Homosexuality is an abomination to god?

[fluffy]

Ability to pay. Those within the church who are able to pay more should certainly do so, it takes the pressure off the less fortunate. It's the same as outside, where taxes go up with income (and expenditures) and those who can pay do so to help support the social programs that help those less fortunate. In my eye, those in the outside world who make money far beyond their personal needs but go to great effort to avoid taxes are the non-religious equivalent of sinners.

I think you're talking about hypocrisy within the church Thinktank, those who sit piously in the pews as if to say that simply being there and tossing a twoonie in the plate lets them go about their dirty little lives as they please for the rest of the week.

[bigchef]

Cute, but just don't actually use this as an argument with someone who does follow what the Bible says. Why? Because Christians are not under the law and certain things have been repeated as to what to do and not do and how God feels about them.

I'm personally not giving you my opinion on this subject,but just in case someone thought they could use this cute letter as a defense, they can't, that is unless they're orthodox jews and then they can.

I know you said you're not offering an opinion on the thread itself, but your knowledge of the word of Jesus is lacking. This is a direct quote from the New Testament:

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

That being said I am often baffled how Christians can twist or ignore the words of GOD to meet their own purposes. It has happened over and over again over the centuries but as this thread is about homosexuality, I will use gay marriage as an example.

Myself, I am all for gay marriage, but I am not a Christian and am not bound by the rules of any book. Christians on the other hand are. It is VERY clear that homosexuality is an abomination according to the bible. Therefore Christians, under no circumstances, are to accept this behaviour.

However (and here's the interesting part) with the power of the internet and social marketing these days, the push for equality in gay marriage is winning, as far as acceptance is concerned, and winning quickly. Public opinion is changing so quickly that if you are not changing with it , you will be left behind. So, of course we see a huge proportion of Christians taking the side of equality because if not, they themselves will end up being the persecuted ones.

So, Christians find themselves in a bit of a conundrum. Follow the word of God and be a good Christian, or follow public opinion and don't be Christian at all. They can't have it both ways. Or can they? Of course they can. The powers that be within the churches will just re-analyze the bible and find some vague sentence that will allow them to do both. And then all the Christians can feel good about themselves again.

[fluffy]

So, Christians find themselves in a bit of a conundrum. Follow the word of God and be a good Christian, or follow public opinion and don't be Christian at all. They can't have it both ways. Or can they? Of course they can. The powers that be within the churches will just re-analyze the bible and find some vague sentence that will allow them to do both.

I think we will find the numbers within Christian churches skew towards those sects that dispense with a literal belief in the bible in favour of just what you state, an freedom to reconcile biblical lore with known fact. I've said before that the bible contains a lot of decent moral lessons, but the fact that it contains so much that stretches believability beyond today's limits, along with a lot of outdated content due to blatant sexism, racism, and social intolerance is giving rise to a lot of christians seeking more liberal surroundings. A less stringent view of the bible, more of a work of fictional parables rather than an accurate historical account, leaves the reader the option of going with his own interpretation of the ideas therein, the choice to take what they need and leave the rest. The "if you're not with us you're against us" churches are going to be looking at increasingly empty pews.

[Glacier]

That being said I am often baffled how Christians can twist or ignore the words of GOD to meet their own purposes. It has happened over and over again over the centuries but as this thread is about homosexuality, I will use gay marriage as an example.

Myself, I am all for gay marriage, but I am not a Christian and am not bound by the rules of any book. Christians on the other hand are. It is VERY clear that homosexuality is an abomination according to the bible. Therefore Christians, under no circumstances, are to accept this behaviour.

According to those who claim to have near-death experiences, and go to heaven, most Christians aren't going there. eg. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wivgDck1l88

I agree with you that there are some liberal Christians who do support gay marriage, but there is big difference between endorsing a behavior and endorsing the legal status. For example, Bill O'Rilley, a Catholic, says that gay marriage should be legal, but he is by no means endorsing the behavior.

The same reasoning goes for drug legalization. The debate (among both the religious and non-religious) is not whether or not drugs are bad, but rather whether or not they are bad enough to trump individual freedoms.

[bigchef]

Yes, and I should clarify. I meant I am not bound by the rules of any book of religion. The Criminal Code of Canada on the other hand...lol

[sunshine11]

... there is big difference between endorsing a behavior and endorsing the legal status. For example, Bill O'Rilley, a Catholic, says that gay marriage should be legal, but he is by no means endorsing the behavior.
The same reasoning goes for drug legalization. The debate (among both the religious and non-religious) is not whether or not drugs are bad, but rather whether or not they are bad enough to trump individual freedoms.

I think you just NAILED it. That is the point of distinction, isn't it? Just because your belief system does not allow gay marriage, gay sexual practice, gay identity, does that mean that YOUR belief system should be FORCED onto others?

It is the same argument with ABORTION, excepting that where this thread started with the Bible specifically condemning homosexuality (and how can people who believe that the Bible is the Word of God reconcile that), the Bible SPECIFICALLY condones abortion and the killing of babies and pregnant women. In fact there is not a single verse that literally condemns abortion, yet Christians desire to FORCE their personal religious beliefs onto the rest of secular society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREEDOM FROM RELIGIOUS COERCION IS A HUMAN RIGHT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also realize that fully 85% of Americans claim religious belief to be substantial or very substantial to their daily lives. The spill-over effect from their superstitious culture erodes our more secular identity causing these kind of discussions as if the supposed heart of democracy and freedom (snicker) was more closer aligned with Theocratic Fascist Iran than with our English/European democratic roots.

[Hmmm]

(Big chef) the scriptures that you quoted actually say the Jesus fulfilled the law. When you fulfill an obligation yourself do you move on or keep at it? The law had a purpose and it was fulfilled. Just like it stated in what you quoted. There's no twisting on my end. I'm sorry but a quick google search and copy/paste does not replace 28 years of deep study.

Believe me when I say, I would follow the Mosaic Law if it was in effect but it is no longer. I'm very familiar with the purpose of it as states in the Bible and it was fulfilled in Jesus. It serves no more purpose. It kept the nation clean and seperate in order to produce the Messiah. It also showed that everyone needed what Jesus provided.
Jesus did give a new law. I do my best to follow that one.

[bigchef]

28 of 2000 years you say? That's astounding. Then you must know, reading all historical documents on the subject, that the bible is comprised of stories and the probability that Jesus ever existed in the first place is slim to none. But let's say for a second that he did, and that his word was, in fact, the word of God. It is irrelevant because societies have twisted and skewed this alleged word to suit their own political purposes. I could take the next 5 years citing examples but i already can tell you do not approve of copy/paste (must be a law in the bible) and as you have studied the word of God for 28 years then you already know of the examples i speak. Oh wait, that would actually take a degree or 2 in history , not theology. Personally I would rather not embarrass you by debating the history of religion over the past 10,000 years. I have better things to do.

[fluffy]

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "word of god" thing. It's just so hard to properly check credentials in these situations.

[grammafreddy]

I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "word of god" thing. It's just so hard to properly check credentials in these situations.

Fluffy - that's where blind faith, brainwashing and terrorism come in. You are not supposed to question.

[Poindexter]

Faith is how you repay god on the IOU he wrote all of us when his son died for your sins. You're just being ungrateful.

But seriuosly, faith is a form of hypnosis and from what I've learned, some can be hypnotized and others can't. I attended a party once where they brought in hypnotist and it worked wonders on some but had no affect whatesoever on others. Some of us don't have the ability to turn off doubt while others are able to shed preconceived notions when implied to do so. There are times when I'd like to garner some faith, but if the consequence is clucking like a chicken at a party I may just pass on it.

[cliffy1]

Faith is how you repay god on the IOU he wrote all of us when his son died for your sins. You're just being ungrateful.

But seriuosly, faith is a form of hypnosis and from what I've learned, some can be hypnotized and others can't. I attended a party once where they brought in hypnotist and it worked wonders on some but had no affect whatesoever on others. Some of us don't have the ability to turn off doubt while others are able to shed preconceived notions when implied to do so. There are times when I'd like to garner some faith, but if the consequence is clucking like a chicken at a party I may just pass on it.

It takes faith just to get out of bed in the morning. Faith doesn't have anything to do with religion. What most religious call faith is just the unquestioning belief in something unprovable. Real faith is nothing more than a trust in life. If you don't have that kind of faith, it usually ends in suicide.

[fluffy]

[What most religious call faith is just the unquestioning belief in something unprovable.

Which if you look at it closely is just close-mindedness, the same thing you get at the other extreme, hardline atheism. I always thought that if something is unprovable then it's best to keep ones options open, at least until something of a more definitive nature comes along.

[sunshine11]

I believe the verse that Christians most use from the New Testament to dismiss having to comply with the law of the Old, is when Jesus says that: it is not what you put into your mouth that is unclean, but what comes out. This is interpreted as Jesus dismissing dietary law (no pork, snails, shrimp) and replacing it with a condemnation of religious hypocrisy. Further, that Old Testament Judaic law could be replaced by Christian interpretations of what was God's proscriptions.

That is why today, Christians are able to pick and chose what verses support their belief systems as being "The Word of God," and which to dismiss as no longer relevant. Or which are the words of the Bible writers and not God's word. See my Letters to the Editor, Daily Courier, Jan 4, 2010, and Feb 8, 2010 which clearly demonstrate this hypocrisy amongst the religious anti-abortion movement. (Sorry my computer is killed or I would post them for you.)

The point being that verses which clearly promote the killing of fetuses babies and pregnant mothers are dismissed by the religious anti-abortionists as merely men's words, while verses taken out of context and having nothing literal to do with abortion are magically reinterpreted as God's word against abortion and/or legalized assisted suicide. These letters ask: who gets to chose which words in the Bible are men's words and which are God's?

Of course the answer being, according to ultra-conservative R.E.A.L. Women's spokesperson Mary Strangward when similarly pressed, "anybody can make the Bible say anything they want."

CASE CLOSED.

[sunshine11]

Most Christians have never read the Bible as a BOOK, you know from the beginning to the end, so they haven't a clue what the story is except what the minister/priest tells them by sewing together a disparate collection of verses all taken out of context and creating a religious spin.

In fact, with a little exposure to Biblical scholarship. you will realize that is how the belief system of the New Testament was assembled by its writers: disparate pieces of OT spin and religious symbols popular at the time (virgin birth) sewn together to create a new religious story. While this does not negate the story, it does mean that we need to be careful about what we call THE WORD OF GOD. I mean something must of happened to generate this Jesus story.

(Ask yourself why was the early church so desperate to deify Jesus, when Jesus is recorded multiple times describing himself as the "Son of Man?" And why would a faith that claims to be Monotheistic twist itself into knots attempting to create what looks like a three-god system? And why were verses that support this twisting trinity found to have been added by the evolving church and now have now been removed from current editions of the Bible, yet the verse count was changed to hide the fact that these verses were removed?)

If you really want to know what the Bible is all about, READ IT like a book. You are allowed to skim through the sections on lifestyle (e.g.: menses and bathing) and sacrificial laws, but still do try to read these close enough to get an idea of what is being said. You may be embarrassed by all the sexual references in the Song of Solomon, but please do persevere. And do read a modern translation!

Until you do so, as a religious person, you have been, as someone already said, hypothesized by the spin-meisters. And until then, your personal religious opinions on public matters are worthless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone can have an opinion; but are yours INFORMED?