise of terrorism, the Bush Administration has easily rolled back any sense of privacy we had left. Could he have done the same thing if everything was perfect?

Then, in fact, with such a state of siege, you will always have "heroes" to liberate the people, and, if you notice, the "Mosaic Law" (supposedly created by Moses, one of those "heroes") is full of control measures. If people tried to create a movement to overthrow these laws, the elders would have called it "blasphemy." Likewise, in America, if you criticize the war policies of Bush, you are a "terrorist sympathizer."

Kindness and peace, thus, are not often most advantageous for those in power. Machiavelli's "The Prince" would be a good read for you.

Further, in order to reject the judgmentalism and hatred of the Old Testament, you have to further reject the specific instances where Christ is judgmental:

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" Matthew 7:21

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:24

Well, I see that you've quoted Matthew again. The first quote is a parable on faith and good works. Obviously, the moral is that faith without good works is dead. This was in sharp contrast to the Pharisees, who believed themselves to be saved just as who they are. Funny how many "Christians" act just like Pharisees now. I see no problem with this passage.

The second passage is seen as one of the instances in which the author likely inserted his own commentary, rather than the actual words of Jesus Himself. What is wholly apparent is that it is full of Jewish Christian bias:

"Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matthew 10:5-6

Despite the very bombastic language of Matthew 10, the point is that the Lord should be the most important part of your life. Not possessions. Not family. However, this chapter is so fully un-Jesus like that I question its authenticity.

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." - Mark 6:11

Well, I spot another, what I like to call, "KJV hyperbole"--basically, a passage that is amplified beyond its original translation to be more severe than intended. This is Mark 6:10-11 in my Bible:

"He said to them, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from there. Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.'" -- Mark 6:10-11

The "hyperboles" originated from King James' own translators, who had their own biases in translation, and were found guilty of this and some were executed. Unfortunately, at the same time, these "hyperboles" were never removed. I never trust a Protestant Bible for this reason (amongst others).

This was likely exaggerated over Matthew 10:14-15, which is similar:

"Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words--go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet. Amen, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." -- Matthew 10:14-15

And I'm glad you brought this passage up. This is the only time Jesus brings up Sodom and Gomorrah, and it is done in the context of hospitality violations, not sexual acts.

"John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable." Luke 3:16-17

Ah...how I love Catholic Bibles. Here is the official footnote on this passage:

"He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire: in contrast to John's baptism with water, Jesus is said to baptize with the holy Spirit and with fire. From the point of view of the early Christian community, the Spirit and fire must have been understood in the light of the fire symbolism of the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); but as part of John's preaching, the Spirit and fire should be related to their purifying and refining characteristics (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Malachi 3:2-3). See the note on Matthew 3:11."

This is not meant to be a scary passage, but one of purity. As water can purify, so can fire, as, to purify precious metals like gold, you have to use fire. I have no problem with this passage.

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

Remember your recipe analogy? Taking this passage literally is analogous to throwing in the eggshells. Footnote in Catholic Bible:

"Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62)."

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not." - John 8:44-45.

A passage taken greatly out of context. If you notice, though, the Pharisees are challenging Jesus on the fact that He contradicts the Bible.

"They [the Pharisees] said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?'" -- John 8:4-5

Jesus makes the famous "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" line that many Christians seem to ignore.

Jesus then gets angry at the Pharisees, who, despite the fact that He has told them repeatedly the opposite, continue to ignore Him in favor of what is literally written in the Bible. I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
wink.gif


THEN, you'd have to throw out Revelation, since it has God ultimately judging all of mankind.

Revelation was greatly disputed as being part of the New Testament canon, and wasn't latched on until near the end of the canon councils.

Regardless, I think it is a book of symbolism during a time of Christian persecution, where literal texts would have been seized and destroyed. The original audience knew the symbolism. We do not.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." - Matthew 7:28-29

"And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes." - Mark 1:21-22

I love how you quote cross passages from gospels. You are showing much of the evidence as to why Matthew is not an original gospel in many aspects, but copied text directly from Mark, the oldest gospel.

Regardless, these texts do not even support your argument. In these passages, Jesus casts aside the Old Testament and makes His own teachings. So, essentially, He knew it to be false. "[He] had authority, and not...the scribes [Old Testament writers]." That is what it means. Hence, Jesus did know, and cast it aside.

Let's take your example and say, forty years after the original lecture, you're attempting to summarize it, and the ORIGINAL professor (a man with a photographic memory or an audio/video tape of his lecture) comes by and helps you out. THAT what's I mean by divine inspiration - not that the author was inspired by thinking about God, not that God wrote the work in that the scrolls magically appeared, but that the author was actually assisted in the writing.

How silly, particularly since writing analysis links Matthew and Luke to have taken much directly from Mark, but makes their own details surrounding the tales. I'm sorry...you may think of it as divinely inspired in that fashion, but I think you are wrong. Each gospel was written to evangelize to a particular audience that appeals to their sensibilities and biases, nothing more and nothing less.

I'm suggesting that, while God does influence the universe in many subtle ways, He CANNOT force the universe to His will and keep humanity's free will intact. That idea DOES allow for birth defects that aren't his specific will, and it would further allow for human tendancies (the tendancy to alcoholism, homosexuality, and even the urge to procreate with as many humans as possible) to be outside His will.

So you are now limiting God? How faithful of you.

I think that difference is within God's plan. What a dreadfully boring world it would be without homosexuals, nor black people, Asians, women, etc. Some American Indian tribes once taught, in not so many words, that the presence of homosexuals were here from the gods to teach heterosexuals a lesson, and were, thus, divine.

Just because Christianity has cast them aside as "useless" doesn't mean that they are useless to everyone else. I bet over half of your clothes were designed by homosexuals, for instance. You would dread a world without homosexuals, because, for some reason or another, they fill a void in the world that would otherwise be unfilled. LOVE is a basic human element. An unloved child will be more likely to die young.

The alternative reduces the state of man to "I have this desire, the desire must be okay because God made me this way, thus I'm allowed to indulge this desire." That's not morality; that's hedonism.

And I love how you think that homosexuals are automatically "hedonistic," as if they are incapable of having a monogamous relationship, but, I guess, hedonism is in the eye of the beholder. The Catholic Church thinks that any sex unopen to procreation is "hedonistic." If you ever use birth control someday, including condoms, you'll join the ranks of the hedonistic yourself.

...and your arguments remind me of the idiotic philosopher in Candide who thought that we're in the best of all possible states.

You know, suffering serves a purpose. It reminds me of "The Matrix," where they stated that the original Matrix was paradise, where everyone's desires and dreams were fulfilled, but people kept on waking up from it.

The world God created is perfect, and I still believe it. The design of Earth and all the universe, along with the intricacies of humanity, are all perfect. If it weren't for "mutations," Earth would still be reduced to nothing but single-cell bacteria.

I'm NOT suggesting that humans are born with Satanic genes or some such silliness. ALL I'm suggesting is that we're not born perfect. We are born INNOCENT, in that we have all yet to commit sin, but none of us are born PERFECT.

I believe that the design of life is perfect.

If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.

I see you have still missed my point:

Let's take someone who is left-handed. Aside from that left-handedness, they are otherwise perfect. However, it was believed that left-handed people were deviant, and most schools tried to force them to write with their right hand.

Eventually, we abandoned such foolishness. If right-handedness is "perfection" and left-handedness is "imperfection," we don't expect the left-handed to be something that they are not. We certainly don't force them to stop writing completely, because they cannot conform to the right-handed. However, those who are right-handed who try to write with their left are punished, because they are going against their own nature.

Homosexuals are like the "left-handed." They are no more different than any heterosexual, aside from whom they love. In the most ideal of stoic fantasies, no one would ever love. No one would ever have sex. We'd all bury ourselves in constant prayer, suffering and waiting for death to free us from that punishment we call "life." However, that is, to me, wasting the talents that God gave us.

Regardless, I think that these pronouncements against homosexuality are just as ludicrous as any of the Mosaic Law.

"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, 'Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders, but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'" -- Mark 7:5-9

As I think you will simply not get my point from this passage, let me rewrite it to accent my point:

"So Bubba questioned melon, 'Why do you not follow the tradition of the Bible, but instead support homosexuals?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'"

The crux of my argument is that, by obsessing over this issue, it detracts from faith. Many homosexuals, in fact, have found a greater relationship and faith in God through having a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. The misery and emptiness of being alone brought on only resentment and hatred of God.

You sit on your ivory tower making Draconian pronouncements on others who are not you, but, if you were on the other side of the fence as gay and had to deal with this ultimatum: "Love women or spend the rest of your life alone," I have a feeling you would be questioning the validity of this pronouncement on whether it was essential for practicing faith in God or not.

You quote Bible passages, but most you have quoted are dreadfully out of context. Jesus' points on marriage are liberating messages. While Judaism cast on the yoke of marriage as a requirement for being a true believer, He upheld the sanctity that could be found in single life. But leave Christianity to cast on another yoke of celibacy, completely missing the point: remove obstacles to your faith. If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money. If marriage is preventing you from loving God, don't get married. Thus, if celibacy is preventing you from loving God, find love. I could become celibate, but, after the embitterness and ensuing agnosticism I endured believing that was what I had to be, I had to cast off the yoke of this legalistic remark.

If religion, tomorrow, took away the woman you loved and told you that you could never love again, what would you do? I doubt that your faith would be stronger. Some men, indeed, find greater faith in celibacy, but not all men will find the same solace in it.

THAT is the crux of my argument, something I haven't seen you seriously address.

Well, enjoy the above.

I believe I have addressed pedophilia and incest in my post above - it only remains for me to emphasize that everything I can think of that defends homosexuality (short of my defense of heterosexuality; i.e., it's the will of God) can also be used to defend exceptional cases of pedophilia and incest.

Then you have fully missed the point.

To play Devil's Advocate once again, you say, "If a father has sex with his daughter, I can honestly say 10/10 that the daughter will not like it, not to mention that it is adultery, which is hurtful to the spouse." What if the daughter is a consenting adult and the father a widow? Hmmm?

And what if the sky is purple and it rains chocolate syrup? Hmmm? Only God knows the status of their hearts, regardless. Besides your example is not comparable. I don't know of any person who just is attracted to just one person. Condemnation of homosexuals effectively eliminates all potential sources of love, regardless of legal age or family status.

It does indeed seem we're going around in circles. But it also seems that you're avoiding or misunderstanding the central points of my arguments - which is what's compelling me to repeat myself.

Likewise, you're misunderstanding mine. I, simply, disagree with the central points of your arguments.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Well, then. WHAT ABOUT ABORTIONS?

I think that they are wrong and murder, because I believe in the sanctity and importance of all life, perfect or imperfect, right or left-handed, straight or gay. But, of course, under the conservative model, the unborn are to be defended, but, once born, people are evil.

Regardless of whether you think the fetus is human, regardless of whether you think abortion is murder or a Constitutionally protected right, can you HONESTLY suggest that THAT was part of God's perfect plan?

You miss my point. You can choose to have sex to create a child, but you have no hand in deciding what that child will be. I cannot have a child and decide mentally that it will look exactly like Tom Cruise. You get what you are intended to get from God, whether that child is blonde-haired, blue-eyed future model that everyone will drool over or a grotesque "Whortense" that is one of two Siamese Twins that everyone gawks at and pities. Now, tell me, which one is more worthy of love and God?

Under your model, it is as if the parents cause their children to be perfect or as Siamese Twins, when, in fact, they have no choice over the matter.

Unfortunately, as usual, my point is missed completely under a flood of side rhetoric.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Are you sure? A nation under a constant state of siege is easier to control. Look at America, for instance? Using the guise of terrorism, the Bush Administration has easily rolled back any sense of privacy we had left. Could he have done the same thing if everything was perfect?

Then, in fact, with such a state of siege, you will always have "heroes" to liberate the people, and, if you notice, the "Mosaic Law" (supposedly created by Moses, one of those "heroes") is full of control measures. If people tried to create a movement to overthrow these laws, the elders would have called it "blasphemy." Likewise, in America, if you criticize the war policies of Bush, you are a "terrorist sympathizer."

Kindness and peace, thus, are not often most advantageous for those in power. Machiavelli's "The Prince" would be a good read for you.

Let's put the anti-Bush rant aside (honestly, this isn't the thread for this, and I believe you know that). You ask whether I'm sure of my argument, and I am - as the entire argument demonstrated. Since you apparently missed it the first time, I will repeat myself, with the ignored paragraph in bold:

"I've heard the revisionist theory on the Old Testament, and one glaring thing stands out: it seems far too damning to be propaganda. If Israel's leadership crafted the books to fit their own wills, they probably would have followed in the pattern of the rest of the world, skewing the past to their favor.

"Instead, their greatest leaders are murderers (Moses, David); their people CONSTANTLY rebel, including at the foot of God's mountain in Exodus; and the nation is being regularly punished for its transgressions. It's not putting the Jewish historical figures, the Jewish people, and the Jewish leadership ITSELF in a good light."

In other words, look at older grade-school American History books, in which American leaders are protrayed as wholly great men: Jefferson's possible liasons with slaves, FDR's moves to steamroll the judiciary, and the questionable circumstances under which JFK was elected, they are all ignored. THAT is the type of history you get when you people try to recast their past in a better light.

NOW look at the Old Testament: Moses murdered a man before meeting God, tried to weasel his way out of doing God's will, and so thoroughly upset God that he wasn't permitted to enter the Promised Land. King David committed adultery and murder - and lost his son and temporarily lost the throne in the process. The people themselves were not only constantly under attack (and occasionally defeated and put into captivity), but the Old Testament clearly says that the Isrealites THEMSELVES were to blame.

"With such a state of siege, you will always have 'heroes' to liberate the people." THESE are the heroes? The Great Liberator is an exiled murderer who was nearly dragged kicking and screaming into doing God's will, the greatest king is an adulterer and a murderer, and the people themselves stray constantly from God's good graces. Does that strike you as REMOTELY propagandistic?

I brought this up in the last post, and you ignored it completely in order to take the first paragraph out of context.

(And for what? A completely irrelevant comment about Bush.)

It's one thing to do that to outside texts, but there's no excuse to do that to a post within the same thread.

Well, I see that you've quoted Matthew again. The first quote is a parable on faith and good works. Obviously, the moral is that faith without good works is dead. This was in sharp contrast to the Pharisees, who believed themselves to be saved just as who they are. Funny how many "Christians" act just like Pharisees now. I see no problem with this passage.

Backhanded remark about "Christians", aside, it doesn't seem to me that you go to any effort to prove the very contestible point you assume is factual: "The first quote is a parable on faith and good works."

How does Matthew 7:21 qualify as a parable? No mention of seeds, sheep, salt, or fruit. No hypothetical story in which Christ Himself plays no role. Because Christ mentions himself in the first person, I think he's being quite literal: "Not every one that saith unto ME, Lord, Lord...".

The second passage is seen as one of the instances in which the author likely inserted his own commentary, rather than the actual words of Jesus Himself. What is wholly apparent is that it is full of Jewish Christian bias:

"Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." -- Matthew 10:5-6

Despite the very bombastic language of Matthew 10, the point is that the Lord should be the most important part of your life. Not possessions. Not family. However, this chapter is so fully un-Jesus like that I question its authenticity.

I believe this objection has also been covered before; this verse seems to be a temporary command, one that applies in the short time that Christ is on Earth and is countermanded prior to His Acension - a fact that is included EVEN within Matthew itself:

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." - Matthew 28:18-20, emphasis mine.

That one gospel would contradict another is one thing; that it would apparently contradict itself is another thing entirely. It suggests either utter incompetance on the part of the writer (which seems unlikely) - or that the apparent contradiction is actually easily resolved.

The comment that chapter is un-Jesus-like begs the question: by what standard? It seems to me that you've picked out what verses fit your idea of who Christ was, then excised the other verses on the grounds that they don't fit. On what basis did you pick out the original "authentic" verses?

Well, I spot another, what I like to call, "KJV hyperbole"--basically, a passage that is amplified beyond its original translation to be more severe than intended. This is Mark 6:10-11 in my Bible:

"He said to them, 'Wherever you enter a house, stay there until you leave from there. Whatever place does not welcome you or listen to you, leave there and shake the dust off your feet in testimony against them.'" -- Mark 6:10-11

The "hyperboles" originated from King James' own translators, who had their own biases in translation, and were found guilty of this and some were executed. Unfortunately, at the same time, these "hyperboles" were never removed. I never trust a Protestant Bible for this reason (amongst others).

I admit, the KJV is quite imperfect in this case. Another translation, the "New Living Translation" offers the following for the same verse:

"And if a village won't welcome you or listen to you, shake off its dust from your feet as you leave. It is a sign that you have abandoned that village to its fate."

And another, "Today's English Version:"

"If you come to a town where people do not welcome you or will not listen to you, leave it and shake the dust off your feet. That will be a warning to them!"

This seems to be very similar to your translation; either way, it also seems to be quite judgmental, which was my point to begin with.

Either way, the KJV's inaccuracy is no reason whatsoever to "never trust" a Protestant Bible, or to suggest that "A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy."

Ah...how I love Catholic Bibles. Here is the official footnote on this passage:

"He will baptize you with the holy Spirit and fire: in contrast to John's baptism with water, Jesus is said to baptize with the holy Spirit and with fire. From the point of view of the early Christian community, the Spirit and fire must have been understood in the light of the fire symbolism of the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4); but as part of John's preaching, the Spirit and fire should be related to their purifying and refining characteristics (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Malachi 3:2-3). See the note on Matthew 3:11."

This is not meant to be a scary passage, but one of purity. As water can purify, so can fire, as, to purify precious metals like gold, you have to use fire. I have no problem with this passage.

An "official" footnote? Surely, the footnote wasn't in the original manuscript. Surely, it's merely the addition from some church official. What I wonder is, what makes it more "official" than the Bible itself (like Matthew 10)? And, if the Jewish rabbis are so prone to corruption as to alter the Old Testament, why trust Catholic priests to correctly interpret?

At any rate, a second look at the verse does confirm your theory, that it isn't necessarily condemning and judgmental. So, I offer an alternative verse:

"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Luke 11:31-32

Remember your recipe analogy? Taking this passage literally is analogous to throwing in the eggshells. Footnote in Catholic Bible:

"Hating his father . . . : cf the similar saying in Matthew 10:37. The disciple's family must take second place to the absolute dedication involved in following Jesus (see also Luke 9:59-62)."


Oh, I agree absolutely; the verse isn't to be taken literally, just as one isn't to cast out one's own eye (Matthew 5:29). But, it is first of all telling that Matthew 10:37 appears to be a more literal, reasonable translation than Luke 14:26 - and it still confirms my original assertion that Christ preaches more than just love and unification.

A passage taken greatly out of context. If you notice, though, the Pharisees are challenging Jesus on the fact that He contradicts the Bible.

"They [the Pharisees] said to him, 'Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?'" -- John 8:4-5

Jesus makes the famous "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" line that many Christians seem to ignore.

Jesus then gets angry at the Pharisees, who, despite the fact that He has told them repeatedly the opposite, continue to ignore Him in favor of what is literally written in the Bible. I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
wink.gif

That's an unusual way to frame context - to quote John 8:4-5 and completely ignore 31-43, when those verses seem key to the passage:

Jesus said to the people who believed in him, "You are truly my disciples if you keep obeying my teachings. And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

"But we are descendants of Abraham," they said. "We have never been slaves to anyone on earth. What do you mean, 'set free'?"

Jesus replied, "I assure you that everyone who sins is a slave of sin. A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will indeed be free. Yes, I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet some of you are trying to kill me because my message does not find a place in your hearts. I am telling you what I saw when I was with my Father. But you are following the advice of your father."

"Our father is Abraham," they declared.

"No," Jesus replied, "for if you were children of Abraham, you would follow his good example. I told you the truth I heard from God, but you are trying to kill me. Abraham wouldn't do a thing like that. No, you are obeying your real father when you act that way."

They replied, "We were not born out of wedlock! Our true Father is God himself."

Jesus told them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. Why can't you understand what I am saying? It is because you are unable to do so! For you are the children of your father the Devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning and has always hated the truth. There is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don't believe me!
- John 8:31-45 (New Living Translation)

John 8:4-5 seems to have very little to do with the verses I quoted.

Revelation was greatly disputed as being part of the New Testament canon, and wasn't latched on until near the end of the canon councils.

Regardless, I think it is a book of symbolism during a time of Christian persecution, where literal texts would have been seized and destroyed. The original audience knew the symbolism. We do not.

An interesting theory, but that also implies that the book is a flat-out lie, since its premise is a supernatural revelation from Christ Himself. Revelation also seems to run parallel to all of Mark 13; to condemn one as pure symbolism surely condemns both.

I love how you quote cross passages from gospels. You are showing much of the evidence as to why Matthew is not an original gospel in many aspects, but copied text directly from Mark, the oldest gospel.

Regardless, these texts do not even support your argument. In these passages, Jesus casts aside the Old Testament and makes His own teachings. So, essentially, He knew it to be false. "[He] had authority, and not...the scribes [Old Testament writers]." That is what it means. Hence, Jesus did know, and cast it aside.

And I'm keenly aware of your contradictions. Verses in which Matthew says something different than the other Gospels is apparently proof that it's inaccurate; verses in which Matthew agrees, even if not verbatim, is apparently proof that it's a rip-off of the other Gospels.

As per your actual observation, I do not think the observation is a criticism of those who wrote the Old Testament, since they were all dead, and no one at the time really knew how they behaved or taught. Rather, I believe it refers to the teachers of the Old Testament, those who took the existing books and interpreted them.

How silly, particularly since writing analysis links Matthew and Luke to have taken much directly from Mark, but makes their own details surrounding the tales. I'm sorry...you may think of it as divinely inspired in that fashion, but I think you are wrong. Each gospel was written to evangelize to a particular audience that appeals to their sensibilities and biases, nothing more and nothing less.

My theory is that the books were partially ghost-written by God (Holy Ghost-written, one could say). Your rejection of that theory is based on the theories that the writing is similar, but the details are different.

That's hardly a rejection: the similar passages could reflect the fact that God had a hand in every book, and the difference in details could reflect the fact that different humans were involved in writing each book. Your theories are not conclusive, certainly not to the point that justifies calling my theory silly.

So you are now limiting God? How faithful of you.

I think that difference is within God's plan. What a dreadfully boring world it would be without homosexuals, nor black people, Asians, women, etc. Some American Indian tribes once taught, in not so many words, that the presence of homosexuals were here from the gods to teach heterosexuals a lesson, and were, thus, divine.

Just because Christianity has cast them aside as "useless" doesn't mean that they are useless to everyone else. I bet over half of your clothes were designed by homosexuals, for instance. You would dread a world without homosexuals, because, for some reason or another, they fill a void in the world that would otherwise be unfilled. LOVE is a basic human element. An unloved child will be more likely to die young.

In the first case, theologians limit God all the time - they believe he is unchanging, incapable of committing evil, incapable of a mistake, etc. I'm doing the same: "limiting" God because the alternative is nonsense. If God exerted His FULL WILL on the universe, we would be INCAPABLE of resisting that will and doing what we want. We are able to do what we want, thus He is not exerting His full will.

To reject that argument on the basis that it "limits God" is to nearly admit that you have no reasonable counterarguments.

Further, "difference" itself is a weak argument for the idea that homosexuality is in fact part of God's plan. Yes, the lack of differences may be "boring", but that doesn't make that lack less good; nor does variety necessarily make things better. As a quick counterexample, the big city can offer a HUGE variety of vices, from illicit drugs, to prostitution, to stolen merchandise, to pornography - but the monestary's life offers little more than routine. Is it then natural to conclude that the monk's life is LESS MORALLY GOOD? Hardly.

Finally, the last two sentences, "LOVE is a basic human element. An unloved child will be more likely to die young," seem to have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

And I love how you think that homosexuals are automatically "hedonistic," as if they are incapable of having a monogamous relationship, but, I guess, hedonism is in the eye of the beholder. The Catholic Church thinks that any sex unopen to procreation is "hedonistic." If you ever use birth control someday, including condoms, you'll join the ranks of the hedonistic yourself.

I am honestly returning to my original conclusion - so long ago - that you don't actually read my posts. What I said can be reduced to the following:

If I am correct, you believe that homosexuality is good because it is, to some, a natural urging. THAT idea - that the natural urging is NATURALLY good - is hedonism defined. It reduces to morality to one's feelings; if one feels something, the feeling must be good, so it must be okay to indulge it.

That conclusion I draw can apply to literally every desire, including the heterosexual desire. I am not equating homosexuality with hedonism, and that fact should be obvious.

You know, suffering serves a purpose. It reminds me of "The Matrix," where they stated that the original Matrix was paradise, where everyone's desires and dreams were fulfilled, but people kept on waking up from it.

The world God created is perfect, and I still believe it. The design of Earth and all the universe, along with the intricacies of humanity, are all perfect. If it weren't for "mutations," Earth would still be reduced to nothing but single-cell bacteria.

And I again ask, what about the effects man exerts on his surroundings? How can the universe remain truly perfect if man is also truly to free to screw it up?

I see you have still missed my point:

Let's take someone who is left-handed. Aside from that left-handedness, they are otherwise perfect. However, it was believed that left-handed people were deviant, and most schools tried to force them to write with their right hand.

Eventually, we abandoned such foolishness. If right-handedness is "perfection" and left-handedness is "imperfection," we don't expect the left-handed to be something that they are not. We certainly don't force them to stop writing completely, because they cannot conform to the right-handed. However, those who are right-handed who try to write with their left are punished, because they are going against their own nature.

Homosexuals are like the "left-handed." They are no more different than any heterosexual, aside from whom they love. In the most ideal of stoic fantasies, no one would ever love. No one would ever have sex. We'd all bury ourselves in constant prayer, suffering and waiting for death to free us from that punishment we call "life." However, that is, to me, wasting the talents that God gave us.

Regardless, I think that these pronouncements against homosexuality are just as ludicrous as any of the Mosaic Law.

There are a couple problems with your counterargument, the fact that you don't actually address my original argument notwithstanding.

The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex.

Again, I'm not suggesting Stoicism; I explained earlier that I'm not suggesting it, you should have read that part.

Finally, I again defend Mosaic Law in that it's not *all* ludicrous; that stuff about not stealing and not killing seems pretty reasonable.

"So the Pharisees and scribes questioned him, 'Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders, but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'" -- Mark 7:5-9

As I think you will simply not get my point from this passage, let me rewrite it to accent my point:

"So Bubba questioned melon, 'Why do you not follow the tradition of the Bible, but instead support homosexuals?' He responded, 'Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition.' He went on to say, 'How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!'"

So, my assumption that you called me a Pharisee out of anger wasn't completely wrong, was it? Apparently, the analogy was not only intentional, but you're also extending the analogy: you're Jesus Christ by comparison.

Cajones and hubris.

The crux of my argument is that, by obsessing over this issue, it detracts from faith. Many homosexuals, in fact, have found a greater relationship and faith in God through having a committed relationship with someone of the same sex. The misery and emptiness of being alone brought on only resentment and hatred of God.

You sit on your ivory tower making Draconian pronouncements on others who are not you, but, if you were on the other side of the fence as gay and had to deal with this ultimatum: "Love women or spend the rest of your life alone," I have a feeling you would be questioning the validity of this pronouncement on whether it was essential for practicing faith in God or not.

You quote Bible passages, but most you have quoted are dreadfully out of context. Jesus' points on marriage are liberating messages. While Judaism cast on the yoke of marriage as a requirement for being a true believer, He upheld the sanctity that could be found in single life. But leave Christianity to cast on another yoke of celibacy, completely missing the point: remove obstacles to your faith. If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money. If marriage is preventing you from loving God, don't get married. Thus, if celibacy is preventing you from loving God, find love. I could become celibate, but, after the embitterness and ensuing agnosticism I endured believing that was what I had to be, I had to cast off the yoke of this legalistic remark.

If religion, tomorrow, took away the woman you loved and told you that you could never love again, what would you do? I doubt that your faith would be stronger. Some men, indeed, find greater faith in celibacy, but not all men will find the same solace in it.

1. I agree that obsessing about the issue (any more than condemning people with drinking problems or anger issues) is not constructive. But while you continue to offer arguments that are as incredulous as these posts, I will continue to reply. Don't confuse my committment to stand by my position with obsession. In all honesty, the issue doesn't come up that often in my real life.

2. Lonliness can indeed bring on "resentment and hatred of God", but many heterosexuals experience the same condition on the basis that they're, honestly, incapable of having a relationship. That's not a reason to change the rules, forcing people to keep others' company.

3. Whether I would be saying this if the shoe was on the other foot is irrelevant. Whether something is moral or not is external to whether I would actual follow the precepts. I have trouble turning the other cheek; that makes the commandment no less vaild.

4. I don't believe I have quoted too many verses out of context; in fact, I'd be more than willing to go through every verse mentioned in this post and tally where I was out of context and where you were out of context. If we were to do that, I would win.

5. "If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money." What if poverty is preventing you from loving God? Should one steal? No, of course not. So the entire argument is invalid.

Well, enjoy the above.

Psst. You STILL haven't addressed my argument. My argument is this:

If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.

I put my argument in bold last time, and you ignored it. I have put it in bold again, not that that does a bit of good.

And what if the sky is purple and it rains chocolate syrup? Hmmm? Only God knows the status of their hearts, regardless. Besides your example is not comparable. I don't know of any person who just is attracted to just one person. Condemnation of homosexuals effectively eliminates all potential sources of love, regardless of legal age or family status.

Guess what? An adult daughter of a widow isn't as uncommon as a purple sky and chocolate rain; to reject it as such is immature.

And the fact that homosexuality and incest may not be comparable is beside the point: you said the reasons you object to incest is consent and adultery. I've eliminated both of those with my scenario, and you haven't responded.

I think that they are wrong and murder, because I believe in the sanctity and importance of all life, perfect or imperfect, right or left-handed, straight or gay. But, of course, under the conservative model, the unborn are to be defended, but, once born, people are evil.

That's great, but it separates the question, "What about abortion?" with the the specifics of the question: whether humans are born exactly according to God's will. If/when we count the times we each take the Bible out of context, I would also like to tally the number of times you take my words out of context.

And I don't believe humans are born evil; otherwise Christ, being fully human, would also be evil. Humans are born imperfect with the capacity for evil; and every human (with the One Exception) eventually sins if given just a little time to grow and comprehend right from wrong.

You miss my point. You can choose to have sex to create a child, but you have no hand in deciding what that child will be. I cannot have a child and decide mentally that it will look exactly like Tom Cruise. You get what you are intended to get from God, whether that child is blonde-haired, blue-eyed future model that everyone will drool over or a grotesque "Whortense" that is one of two Siamese Twins that everyone gawks at and pities. Now, tell me, which one is more worthy of love and God?

Under your model, it is as if the parents cause their children to be perfect or as Siamese Twins, when, in fact, they have no choice over the matter.

But you DO have a hand in it. You determine WHETHER the child exists, both by the decision to have sex AND by the decision not to abort the child. Whether you smoke or drink, whether you subject the child to radiation, whether you play music around the child are believed to contribute to what the child is at birth. Truly, you don't have complete control, and that control is as unpredictable as a roulette wheel, but you do have some control. You have some influence on the child before its birth - THEREFORE God doesn't have complete control, THEREFORE the child isn't born perfectly compatible with God's will.

Unfortunately, as usual, my point is missed completely under a flood of side rhetoric.

Melon

Whose rhetoric?

Who has taken a debate about homosexuality as an opportunity to accuse President Bush of being a dictator?

Who has twice associated me with Pharisees and Stoics?

And who has said, "A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy"?

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" - The Dreaded Gospel of St. Matthew Chapter 7, Verse 3

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-04-2002).]
 
WoW this has really become a contest to see who can have the longest post
wink.gif


j/k of course, just trying to interject some humor
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by z edge:
WoW this has really become a contest to see who can have the longest post
wink.gif


j/k of course, just trying to interject some humor
smile.gif


LOL z edge!
 
Im miffed why my questions aren't worthy of addressing! Thot it was pretty straight forward, guess no one reeeally wants to take a stab at what God's agenda really is.
smile.gif
 
Originally posted by Anthony:

An elderly man of forty

Elderly?!! Well, guess it's time for me and Bono to throw in the towel and check in to a nursing home.
 
Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Im miffed why my questions aren't worthy of addressing! Thot it was pretty straight forward, guess no one reeeally wants to take a stab at what God's agenda really is.
smile.gif

Silly girl--you really expected to take part in this discussion? You're on the sidelines with the rest of us. Know your place, young lady!

Seriously, your comments were pure and simple and I couldn't agree with you more. It is my belief that God created homosexuality as another sacred experience for soul's unfoldment.
 
Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Im miffed why my questions aren't worthy of addressing! Thot it was pretty straight forward, guess no one reeeally wants to take a stab at what God's agenda really is.
smile.gif

First off, I should make it clear that I haven't read this whole thread. I read most of the first 2 pages, but none of the third. I'll give my thoughts on Angela's questions nonetheless. I think these were the questions:
Did God create us all equally?
Does God love us all equally?
Did He make us, every single one of us as we are?
Is it a gift from God to love and be loved? One of the greatest gifts He could give us. He let us all love each other differently.


This is what I believe:
Question 1: I believe God created us all equally.

Question 2: I believe God loves us all beyond our comprehension.

Question 3: I believe God created each one of us, but I also believe that a big part of who we are is a result of who we choose to be.

Question 4: I believe it is a wonderful gift from God to love and be loved.

Now, I'd like to say that I wish this wasn't such a huge issue. I believe there are far bigger issues people need to work out with God, before the issue of homosexuality comes up. I wish we would discuss grace, faith, love, and forgiveness as in-depth as we discuss this topic. So I'll be brief in my comments on homosexuality.

I believe, melon's alternate translations notwithstanding, that God, through the Bible, speaks against homosexuality. And I believe that this in no way contradicts Paul's statement in Romans "Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law", or the answers I gave to Angela's quesitons. I don't think God is against homosexuality because it's unnatural, I think he's against it because it's not what's best for us. To melon and others who may be deeply offended or hurt by what I believe about this, my apologies. I have really struggled with this, but I still believe this. That homosexuality doesn't lead to love and satisfaction, but to pain and dissatifaction. How can I say that!!?? What do I know?? Have I ever loved another man sexually?? No. And I don't understand. But I do believe that's why the Bible says what is says on this topic.

Again, I'm sorry if this is offensive, but it's what I believe, and so I felt a need to share my thoughts. Melon, you and I are on the same page about God'd message on love. We only differ in our definitions of love. Let me finish by saying one of my favorite quotes from the Bible comes from the book of 1 John: (my paraphrase) Hey, let's love each other. Because love comes from God, and everyone who loves is a child of God and knows God. Anyone who doesn't love, doesn't know God, because God is love.

And no, I don't think America is more accepting of gay men than gay women.
 
Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Elderly?!! Well, guess it's time for me and Bono to throw in the towel and check in to a nursing home.

I'm very sorry, joyfulgirl, obviously I didn't mean it that way, however, it would be a pretty disturbing site to see any man of any age with a girl less than the legal age, don't you think? Thats what I meant.

Ant.
 
Yes, I knew what you meant, Ant. I just needed to give you some shit about it because 40 is THE best age I've ever been and you should all look forward to it. I wouldn't want to be in my 20's again for anything.
smile.gif
And certainly a 40 year old man would be considered an underage girl's elder, but not elderly.
 
Angela, I had thought about replying to your post, but it didn't seem really to be a very substantive argument: just four rhetorical questions and a conclusion that doesn't necessarily follow, and isn't necessarily germaine to the discussion.

Originally posted by Angela Harlem:
Did God create us all equally?
Does God love us all equally?
Did He make us, every single one of us as we are?
Is it a gift from God to love and be loved? One of the greatest gifts He could give us. He let us all love each other differently.

In response, we are created equally, but I don't know how that applies.

As I keeep pointing out, it's not certain that we are exactly as God intended us - at least, not to the degree that every natural desire we have is therefore God-given and good.

It is, truly, a gift to love and be loved - but I believe that "love" there means charity. You say that love is one of God's greatest gifts, and I would add that there's a gift greater than the capacity for love: God's love itself, which redeemed us before we worth redeeming. Surely, that love is not sexual in any way, and the Christ-like love we are to exhibit towards others is also not erotic. So, you're jumping from charity to erotic love when logic doesn't really allow it.

Finally, you say that "He let us all love each other differently." In terms of charity, that's not exactly true. We're to clothe all those who are cold and feed all those who are hungry. The needs and our resources may be different in each case, but it's not a substantial difference.

And in terms of erotic love, just because we have the capacity for all kinds, just because "He let us love each other differently," doesn't mean we should.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-05-2002).]
 
Originally posted by Anthony:

To hell with that, madame; Life truly begins at fifty.
smile.gif


Ant.

That's the spirit! French men apparently say a woman blossoms at 50. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find my teeth so I can eat lunch.
biggrin.gif
 
Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
That's the spirit! French men apparently say a woman blossoms at 50. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go find my teeth so I can eat lunch.
biggrin.gif

To the French, women are always in a constant state of blooming.
smile.gif


Ant.
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Let's put the anti-Bush rant aside (honestly, this isn't the thread for this, and I believe you know that)

I know you are smart enough to spot a metaphor when you see one. No, this is not about Bush, but since I cannot get you to understand my point from the context of the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago, I put it in a modern context. Human nature has seemingly changed little. So, let's close the chapter here on this Bush remark, since it has served its purpose.

NOW look at the Old Testament: Moses murdered a man before meeting God, tried to weasel his way out of doing God's will, and so thoroughly upset God that he wasn't permitted to enter the Promised Land. King David committed adultery and murder - and lost his son and temporarily lost the throne in the process. The people themselves were not only constantly under attack (and occasionally defeated and put into captivity), but the Old Testament clearly says that the Isrealites THEMSELVES were to blame.

I love the fact that they aren't perfect people. Yet, somehow, the people of the New Testament are somehow to be put at a higher standard?

Despite their reckless behavior, Moses and King David (not to mention King Solomon, who was a scoundrel himself) are all considered holy men, yes? What an easy way to excuse the bad behavior of the Jewish rabbis, who could have cited the supposed bad behavior of Moses and David as reasons why they are still holy and command power over the people.

How does Matthew 7:21 qualify as a parable? No mention of seeds, sheep, salt, or fruit. No hypothetical story in which Christ Himself plays no role. Because Christ mentions himself in the first person, I think he's being quite literal: "Not every one that saith unto ME, Lord, Lord...".

Fruit and Sheep:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven." -- Matthew 7:15-21

In short, anyone can call themselves righteous, but by their actions, you know whether they are or not. Hence, faith without good works is dead.

I would always assume that you'd know the context in which you quote your passages, but, apparently, you do not. I guess I shall not make such assumptions in the future.

The comment that chapter is un-Jesus-like begs the question: by what standard? It seems to me that you've picked out what verses fit your idea of who Christ was, then excised the other verses on the grounds that they don't fit. On what basis did you pick out the original "authentic" verses?

Call it faith. There is a Gnostic gospel that portrays Jesus as a "mass murderer." Anyone who refuses to submit to His commands, Jesus kills them. Apparently, the canon councils had to make a judgment call on the "authentic" texts, although I'm sure that modern "Christians" would have loved to see this book in the canon, so they could justify their own hateful desires.

Funny enough, the Gnostics are, ideologically, the predecessors to today's fundamentalists in that they were the first to believe that the Bible was 100% literally correct. The early Christian Church destroyed them, as they did not believe this. Once again, I must remind you, the early Christians saw the Bible as for guidance, not the ultimate and final word.

This seems to be very similar to your translation; either way, it also seems to be quite judgmental, which was my point to begin with.

It doesn't seem very judgmental to me.

Either way, the KJV's inaccuracy is no reason whatsoever to "never trust" a Protestant Bible, or to suggest that "A Protestant Bible is as good as toilet paper in terms of translation accuracy."

Catholic Bibles are always open to revision in the face of greater techniques for translation. In fact, the Church is currently in the process of revising the Bible to make note of the facts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the texts previously used.

Most interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls only support my theory: people added their own bias in later texts, rather than the Bible being a fixed text that people translated faithfully over the centuries.

Unfortunately, I've seen most Protestant Bibles just sticking with traditional interpretations, often amplifying the incorrect passages even worse than they were before, and then having the gull to state 99.9% accuracy. No Bible is perfect, granted, because even the Catholic Bible still maintains a few uncorrected mistakes, but they are very few and, at least, gives footnotes on historical context.

But I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest on Bibles. I just respectfully disagree with Protestant Bibles as translated (also in the fact that they are incomplete to me), and I retract my statement about "toilet paper." I wrote it in anger.

An "official" footnote? Surely, the footnote wasn't in the original manuscript. Surely, it's merely the addition from some church official. What I wonder is, what makes it more "official" than the Bible itself (like Matthew 10)? And, if the Jewish rabbis are so prone to corruption as to alter the Old Testament, why trust Catholic priests to correctly interpret?

In the study of classic literature, much of the classroom discussion usually involves figuring out context. A statement that looks matter-of-fact to us could easily have had a different meaning for the time it was written. For example (one ironically fitting for this discussion), if a text said the word "gay" in the 19th century, it would mean "happy." If a text said the word "gay" now, it would mean "homosexual." But to look at a 19th century text and have no contextual knowledge, you might incorrectly think that the book is referring to a homosexual, when that would be incorrect.

Catholic Bibles, in addition, are subject to great scrutiny and debate amongst very highly educated Biblical scholars. Generally, no traditional interpretation is taken seriously; a text's meaning must be surmised by the original texts.

What the footnotes are, really, are a great service to people reading the Bible to assist them in discovering what a seemingly obscure passage really meant, according to a consensus of Biblical scholars. This is to prevent people from taking a passage like:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

And taking it as a literal interpretation of Jesus telling you that you must hate your family to be a true Christian. The footnotes, in essence, are there to prevent you from dropping the eggshells into your recipe that calls for eggs.

To clarify, though, by "official footnote," I meant the "official footnote for the Catholic Bible." I see it as guidance, not the means to an end.

"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." - Luke 11:31-32

I love how you pick the most cryptic passages in the gospels. I see no problem with this passage, but since I'm tired of always interpreting Bible passages for you, I'd like you to interpret this passage to me.

But, it is first of all telling that Matthew 10:37 appears to be a more literal, reasonable translation than Luke 14:26 - and it still confirms my original assertion that Christ preaches more than just love and unification.

Yes, the third requirement is faith. Since I write my texts from the assumption that those who will even care what I write is Christian, I don't think I need to state the obvious.

John 8:4-5 seems to have very little to do with the verses I quoted.

Well, I must make a correction, since I have discovered my error. His Jewish followers believe their salvation to be dependent on their birthright; hence, like their forefathers, they believe they can be as despicable as they like, but still have salvation. That is the context that is missing, as Jews believe themselves to be automatically saved as the "chosen people."

Jesus continually tells them the otherwise, but they refuse to listen, still bringing up the fact that they are children of Abraham. Hence, Jesus gets angry, since they won't listen to a word He says, and continues to use the same arguments Jesus just overthrew. At the same token, I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
biggrin.gif


It is yet another passage on faith and good works, yet, also, a passage that opens faith to those who do not share this "birthright," as He casts it aside.

An interesting theory, but that also implies that the book is a flat-out lie, since its premise is a supernatural revelation from Christ Himself. Revelation also seems to run parallel to all of Mark 13; to condemn one as pure symbolism surely condemns both.

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

This gives you all the historical context you need on Revelation. The book is not a "flat-out lie," but written with a totally different meaning whose context we, as modern readers, seem to miss completely. I'd have pasted it, but it is a long text.

And I'm keenly aware of your contradictions. Verses in which Matthew says something different than the other Gospels is apparently proof that it's inaccurate; verses in which Matthew agrees, even if not verbatim, is apparently proof that it's a rip-off of the other Gospels.

I must admit that now I am confused with my own arguments. Let me quote, once and for all, what I was taught.

Preface of Matthew:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Mat 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated "M," written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mk was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mk), Mt was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew's use of Mk presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Preface to Luke:

"Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luk 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luk 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.

Luke's consistent substitution of Greek names for the Aramaic or Hebrew names occurring in his sources (e.g., Luk 23:33; Mar 15:22; 18:41; Mar 10:51), his omission from the gospel of specifically Jewish Christian concerns found in his sources (e.g., Mar 7:1-23), his interest in Gentile Christians (Mar 2:30-32; 3:6,38; 4:16-30; 13:28-30; 14:15-24; 17:11-19; 24:47-48), and his incomplete knowledge of Palestinian geography, customs, and practices are among the characteristics of this gospel that suggest that Luke was a non-Palestinian writing to a non-Palestinian audience that was largely made up of Gentile Christians."

I hope this clears things up.

In the first case, theologians limit God all the time - they believe he is unchanging, incapable of committing evil, incapable of a mistake, etc. I'm doing the same: "limiting" God because the alternative is nonsense. If God exerted His FULL WILL on the universe, we would be INCAPABLE of resisting that will and doing what we want. We are able to do what we want, thus He is not exerting His full will.

Regardless, you have to draw a line somewhere. I know of no parents who use their "free will" to craft a child as they want. They have to leave it to God as to what traits that child has.

Of course, there have been exceptions, most infamously, thalidomide in the 1950s, but you cannot blame foreign chemicals on the creation of homosexuals. Not only have they existed for thousands of years, before the advent of these "chemicals," but there is no modern scientific knowledge to even support your claim. I can claim that the sky is blue because I willed it to be, but there is that little thing we call "evidence."

Further, "difference" itself is a weak argument for the idea that homosexuality is in fact part of God's plan. Yes, the lack of differences may be "boring", but that doesn't make that lack less good; nor does variety necessarily make things better. As a quick counterexample, the big city can offer a HUGE variety of vices, from illicit drugs, to prostitution, to stolen merchandise, to pornography - but the monestary's life offers little more than routine. Is it then natural to conclude that the monk's life is LESS MORALLY GOOD? Hardly.

Lovely pendulum swings. But no one is born to those "vices." No one is born a prostitute, nor a drug addict. But I can play your game too.

I could take the position of St. John Chrysostom, who stated that your sexual desires, in fact, are not part of God's plan, which is only limited to celibacy or sex for procreation--basically, because everyone should strive for the perfection that St. Paul elevated with celibacy. Hence, that means that you should only have sex as many times as the amount of children you have in your lifetime, and you are not allowed to enjoy it. But, lushy you, I'm sure you'll have sex for pleasure once you are married. I should condemn this very vice that you have professed yourself that you are looking forward to upon marriage.

And now, because modern religion in the 20th century changed the rules to suit heterosexual weaknesses, sex for pleasure is accepted in a married context. Essentially, it came down to the fact that it was unessential for faith.

If I am correct, you believe that homosexuality is good because it is, to some, a natural urging. THAT idea - that the natural urging is NATURALLY good - is hedonism defined. It reduces to morality to one's feelings; if one feels something, the feeling must be good, so it must be okay to indulge it.

I hope you never have sex for pleasure with your wife, because you will be a hedonist yourself.

And I again ask, what about the effects man exerts on his surroundings? How can the universe remain truly perfect if man is also truly to free to screw it up?

Man's effects on his surrounding only go so far. I can slap my neighbor and make him hurt, but I cannot change his skin color because I will it. Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect.

Of course, you seem to believe that man has free will over everything, and that is preposterous. That was my point. What is out of our free will, which includes the design of life, is perfect, because it was created by God. Otherwise, He's a sadistic individual, who creates people for the explicit purpose of suffering, which would be contrary to the idea of a loving God.

The left-handed example is quite different from homosexuality, in ways that I think invalidate the comparison: Left-handedness is an ability, while homosexuality is an expression of desire. Left-handedness is statistically frequent enough to justify the belief that it's one of the many common configurations (black, white, male, female, righty, lefty). I believe left-handedness is genetic; taken to its natural conclusion, it propagates to the next generation. Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a genelogical dead-end. Finally, there is no reasonable moral objection to left-handedness while there is one overriding reason to reject homosexuality: the possibility that God intentionally created the two sexes so that one from one sex would join with one from the other sex.

Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."

Well, what about those born infertile? Aren't they a geneological dead-end? And if sex is just for procreation, as you've implied, then I hope you never use birth control, because you'll be denying a potential child from being born, creating a "dead-end" from your sex act.

Of course, I'm speaking to someone with zero knowledge of genetics. Your black-and-white "male" and "female" (basically, XY and XX) leaves out a wide range of documented deviations from this over the centuries (so that leaves out "human interference" from technology), all of which are "geneological dead-ends." You have the intersexed, those born with male and female organs, but rendered infertile, because the same hormones that activate the sex organs also destroy one set of organs or the other. This is relatively very common amongst live births, but science generally surgically creates a "boy" or "girl." You have X women, XYY men, XXY people (incidentally, a lot of androgynous "female" supermodels are this--they are infertile), XXXY, etc.

God did not create just male and female! I believe God sees us as gender neutral, which is more than apparent from our fetus development, which is gender ambiguous, with male and female organs. Yes, Bubba, you had a uterus in your early development. If God was so very adamant about just having heterosexual males and females, He certainly would never have allowed any deviations from that to even have existed.

Once again, the limited mind of the human refuses to see beyond the black-and-white "male" and "female," despite the not-so-uncommon deviances that stare right at our faces!

Besides, with your argument, I think we should test all people to see if they are infertile before they get married. Then those who are infertile should be forced into celibacy and forbidden to marry, since any sex act they do will be counterproductive against procreation, since you've so very stated that sex is just for procreation, in not so many words.

Secondly, your belief on genetics is flawed. There are non-Mendellian genetics traits, such as "dwarfism" (I forget the scientific term), which is a dominant trait. Under Mendel's model of genetics, that means that anyone who carries that gene will be a "dwarf" as well. However, two "dwarfs" often create children who carry the dominant traits, but are still normal sized! However, six generations down the line, all of a sudden, that same dominant trait will create another "dwarf."

"Inheritance" is far more complex than you'd like to believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality falls under this same premise. Hence, it would be very difficult to find a "gay gene," because straight people likely carry it as well, but, for some reason, do not express it.

Why would there be "geneological dead-ends?" Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.

So, my assumption that you called me a Pharisee out of anger wasn't completely wrong, was it? Apparently, the analogy was not only intentional, but you're also extending the analogy: you're Jesus Christ by comparison.

I'm not going to lie. I do think that your faith is like a Pharisee at times. But I'm not Jesus Christ; however, I try and strive to be like Him, which we are all supposed to do.

2. Lonliness can indeed bring on "resentment and hatred of God", but many heterosexuals experience the same condition on the basis that they're, honestly, incapable of having a relationship. That's not a reason to change the rules, forcing people to keep others' company.

This isn't even a correct comparison. Heterosexuals, in your example, are free to seek out relationships. No one forces them to stay in one. Homosexuals are told not to seek them out in any circumstance, even if they find someone worthy of their company. In the first model, it is the heterosexual's fault for having a potentially garrulous personality. In the second model, personality means nothing; they are hated just for being who they are.

3. Whether I would be saying this if the shoe was on the other foot is irrelevant. Whether something is moral or not is external to whether I would actual follow the precepts. I have trouble turning the other cheek; that makes the commandment no less vaild.

So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.

I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.

4. I don't believe I have quoted too many verses out of context; in fact, I'd be more than willing to go through every verse mentioned in this post and tally where I was out of context and where you were out of context. If we were to do that, I would win.

Incorrect. How many times have you gone in only posting the verse? I, at least, will discuss the entire chapter, along with the situation of why such a verse was written.

5. "If money is preventing you from loving God, give away all your money." What if poverty is preventing you from loving God? Should one steal? No, of course not. So the entire argument is invalid.

Are you then saying that a man who steals bread for his family, if the family is starving and cannot afford bread, is sinful? Even Jesus had righteous indignation against authorities. If we were just to tow the line, America, itself, wouldn't exist. We'd still be British. Or, perhaps, French, considering they were making inroads outside of the Thirteen Colonies.

If we WERE born exactly as God intended, then that can mean only one of two possible things: either we're all cogs in a machine in which everything leading up to the birth is ALSO in God's will (since such things as radiation and chemicals can affect that birth); or the actions leading up to the birth have ABSOLUTELY no effect on that birth. BOTH of those ideas preclude free will, thus I cannot believe in them.

I don't know how this even applies to this thread, minus the latest detail where you finally revealed that you don't think people are born gay.

Secondly, assuming that your passage is true, the child would be the "victim," and would not be expected to live exactly like the "normal" people. We would make accomodations so that this person could live a happy and full life to the greatest extent humanly possible.

Yet, the same is not given to homosexuals, who are repeatedly denied compassion and told to be "normal" like everyone else. It would be like taking a thalidomide child, a victim of a human drug, born with "flippers" for arms and legs and told to stand up straight and walk. Or telling someone with asthma, a victim of environmental pollution created by humans, to stop weezing and breathe normally without medicine. Then publically berate both for not doing so.

Love is a basic element of humanity, which, for most people, is the reason why they even want to live. Love, in itself, serves no functional purpose. In fact, animals live life completely without love. However, to deny love to a human would be cruelty; the one element that seemingly separates us from being as banal as an animal. However, seeing the history of Christianity, cruelty seems to be right up its alley; all done in the "name of Jesus." I really doubt that both God and Jesus are so monolithic and ignorant of intention that they would deny an entire class of people love.

Now I have addressed it. Now are you going to ignore it and repeat that passage?

Guess what? An adult daughter of a widow isn't as uncommon as a purple sky and chocolate rain; to reject it as such is immature.

Dammit...I feel like I'm arguing with a fool. Let's change it to a blue sky, instead of a purple sky, but keep the statement about chocolate rain falling from it. A blue sky and chocolate exist separately. An aged daughter and older father exist too. However, I don't know in what sick plain of reality you are on to think that this situation even occurs regularly, whereas a daughter and a father fall in deep passionate love and want to fuck each other. Of course, this was a "Jerry Springer" scenario, but it is well-known that his show is scripted with actors.

Chocolate rain and a purple sky are both possible. Volcanic ash can create a purple sky and chocolate can rain if someone chose to emit it from an airplane or something. Both scenarios, mine and yours, are possible, but are highly unlikely to happen.

That's great, but it separates the question, "What about abortion?" with the the specifics of the question: whether humans are born exactly according to God's will. If/when we count the times we each take the Bible out of context, I would also like to tally the number of times you take my words out of context.

You are starting to get under my nerves. That aborted child was about to be created exactly as God intended, but a human interfered and killed it. The child, though, is not guilty of its own death.

If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense.

But you DO have a hand in it. You determine WHETHER the child exists, both by the decision to have sex AND by the decision not to abort the child. Whether you smoke or drink, whether you subject the child to radiation, whether you play music around the child are believed to contribute to what the child is at birth. Truly, you don't have complete control, and that control is as unpredictable as a roulette wheel, but you do have some control. You have some influence on the child before its birth - THEREFORE God doesn't have complete control, THEREFORE the child isn't born perfectly compatible with God's will.

UGH...my parents had a hand in my birth. I had no role in my birth, though. That is my point I've been trying to regurgitate to you for the last half of this argument!

But God does have His hand in birth. When a couple has sex, there are billions of different sperm and a constant cycle of different eggs. Humans do not choose which sperm fertilizes which egg. Hence, the parents do not choose which child they have!!!! I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when they're so adamantly convinced it is black.

If you have some supernatural ability to have the free will to choose your children and their traits someday, under the confines of nature (not technology), then please, for the love of God, leave us non-supernatural people alone.

Whose rhetoric?


UGH...it was on the side argument of abortion, which had nothing to do with this thread!

If you wrote with the intention to see who can get discouraged and pissed off the most, then you've won. The Rush Limbaugh style of argument, which you seem to expouse, gives me a headache after a while. I'm finished with this thread, as I've argued everything I've meant to argue. The next question you have, reread my old posts, where I likely answered the question five times over, but you didn't see it (or chose to ignore my answer). I can't keep on writing posts that take up two to three hours of my afternoon anymore.

I'd love to see other people comment on this thread besides me.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
In response, we are created equally, but I don't know how that applies.

Angela, Bubba doesn't think that gays are born that way. They are, in fact, choosing to like the same sex in some manner or the other to him. Hence, he thinks we are all created equally, but homosexuals are going against their nature; when, in fact, I think that they are part of nature just like straight people, not to mention that this same belief is expoused by science and even the Catholic Church (how funny that they are still homophobic). Some people will never agree.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
 
Originally posted by melon:
I'd love to see other people comment on this thread besides me.
Melon

Melon;

I think those who have had something to say have said it, those who believe homosexuality to be normal, natural and the
way God intended to believe it, while those who don't don't - and I'm afraid thats the way it will remain until something life-changing happens to them.

AchtungBubba has argued strongly for what he believes in, as have you, but the argument is still there and at the end of the day you will both disagree anyway. That is not to say that it is not worth debating simply because someone disagrees with you, thats not what I am suggesting at all, but when the topic is as controversial as homosexuality, people are either prejeduiced or not, much like the debates over the existence of God; its a pretty useless battle to fight with one another because nothing you say will convince AchtungBubba otherwise.

All I'm saying is, if you're getting worked up over the heated debate between you and AchtungBubba, then you shouldn't. Those who agree with you, like me, are free from the such prejeduice and judgmentalism, those who don't have their own reasons for doing so; ultimately the ones who are prejeduiced are the ones who suffer.

Apparently, according to the rhetoric of the homophobes, the homosexuals are as guilty of their 'vices' and faults as much as left-handed people were of their left-handedness in the old days, and nothing will make them change their mentality otherwise.

To those who think homosexuality as unnatural; who are you to think of it as unnatural? What authority has ever been given to you to judge the way someone may love another? And I mean LOVE. Not bestial acts with animals who aren't capable of even the perception of consent, and the rape of innocent youth. I mean love, the love that is shared between people and thus makes them better people, creates a passion in their souls and bodies to live a happy life as much as any other heterosexual person can. A love that allows people to live and let live.

You state that it's against God's will, but how do you know God's will? Are you God? No, but you put your trust in the Bible, and thats all very well and convenient for your words of condemnation and judgement, notice how you use Jesus' words of love and tolerance and use them to judge and condemn.

Oh, it is true, I have never considered myself a Catholic, but I was raised as one, and if one believes that the Bible is there to condemn and cast judgement, then one is no different from the Muslim Fundamentalists who use the Koran to condemn Christians as infidels.

The word of God can never be one of condemnation, for condemnation is not the way of Love, in any sense; whether brotherly, platonic, sexual or romantic. Love exists as the highest of emotions, does it not? Love exists as the way of God. And before you inteject with your various definitions of love, AchtungBubba, though I agree the word 'love' is used all too frequently, if not abused in this day and age, do you mean to tell me that the love between you and your girlfriend is merely platonic and not romantic? Yes, there are different forms of love, but why you should apply it only for the heterosexuals deprive it from the homosexuals does not correlate with your self-proclaimed logic.

Ultimately, God is everything, AchtungBubba, atleast to me - the good and the bad. Your argument of the proceedings within the womb of a mother states that God's will does not necessarily always take place, so if it doesn't, does it mean that the Devil is on equal footing with God? Is the devil as powerful as God? Was it not God who exiled Satan? I don't see how your 'womb theory' works, unless Satan is as powerful as God, but he isn't, is he? This is an inquiry to what you believe, because I don't think your theory works. So, God's will is subservient to OUR will, and therefore God is just there to slap our wrist from time to time.

Doesn't it make more sense that God created the concept and gave US the idea of free will, that he is directly responsible for it, and that his will is always observed? Yes, free will does create the problem of evil, of that I am sure. But don't you think that, by your own account of your theory, that the way we are born is the way God intended, that a gay person can't exactly help it if they're gay, no more than you can help it if you don't like French Onion soup?

Ultimately, I believe that those who oppose homosexuality have nothing to do with the Bible, whatsoever, except that they use it to condemn homosexuals and others.

Ulimately, it is NOT because of God's word being anti-homosexual that you believe in it so passionately, but simply because you were raised to think and feel in such a way that makes you cringe when you see two homosexual lovers kiss in public. It is the way you were brought up to think that whatever goes on in the house of gay lovers as hedonistic and evil, it is simply the way you were brought up or have viewed life.

Oh, indeed, I have been much impressed by the quality of debate, but I have not engaged in it sooner because I believe it to be ultimately farcical as it is directly repugnant to human nature; I would sooner have more respect for you (generic 'you', not you specifically AchtungBubba) to simply say that you 'just don't like fags'. That you simply despise them because they are not like you, that they behave in a manner that is different from yours and it is therefore wrong. Oh no, that would be too simplistic, barbaric and downright ugly; the truth hurts.
Atleast that approach would be honest, instead of pretending to know God's will.

How can ANYONE, even the Pope himself, believe that they know God's will, how arrogant have we become in our own self-righteousness.

If what you say about God being against homosexuals is true, then I hope never to see God in the face, for it destroys everything that God is supposed to represent and be, including the God that is painted by your Bible.

If a homosexual man was indeed put on trial for his immortal soul, and was found to do none harm, think none harm and pray for the welfare of everyone, how could you condemn such a pure soul? If these fundamentals aren't enough to keep a man alive both in this life and the afterlife, then I myself long not to live in either.

You would rather condemn than to seek understanding without prejeduice, but ofcourse, that is the way God's will commands it. I forgot, you know God's will and feel qualified enough to be God's voice.

Ant.
 
I will be as brief as possible.

I know you are smart enough to spot a metaphor when you see one. No, this is not about Bush, but since I cannot get you to understand my point from the context of the Jewish leaders of 2500 years ago, I put it in a modern context. Human nature has seemingly changed little. So, let's close the chapter here on this Bush remark, since it has served its purpose.

Yes, I know a metaphor when I see one. It wasn't a metaphor:

Look at America, for instance? Using the guise of terrorism, the Bush Administration has easily rolled back any sense of privacy we had left. Could he have done the same thing if everything was perfect?

Despite their reckless behavior, Moses and King David (not to mention King Solomon, who was a scoundrel himself) are all considered holy men, yes? What an easy way to excuse the bad behavior of the Jewish rabbis, who could have cited the supposed bad behavior of Moses and David as reasons why they are still holy and command power over the people.

But Moses and David were severely punished by GOD for their behavior. So your theory doesn't hold water. In fact all it does is contradict your original theory that rabbis went out of their way to make the Jewish leaders look GOOD.

In short, anyone can call themselves righteous, but by their actions, you know whether they are or not. Hence, faith without good works is dead.

I would always assume that you'd know the context in which you quote your passages, but, apparently, you do not. I guess I shall not make such assumptions in the future.

The verse is associated with a parable, but it isn't ITSELF a parable. Compare the verses to Matthew 13. Verses 3-9 are the parable, verses 18-23 is the EXPLANATION. I believe that Matthew 7:21 is likewise an explanation of a parable and thus MEANT to be taken literally.

Once again, your snobbery at me apparently taking verses out of context (which I'm not) comes off as the pot calling the kettle black:

Most interestingly, this was Saul's reaction to David and Jonathan's relationship:

"Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, 'You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?'" - 1 Samuel 20

An interesting comment made over just a "friendship."


Call it faith. There is a Gnostic gospel that portrays Jesus as a "mass murderer." Anyone who refuses to submit to His commands, Jesus kills them. Apparently, the canon councils had to make a judgment call on the "authentic" texts, although I'm sure that modern "Christians" would have loved to see this book in the canon, so they could justify their own hateful desires.

Funny enough, the Gnostics are, ideologically, the predecessors to today's fundamentalists in that they were the first to believe that the Bible was 100% literally correct. The early Christian Church destroyed them, as they did not believe this. Once again, I must remind you, the early Christians saw the Bible as for guidance, not the ultimate and final word.

That choosing which verses apply is a matter of faith is fine; but it's presumptuous to proclaim without any qualification that the chapter is un-Jesus-like. You think the chapter is un-Jesus-like because your interpretation of it doesn't fit with your idea of what Jesus is or should be; that's all.

To bring up apocryphal books to say that other psuedo-Gospels are angry ignores a key difference: the other books were rejected, Matthew wasn't.

(And I suppose your swipe at "Christians" - presumably, those of us who disagree with you - is another mere metaphor?)

At any rate, are you actually suggesting that even the early Israelites didn't also see the Bible as "the ultimate and final word"? That seems hard to swallow.

Catholic Bibles are always open to revision in the face of greater techniques for translation. In fact, the Church is currently in the process of revising the Bible to make note of the facts discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are older than the texts previously used.

Most interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls only support my theory: people added their own bias in later texts, rather than the Bible being a fixed text that people translated faithfully over the centuries.

Unfortunately, I've seen most Protestant Bibles just sticking with traditional interpretations, often amplifying the incorrect passages even worse than they were before, and then having the gull to state 99.9% accuracy. No Bible is perfect, granted, because even the Catholic Bible still maintains a few uncorrected mistakes, but they are very few and, at least, gives footnotes on historical context.

But I don't wish to turn this into a pissing contest on Bibles. I just respectfully disagree with Protestant Bibles as translated (also in the fact that they are incomplete to me), and I retract my statement about "toilet paper." I wrote it in anger.

I'm glad that you finally retracted the statement, and the fact is, many Protestant Bibles agree with Catholic Bibles in a lot of verses. To suggest that Protestants are somehow less academically minded is, I think, a sign of prejudice on your part.

In the study of classic literature, much of the classroom discussion usually involves figuring out context. A statement that looks matter-of-fact to us could easily have had a different meaning for the time it was written. For example (one ironically fitting for this discussion), if a text said the word "gay" in the 19th century, it would mean "happy." If a text said the word "gay" now, it would mean "homosexual." But to look at a 19th century text and have no contextual knowledge, you might incorrectly think that the book is referring to a homosexual, when that would be incorrect.

Catholic Bibles, in addition, are subject to great scrutiny and debate amongst very highly educated Biblical scholars. Generally, no traditional interpretation is taken seriously; a text's meaning must be surmised by the original texts.

What the footnotes are, really, are a great service to people reading the Bible to assist them in discovering what a seemingly obscure passage really meant, according to a consensus of Biblical scholars. This is to prevent people from taking a passage like:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

And taking it as a literal interpretation of Jesus telling you that you must hate your family to be a true Christian. The footnotes, in essence, are there to prevent you from dropping the eggshells into your recipe that calls for eggs.

To clarify, though, by "official footnote," I meant the "official footnote for the Catholic Bible." I see it as guidance, not the means to an end.

And I believe you'll find Protestants as devoted to scholarly study of the Bible as well - and those who also rely on footnotes, commentaries, and multiple translations, myself included.

My point wasn't that the verse was to be taken literally - MERELY that Christ didn't always speak in a language of love.

I love how you pick the most cryptic passages in the gospels. I see no problem with this passage, but since I'm tired of always interpreting Bible passages for you, I'd like you to interpret this passage to me.

By the way, thanks ever so much for interpreting Scripture for me.

Honestly, KJV falls short here, but I find myself facing the reality that you've criticized every translation I've used, so I figured I'd stick to one until using another translation was necessary. "Cryptic" as it is, I believe the New Living Translation offers a better translation:

"The queen of Sheba will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because she came from a distant land to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And now someone greater than Solomon is here ? and you refuse to listen to him. The people of Nineveh, too, will rise up against this generation on judgment day and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah. And now someone greater than Jonah is here ? and you refuse to repent."

The translation seems clear: the contemporary Jews will be harshly judged at the end of time for having the Son of God in their midst (and as one of their own, since they're the first Chosen People) and not responding - particularly in comparison to the Gentiles who didn't have the luxury of being in His midst.

Cyptic, indeed.

Jesus continually tells them the otherwise, but they refuse to listen, still bringing up the fact that they are children of Abraham. Hence, Jesus gets angry, since they won't listen to a word He says, and continues to use the same arguments Jesus just overthrew. At the same token, I don't blame Jesus at all...remember my little outburst in this thread for the same reason?
biggrin.gif

Yeah, very amusing.

Point is, we can both admit that Christ exhibited anger, so I don't see how Matthew 10 is contradictory to who Jesus is.

(Honestly, the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, emphasize BOTH God's sense of justice and His mercy. Without mercy, we're doomed, but without the justice, God is no longer perfect, or at least mercy seems less necessary.)

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

This gives you all the historical context you need on Revelation. The book is not a "flat-out lie," but written with a totally different meaning whose context we, as modern readers, seem to miss completely. I'd have pasted it, but it is a long text.

An excellent description, one that I don't disagree with on many points, but one observation must be noted:

"Whether or not these visions were real experiences of the author or simply literary conventions employed by him is an open question."

The very beginning of Revelation has the author in communication with the risen Christ. Either that happened or that didn't. If it DID happen, whether the rest is metaphor (probably is) or the description of what the author actually saw in his vision is irrelevant. If it didn't happen, the entire book is a lie; call it a metaphor if you want, but the guy claims a personal contact with Christ. If that actually didn't happen, he's a liar.

The other explanations were also helpful. Two observations though: the explanation of Matthew itself does not imply that Matthew is contradictory to the rest, was just there for historical reasons, and should be ignored (as you have insisted). Also, there's this line:

"The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Mat 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

That seems very skeptical of any possibility of divine intervention. If the crux of the Gospels (that Christ was the Son of God, killed and raised from the dead) is to be believed, why not the possibility that Christ accurately prophesied, or that the writers were guided by God Himself?

Regardless, you have to draw a line somewhere. I know of no parents who use their "free will" to craft a child as they want. They have to leave it to God as to what traits that child has.

Of course, there have been exceptions, most infamously, thalidomide in the 1950s, but you cannot blame foreign chemicals on the creation of homosexuals. Not only have they existed for thousands of years, before the advent of these "chemicals," but there is no modern scientific knowledge to even support your claim. I can claim that the sky is blue because I willed it to be, but there is that little thing we call "evidence."

I'm not implying that chemicals caused homosexuality, or that man has supreme power over the universe (or anything more than a slight ability to exert his will on the surroundings). What I'm saying is that man's ability to exert his will on his surroundings ELIMINATES the possibility of an absolutely perfect, God-willed universe, thus eliminating the possibility of births that are absolutely perfect and completely under the will of God.

Lovely pendulum swings. But no one is born to those "vices." No one is born a prostitute, nor a drug addict. But I can play your game too.

I could take the position of St. John Chrysostom, who stated that your sexual desires, in fact, are not part of God's plan, which is only limited to celibacy or sex for procreation--basically, because everyone should strive for the perfection that St. Paul elevated with celibacy. Hence, that means that you should only have sex as many times as the amount of children you have in your lifetime, and you are not allowed to enjoy it. But, lushy you, I'm sure you'll have sex for pleasure once you are married. I should condemn this very vice that you have professed yourself that you are looking forward to upon marriage.

And now, because modern religion in the 20th century changed the rules to suit heterosexual weaknesses, sex for pleasure is accepted in a married context. Essentially, it came down to the fact that it was unessential for faith.

What pendulum swings? You essentially assert that homosexuality is good because it's different, and I simply don't accept that.

And I trump St. John Chrysostom with an older source, a BIBLICAL source: The Song of Solomon.

I hope you never have sex for pleasure with your wife, because you will be a hedonist yourself.


Merriam-Webster says hedonism is "the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life." That means a hedonist would think sex with the missus is good BECAUSE it is pleasurable. I think it's good because God says it's good (or, at least, I believe God says so). That's NOT hedonism.

Man's effects on his surrounding only go so far. I can slap my neighbor and make him hurt, but I cannot change his skin color because I will it. Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect.

Of course, you seem to believe that man has free will over everything, and that is preposterous. That was my point. What is out of our free will, which includes the design of life, is perfect, because it was created by God. Otherwise, He's a sadistic individual, who creates people for the explicit purpose of suffering, which would be contrary to the idea of a loving God.

Again, man isn't all-powerful, but because he has SOME power over creation, and that small bit of power affects so much, it's enough to prevent the case that everything is perfectly congruous to God's will.

You say, "Just as I believe that the design of life is perfect, and that includes the design of free will, does not mean that I think that everything we do with it is perfect." Well, one of the things we do with our free will is affect a child in the womb - perhaps not to any great degree in most cases, but we do affect the child.

Bingo. I was waiting for this argument.

"Homosexuality, if it is genetic, is a geneological dead-end."

Well, what about those born infertile? Aren't they a geneological dead-end? And if sex is just for procreation, as you've implied, then I hope you never use birth control, because you'll be denying a potential child from being born, creating a "dead-end" from your sex act.

Of course, I'm speaking to someone with zero knowledge of genetics. Your black-and-white "male" and "female" (basically, XY and XX) leaves out a wide range of documented deviations from this over the centuries (so that leaves out "human interference" from technology), all of which are "geneological dead-ends." You have the intersexed, those born with male and female organs, but rendered infertile, because the same hormones that activate the sex organs also destroy one set of organs or the other. This is relatively very common amongst live births, but science generally surgically creates a "boy" or "girl." You have X women, XYY men, XXY people (incidentally, a lot of androgynous "female" supermodels are this--they are infertile), XXXY, etc.

God did not create just male and female! I believe God sees us as gender neutral, which is more than apparent from our fetus development, which is gender ambiguous, with male and female organs. Yes, Bubba, you had a uterus in your early development. If God was so very adamant about just having heterosexual males and females, He certainly would never have allowed any deviations from that to even have existed.

Once again, the limited mind of the human refuses to see beyond the black-and-white "male" and "female," despite the not-so-uncommon deviances that stare right at our faces!

Besides, with your argument, I think we should test all people to see if they are infertile before they get married. Then those who are infertile should be forced into celibacy and forbidden to marry, since any sex act they do will be counterproductive against procreation, since you've so very stated that sex is just for procreation, in not so many words.

Secondly, your belief on genetics is flawed. There are non-Mendellian genetics traits, such as "dwarfism" (I forget the scientific term), which is a dominant trait. Under Mendel's model of genetics, that means that anyone who carries that gene will be a "dwarf" as well. However, two "dwarfs" often create children who carry the dominant traits, but are still normal sized! However, six generations down the line, all of a sudden, that same dominant trait will create another "dwarf."

"Inheritance" is far more complex than you'd like to believe, and I wouldn't be surprised if homosexuality falls under this same premise. Hence, it would be very difficult to find a "gay gene," because straight people likely carry it as well, but, for some reason, do not express it.

Why would there be "geneological dead-ends?" Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.

I was ONLY pointing out the differences between left-handedness and homosexuality.

If that mad scientist argument from earlier was too different to be considered, so is left-handedness.

THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT.

NOT that sex is for procreation only, etc.

Other things you got wrong in the above quote:

God did not create just male and female!

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." - Mark 10:6-8.

Mary, in an apparition, stated that we are to never worry about artificial population control methods, for God will always provide so that will never happen. Maybe homosexuals, along with infertile heterosexuals, are God's natural way of reducing the birth rate, without artificial methods of birth control or abortion.

While this isn't wrong, per se, it's amusing that you're apparently putting so much faith in a reported vision when you put so little faith in the Bible.

Third, you've made it implicit that you believe that gays are not born that way. I don't like being lied to. If you really believed that, which doesn't surprise me, then why didn't you say so? Trust me...regardless of the origin, no one chooses their sexuality.

You misunderstand:

I don't know whether gays are born with the desires that they have. What I believe is that, if they are born with immoral homosexual desires, those desires were not part of God's original plan. BIG difference.

So easy to say on your Ivory Tower. You can leave this discussion and forget all about it, because it doesn't concern you. If there is reincarnation, I verily hope you end up gay in the next life. Then, let's see how you react to it.

I guess not everyone has empathy for those who aren't like them.

You JUST quoted me admitting anger issues - saying that there are moral laws that I myself would rather not follow - and you say I'm in an Ivory Tower? COME ON.

I don't know how this even applies to this thread, minus the latest detail where you finally revealed that you don't think people are born gay.

Secondly, assuming that your passage is true, the child would be the "victim," and would not be expected to live exactly like the "normal" people. We would make accomodations so that this person could live a happy and full life to the greatest extent humanly possible.

Yet, the same is not given to homosexuals, who are repeatedly denied compassion and told to be "normal" like everyone else. It would be like taking a thalidomide child, a victim of a human drug, born with "flippers" for arms and legs and told to stand up straight and walk. Or telling someone with asthma, a victim of environmental pollution created by humans, to stop weezing and breathe normally without medicine. Then publically berate both for not doing so.

Love is a basic element of humanity, which, for most people, is the reason why they even want to live. Love, in itself, serves no functional purpose. In fact, animals live life completely without love. However, to deny love to a human would be cruelty; the one element that seemingly separates us from being as banal as an animal. However, seeing the history of Christianity, cruelty seems to be right up its alley; all done in the "name of Jesus." I really doubt that both God and Jesus are so monolithic and ignorant of intention that they would deny an entire class of people love.

Now I have addressed it. Now are you going to ignore it and repeat that passage?

Again, I DON'T KNOW whether people are born gay. What I was rejecting was the idea that their being born gay is completely in line with God's will. AGAIN, BIG DIFFERENCE.

On the issue of expecting children with birth defects to be normal, etc., I'm NOT suggesting that a homosexual must fake heterosexual desires and get married. What I am suggesting is indulging the original homosexual desires is a sin and must be avoided.

Finally, homosexuals would be denied erotic love, and erotic love only. Erotic love isn't the only love - and it's not even the most important love.

Dammit...I feel like I'm arguing with a fool. Let's change it to a blue sky, instead of a purple sky, but keep the statement about chocolate rain falling from it. A blue sky and chocolate exist separately. An aged daughter and older father exist too. However, I don't know in what sick plain of reality you are on to think that this situation even occurs regularly, whereas a daughter and a father fall in deep passionate love and want to fuck each other. Of course, this was a "Jerry Springer" scenario, but it is well-known that his show is scripted with actors.

Chocolate rain and a purple sky are both possible. Volcanic ash can create a purple sky and chocolate can rain if someone chose to emit it from an airplane or something. Both scenarios, mine and yours, are possible, but are highly unlikely to happen.[/b]

You're getting frustrated? TAKE A NUMBER AND GET IN LINE.

YOU SAID incest is wrong because it involves a lack of consent and adultery. I offered a counterexample (the grown daughter and the widowed father), and YOU REPLIED that such a scenario is as likely as chocolate rain.

If you mean, "a grown daughter and a widowed father" is EXTRAORDINARILY rare, you've lost your sense of reality. About half of the married couples in the world have daughters, and in about half of those couples the wife dies first. So, the circumstances should be common.

If you mean, "a grown daughter and a widowed father engaged in incest" is rare, I AGREE, but it's beside the point. It's within the realm of reality, and I ask, why would it be wrong?

I contend incest is wrong because God says so. Thus, this instance of incest is wrong.

You contend incest is wrong because of consent and adultery. In the above case then, would incest be okay?

You are starting to get under my nerves. That aborted child was about to be created exactly as God intended, but a human interfered and killed it. The child, though, is not guilty of its own death.

If I take your words out of context, it is because you don't make any sense.

1) I'm not saying the CHILD is guilty of its own death; I'm saying those who KILLED him are guilty. Either way, human free will (in this case, THE MOTHER AND THE DOCTOR's free will) interfered with God's will.

2) If my words "don't make any sense", why would you take them out of context and make them less sensible?

UGH...my parents had a hand in my birth. I had no role in my birth, though. That is my point I've been trying to regurgitate to you for the last half of this argument!

But God does have His hand in birth. When a couple has sex, there are billions of different sperm and a constant cycle of different eggs. Humans do not choose which sperm fertilizes which egg. Hence, the parents do not choose which child they have!!!! I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when they're so adamantly convinced it is black.

If you have some supernatural ability to have the free will to choose your children and their traits someday, under the confines of nature (not technology), then please, for the love of God, leave us non-supernatural people alone.

ONCE AGAIN, I agree you didn't have any control over your own birth. And I agree that God had a hand in it - but NOT GOD ALONE. Humans contributed in your development, even in small ways, thus your condition at birth was probably not ENTIRELY within God's will.

I have but one more thing to add to this discussion, but that will wait for my next post (or two).

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-06-2002).]
 
Originally posted by melon:
Angela, Bubba doesn't think that gays are born that way. They are, in fact, choosing to like the same sex in some manner or the other to him. Hence, he thinks we are all created equally, but homosexuals are going against their nature; when, in fact, I think that they are part of nature just like straight people, not to mention that this same belief is expoused by science and even the Catholic Church (how funny that they are still homophobic). Some people will never agree.

Melon


Melon, don't speak on my behalf.

EVER.
 
Bubba and Melon,
This is just me and I'm not speaking for anybody else, but I gave up once they became overly long and repeditive
smile.gif
 
Back
Top Bottom