There are SOOOO MANY contradictions in the "good book". I can't believe how many smart people get in arguments over it! Tiring. Back to politics and off this thread!

(07-16-2012 10:34 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 09:47 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-15-2012 07:08 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(07-14-2012 12:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-14-2012 08:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Scripture be damned.... I want to feel nice!

Christ was not send to make God tolerant of sin, Christ was sent to be forgiven for it..

He did tell the harlot "Go head and Sin, I've got you covered", he said "go and sin no more". He also was very specific that he did not come to abolish the law!

If anything Jesus raised the bar for what is and is not sin.

He also didn't say ANYTHING about homosexuality. Not. One. Word.

Well, not so much. Only if you believe the Bible isn't the divinely inspired inerrant word of God. Kind of a requirement to be a Christian.

It absolutely isn't a requirement, and you're not addressing his question. Where did Jesus ever condemn homosexuality?

And Old Dirty, none of those scriptures are relevant and it concerns me that you actually think they somehow are.

It is a requirement. Specifically which parts do you not believe? Convenient ones I'm sure. See, the problem with people like you who call themselves Christians is you like to pick and choose what to believe so as not to conflict with how you want to live your life. If you believe the Holy Bible is the divinely inspired inerrant word of God then EVERYTHING written in it came from God and must be taken as such. The Trinity is no different. Belief in the Holy Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit) means they all(all are one) inspired the Bible. So when verses condemn homosexuality it came from God/Jesus/Holy Spirit. Gays don't like this but anything to make them feel better right? Living in unrepentant sin condemns them to Hell. Sad but true. Damnation is a choice they made.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

No, it isn't a requirement. The only thing that is required for christianity is a belief that christ is your lord and savior, anyone saying anything otherwise is a liar. I can certainly believe that portions of it were perverted throughout thousands of years and dozens of translations, that's my prerogative. Just as I don't think a woman should 'obey' her husband anymore than her husband should 'obey' his wife, I think there are other issues which were perverted by outside sources. The jesus who lived with prostitutes and tax collectors, who died for a world of sinners, isn't the same god which would punish homosexuals with a plague. Who would infect millions of children with a horrible virus for the sins of their parents.

As for your scripture quotes, the question was 'did Jesus say anything about homosexuality' Neither you nor Bull, have not addressed that in the least. I know the scriptures involving homosexuality, they're few and absurdly far between, but his question was specifically WHERE DOES JESUS CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?.

Compare the religious rights fervor and vitriol over gay marriage, as opposed to their views on the dozens of exceedingly wealthy televangelists/mega-pastors which make money through the exploitation of their religion. The one time Jesus showed anger in the entire bible, it was over those exploiting religion for profit. I get that some people have different views about christianity and homosexuality than I do, and see it as an undeniable sin, that is a concept I get and can understand. What I cannot grasp is the inconsistency they have for putting so much anger and energy into something that is mentioned at most a handful of times in the bible, while at the same time giving lip service towards the subjects that jesus actually preached about. Jesus didn't scream at the pharisees for allowing homosexuality, he didn't flip tables in the temple because they were promoting gay marriage, he did so because they were abusing christianity as a way to make money. The only valid explanation I've ever found is that they're simply using christianity as a shield for their own bigotry, because the amount of focus put onto gay issues in general certainly isn't defensible from a religious standpoint when taken into context of the amount it's addressed in the bible.

Quote:It concerns me that you think parts of the Bible you find 'icky' and unpopular are non important..

I find those that are consistent with jesus's actual teachings to be the most important, yes. I guess it's just my silly little opinion that the words and actions of the son of god, and the namesake of the religion itself, should be taken to heart and valued over portions of the old testament.

(07-16-2012 12:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it isn't a requirement. The only thing that is required for christianity is a belief that christ is your lord and savior, anyone saying anything otherwise is a liar.

To believe Christ is your savior you have to know who he is...

Quote:I can certainly believe that portions of it were perverted throughout thousands of years and dozens of translations, that's my prerogative.

Or the fact you're too lazy to really study it, you know use the origional text and a concordance.

Quote:Just as I don't think a woman should 'obey' her husband anymore than her husband should 'obey' his wife, I think there are other issues which were perverted by outside sources.

Umm the call for spousal submission has been perverted by both sides! both those that think this means hubby always gets his way and those who think the husband should not be the head of the household..

Quote:The jesus who lived with prostitutes and tax collectors, who died for a world of sinners, isn't the same god which would punish homosexuals with a plague.

"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matt 10:34)

Jesus came to offer redemption from sins, not to excuse them.

Quote:Who would infect millions of children with a horrible virus for the sins of their parents.

Quote:As for your scripture quotes, the question was 'did Jesus say anything about homosexuality' Neither you nor Bull, have not addressed that in the least.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT RELEVANT!

Christ did not address thousands of individual sins, that does not take what was a sin and make it ok. Else there is a whole lot of sick nad evil crap that can be ok as well.

Quote:I know the scriptures involving homosexuality, they're few and absurdly far between

They are more prominent than pedophilia.

Quote:but his question was specifically WHERE DOES JESUS CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY?.

WHERE DOES JESUS CONDEMN PEDOPHELIA

Quote:Compare the religious rights fervor and vitriol over gay marriage, as opposed to their views on the dozens of exceedingly wealthy televangelists/mega-pastors which make money through the exploitation of their religion.

You'll get no argument from me here, though two wrongs don't make a right and the fact that televangalist are sinning does not make homosexual acts any less sinful.

Quote:The one time Jesus showed anger in the entire bible, it was over those exploiting religion for profit.

Umm Yelling at peter to get back and calling him Satan was certainly anger. Mark 3:5 says that His anger was attended by grief over the Pharisees’ lack of faith.

I believe you mean the only time Jesus was physically violent was in the Temple.

Quote:What I cannot grasp is the inconsistency they have for putting so much anger and energy into something that is mentioned at most a handful of times in the bible, while at the same time giving lip service towards the subjects that jesus actually preached about.

Perhaps because most sins as Christians see them are seen by society as wrong. Even those that get a pass, adultry, are not seen as things to be celebrated.

Sin no longer has teeth after the cross, but unrepentant sin does.

Quote:I find those that are consistent with jesus's actual teachings to be the most important, yes. I guess it's just my silly little opinion that the words and actions of the son of god, and the namesake of the religion itself, should be taken to heart and valued over portions of the old testament.

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."

I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Know what?

I own a Bible, and I read my Bible and I don't want any elected officiial anywhere legislating out of it.

That's what we have a constitution for.

This is where fundamentalists lose guys like me. My faith is between me and God, not me, some sanctimonious blowhard, and God.

(07-16-2012 04:26 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Know what?

I own a Bible, and I read my Bible and I don't want any elected officiial anywhere legislating out of it.

That's what we have a constitution for.

This is where fundamentalists lose guys like me. My faith is between me and God, not me, some sanctimonious blowhard, and God.

I agree, if you're saying that we shouldn't legislate a religious cermony (marriage) to be required against it's own teachings.

Kinda like making the Catholics pay for birth control... but that was done.

(07-17-2012 08:59 AM)OLD DIRTY Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 04:26 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Know what?

I own a Bible, and I read my Bible and I don't want any elected officiial anywhere legislating out of it.

That's what we have a constitution for.

This is where fundamentalists lose guys like me. My faith is between me and God, not me, some sanctimonious blowhard, and God.

I agree, if you're saying that we shouldn't legislate a religious cermony (marriage) to be required against it's own teachings.

Kinda like making the Catholics pay for birth control... but that was done.

Buuuuuut, that's never been legislated nor attempted to be legislated in any legitimate manner.

(07-16-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Nope, just a methodist who staunchly believes that ones personal relationship with the bible, and the meanings they gain from that, is the most important aspect of christianity.

I thought this thread was about the war on drugs? Im going to need some drugs if yall keep on with this religious crap.

Well you know how these things go, Old Dirty says some homophobic remarks, I respond, next thing you know we're debating the validity of our theories regarding who was really the boss in the late-80's classic tv show "Who's the Boss?"

(07-17-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Nope, just a methodist who staunchly believes that ones personal relationship with the bible, and the meanings they gain from that, is the most important aspect of christianity.

Actually the most important aspect is the belief that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead after three days clean. But when you start picking things out of the Bible you don't believe, that calls everything to question. You're one of those people who only believe what they want to or what can be easily explained. Jesus doesn't fit in your box no matter how you try to squeeze Him in there. You can't mold Christianity to fit your lifestyle. You watch too much Oprah. Gays are going to Hell. Not because I said so but because God says so. I for one would rather they didn't. But unless they turn away that is their fate...and one they must want. They know the consequences but still do it. It's like the child who knows he will get spanked it he steals another cookie but steals one anyway. He must have wanted to be spanked. Or the cookie was worth it. Maybe eternal damnation is worth it...to them.

(07-17-2012 02:31 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Well you know how these things go, Old Dirty says some homophobic remarks, I respond, next thing you know we're debating the validity of our theories regarding who was really the boss in the late-80's classic tv show "Who's the Boss?"

Alyssa Milano, who, it bears pointing out, filled out nicely.

So very nicely.

(07-17-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Nope, just a methodist who staunchly believes that ones personal relationship with the bible, and the meanings they gain from that, is the most important aspect of christianity.

So then if someone else's "personal relationship with the bible" reveals pedophilia is ok you'll back them up? I mean when did Jesus ever talk about it? The versus dealing with it are very few and far between, and who the hell are you to question their relationship?

(07-17-2012 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Nope, just a methodist who staunchly believes that ones personal relationship with the bible, and the meanings they gain from that, is the most important aspect of christianity.

So then if someone else's "personal relationship with the bible" reveals pedophilia is ok you'll back them up? I mean when did Jesus ever talk about it? The versus dealing with it are very few and far between, and who the hell are you to question their relationship?

Where did I ever argue for complete religious freedom which is exempt from societal laws? I'm interested about this, because I've actually argued the exact opposite stance in two cases I can think of off the top of my head, and those were quite recent (the whole catholic church/birth control idiocy and the tax-exempt status of churches).

(07-17-2012 02:33 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Gays are going to Hell. Not because I said so but because God says so.

The one word of wisdom that UCF has put out there (even a broken clock) it's that too many Christians pick a pet sin to really hate at the expense of others.

In person I tend not to lean too much on picking up one sin because even a straight, married, upstanding person is deserving of hell for *something*. When you start trying to share the gospel with someone and lead with *you're gay so you're going to hell* it takes away from the fact that all sin does it.

It's just the way its perceived. Were I talking to an unsaved homosexual I would not mention their homosexuality as a reason for needing Christ unless they being it up. The fact they cheat on their taxes, or hate in their heart is enough.

Quote:I for one would rather they didn't. But unless they turn away that is their fate...and one they must want. They know the consequences but still do it.

I would speak clearly here. It's not the homosexual inclination that damns one to hell, it's the unrepentant practice. There will be Gay people in heaven, of that I have no doubt (just as their will be drug addicts, alcoholics, and people who struggle with pedophilia).

They will be the people who struggled with these sins, who saw they were sins, who abstained as much as they could from them, and leaned on Christ in doing so.

So you were arguing taxing churches was about religious freedom?

BY READING THIS POST YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IMATY IS THE LAST GREAT CRUSADER FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE SO HELP YOU GOD.

(07-17-2012 02:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Buuuuuut, that's never been legislated nor attempted to be legislated in any legitimate manner.

Quote: It’s come to this…
Religious people and Christians who refuse to marry gays can get sued thanks to the new gay marriage law.
So much for freedom of religion.
The New York Post reported:

Call them New York’s Refuseniks.

Rosemary Centi has per formed marriage ceremonies in upstate Guilderland for the past 10 years, hitching hundreds of satisfied men and women. For good, she hopes.

This morning, Centi (pictured) is doing her last wedding.

“I am Catholic,” she told me, “and my definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a sacrament.”

Laura Fotusky has joined couples in holy matrimony in the tiny upstate town of Barker for four years. Her run ends Thursday.

“I’m a Christian,” Fotusky told me. “As a Christian, I have to follow the word of God.”

Until I told Fotusky about Centi, she didn’t know her sister in protest existed. But these women are paired by a deep, spiritual bond. One that defies New York’s Marriage Equality Act, which takes effect Sunday.

Centi and Fotusky refuse to wed people of the same sex. After praying and agonizing for weeks, each public servant came to an identical conclusion: They’d rather quit than unite.

On July 11, Fotusky, 57, wrote an emotional letter to Barker officials. She resigned as town clerk of the hamlet near Buffalo, which has a population of just over 2,700. Her resignation takes effect Thursday, three days before gay marriage becomes the law of the state…

“I believe that there is a higher law than the law of the land,” Fotusky wrote to town officials. “It is the law of God in the Bible.”

A gay couple denied service by a DJ, not to mention a florist or wedding band, has grounds to sue in Civil Court, a Cuomo spokesman told me.

Fotusky has learned, to her amazement, that she has no right to religious freedom in her home state.

“I was struggling so much with making the decision” whether to resign, she said. “It was a matter of conviction.

“And if you really believe, you have to act on it. As a Christian, I have to follow the word of God.”

It’s an Obama world.

(07-17-2012 02:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 02:41 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(07-17-2012 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(07-16-2012 02:21 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  I beleive UCF practices something of a Christomonism or perhaps he is a Tritheist

(07-16-2012 02:11 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  I thought my explanation of the Trinity and the Bible was me explaining that Jesus did in fact condemn homosexuality and people never run out of scripture taken out of context (referring to your "submissive" claim). The greedy "ministers" will have to answer for their sins one day just like the gays.

Nope, just a methodist who staunchly believes that ones personal relationship with the bible, and the meanings they gain from that, is the most important aspect of christianity.

So then if someone else's "personal relationship with the bible" reveals pedophilia is ok you'll back them up? I mean when did Jesus ever talk about it? The versus dealing with it are very few and far between, and who the hell are you to question their relationship?

Where did I ever argue for complete religious freedom which is exempt from societal laws?

So your provision against pedophilia is based only on societies laws? mans laws? So if those laws change its ok with you?