Jesus on Marriage...

[mal]

peace...

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is, in the Buddhist view, nothing uniquely wicked about sexual offenses or failings.

Precepts on conduct are not commandments, they are undertakings for mind training, for exercising some restraint. The purpose of the precept on sexual misconduct is to bring desire into some kind of balance. Rigid puritanism and total permisseness are considered extreme views to be avoided. The Buddha emphasizes the Middle Way.

In the Christian tradition, marriage is usually termed a "sacrament." In some branches of Christianity it is treated as an indissoluble bond.

In Buddhism, marriage is not a "sacrament," as such a concept does not exist.

More at link:


Buddhism and Sex

 

[Foxfyre]

Now if you have found a great church where you are comfortable and have fellowship and it gives you strength within the Lord, well Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I am happy for you. Personally, I have yet to find one that isn't a coffee klatch or so filled with ritual that the meaning and passion is lost.....and trust me....I have looked.

You know I'm a fan of yours Blue, but if you have looked and have never found a church that wasn't a coffee klatch or so filled with ritual that the meaning and passion is lost, you haven't looked hard enough.

(There ARE no perfect church denominations or church congregations because every single one of them are made up of imperfect people. So to look for perfection among the imperfect is going to be a fool's errand every time. Neverthless, God has used some very imperfect people through the ages to accomplish some amazing things. I know of no Atheist or agnostic organizations that are running soup kitchens, homeless shelters, thrift shops, leper colonies, and selflessly serving the most hopeless of people in some of the world's seemingly most hopeless places. Such are almost always staffed and held together by imperfect Christians funded by imperfect churches.)

 

[Newby]

Well, in reading your summation, there is one very important thing that is missing throughout the entire thing. You talk about what 'you' do over and over, how you study, look at history, confer with 'experts', etc... yet you made not one mention of just reading the Bible and relying on the Holy Spirit to guide you in your reading, you do not mention prayer once throughout it either, asking God for clarification and understanding. You only rely on your own intellect or research, and nothing else. To me, that's a big indication that you look at the Bible in an entirely different light than I do. The spiritual aspect isn't mentioned at all among your words, so I think in all your intellectual study of the book, you're missing the most important aspect of it.

And you would be incorrect. I spend a great deal of time in prayer and meditation asking for confirmation of the conclusions I have reached. I just figured that part was kind of a given, you know?

Fair enough, and I hope that you do, but it did seem like it was an after thought for you.

And how can you so blindly make a statement such as the one I bolded? How long has it been since you've attended a church? A guy 'wearing a robe?' Sounds like you haven't been in a church in over 30 years.

Actually a little over a year. The pastor was wearing jeans and a Trailblazers t-shirt. You miss the point. It's a generalized statement about authority figures.

Then why make 'the guy wearing robes' comment over and over again if you know that's a dishonest representation? It just makes you appear to have an agenda to belittle and disrespect.

But what I see in those words is disrespect and condescension. On one hand you say to have an 'open mind', but on the other, it appears to me that yours is closed. You make assumptions about people, label them, and then put them down by calling them blind sheep because you don't agree with how you *think* they practice their religion. And I say how you think they practice, because in reality you have absolutely no idea what these people do in their day to day lives. I can tell you that you are comletely and 100% wrong based from my own experiences in my own church. Perhaps you should take the blinders off and visit a few churches before you make such broad based assumptions about Christians today.

Oh I see "Christians" on a daily basis. Like any group there are those who follow their faith, and there are those who only profess to. I have been to far too many churches that claimed to be so full of the Holy Spirit and listened to them gossip like hens behind each other's backs, question the faith of those who didn't show up for services that day, talk trash about how this person is not as holy as they are, how that person is surely going to hell because they haven't quit smoking yet, blah, blah, blah. Pffft....Christians my ass. Those kind of Christians I can do without.

I can honestly say I've never been to a church like that. It's a frequent description given by those who disparage churches and christians on a continual basis, which is why I've placed you in that category to begin with. I just have my doubts as to the honesty of the claim since I've never personally experienced it, and given that I do and have attended church regularly, I've had more experience to draw from than you have.

Then you have your Christians who go through the ceremony without feeling, without really paying attention, without really caring and they do it because they figure that's what they are supposed to do. "God wants us to go to church so ok, here I am...now let's get this over with so I can be forgiven and get back to the football game." Might as well just stay home. They are wasting their time.

There are some who fit that description, but is that a reflection of the church, Christ, or the Bible? Not really...

Now there are other Christians who don't do that kind of stuff. They pray, they seek God, they grow within Her guidance, and for the most part they mind their own business and let others do the same. Unfortunately, you don't meet a lot of them at church because usually they are just as sick of the other kinds as I am.

And that fits the description of the majority of christians that I know. Go figure...

Now at certain times in my life I have been all three of these kinds of Christians because the journey is dynamic and so I look at all these people and generally I don't get involved. I don't get in someone's face and tell them to pay attention to the sermon, or really try to force them to do one thing or the other. It's between them and God and I figure when I can walk on water then I can tell other people how to live their lives.

So, you see no call to discipleship in the Bible? I might also point out that there is nothing promoting 'force' either.

But I will get involved when I see "Christians" attacking those who do not share their faith or attempting to degrade and oppress a group of people for their own religious purposes. Especially when I know good and well that their reasons for doing so are not supported by scripture. So when it comes to issues about homosexuality, I will get strongly involved in that fight because as an American I am not going to sit idly by and watch the United States Constitution get trashed and American citizens denied their rights based upon a religious perception that doesn't have a shred of Biblical evidence to support it.

But you don't get involved whenever you see your faith being attacked? This thread, if I'm in the right one , is a discussion about Jesus condoning homosexual relationships. I didn't see any degrading or oppression going on at all, just an attempt to discuss what Christ taught on the matter? Do you see anyone questioning whether or not homosexual behavior is condoned by God as an attack? This thread was also not about the Constitution or anything to do with civil law.

As far as not having evidence in scripture to support it, we part ways there. Any kind of lust or sexual activity outside of marriage was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Are you claiming that it never was?

Now if you look over my posts you will see that never did I call anyone out by name (at least I don't think I did) and never did I say specifically that "this person is a good Christian" or "that person is a bad Christian". That's not the point I am trying to make. You will notice I use a lot of words like "most", "many", "usually", etc. You take that to mean "all", "every", and "always", but that is in error. I try very hard to avoid speaking in absolutes because absolutes are rarely accurate.

'Most' and 'Many' aren't that very different from an absolute.

Now if you have found a great church where you are comfortable and have fellowship and it gives you strength within the Lord, well Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I am happy for you. Personally, I have yet to find one that isn't a coffee klatch or so filled with ritual that the meaning and passion is lost.....and trust me....I have looked.

I don't think you're looking very hard.

 

[Sky Dancer]

There is nothing "sinful" about sex. If we make mistakes, we should recognize them and try to avoid repeating them, but we should not develop guilt-complexes about them.

Sexual lapses are not uniquely wicked, and in fact all but the grosser forms of sexual misconduct are probably on the whole less harmful socially than a lot of other things many people do. But it should be borne in mind that sex does usually involve at least one other person, and potentially the next generation. In this respect it is strictly incumbent on us at all times to act responsibly which means compassionately. Otherwise, the physical and emotional consequences for somebody may be very serious.

Buddhism and Sex

This is what makes sense to me.

 

[Buford]

Jesus made one statement about men and women joining. Most of the rest of the Bible quotes in this thread are not from the NT. Jesus did not teach on homosexuality one way or another.

He also didn't teach on drunkeness and gluttony, yet both are condemned in the Scriptures. Jesus said marriage is a man and a woman. Deal with it.

I deal with it just fine. I left the RCC to practice Buddhism. Here is the Third Precept on Sexual Misconduct:

"Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I undertake to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long- term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct."

Thich Nhat Hanh

Absent is any admonition that homosexuality is a sin. That's how I deal with Jesus. He's not my main teacher. Buddhist precepts on sexual misconduct are the same whether addressing homosexuals or heterosexuals. My wife and I were married by my Buddhist Lama with my entire Buddhist community present as witness and support.

Wonderful. People looking for a religous comfort zone can always find it.

 

[Newby]

Sorry, but now you just sound like your average everyday Christian basher with an agenda. Every preacher or pastor is not out to lie to you, from personal experience I've known many people with theological degrees who study Greek, they study the culture and history of Bibilical times, etc... I don't know where you get your information about what exactly someone with a theology degree is educated in, but I don't think you're accurately representing those who have spent years at school studying what you claim to have studied on your own. If you can't acknowledge that, then all you have is bias and an agenda to go with it.

I think you misunderstand. I have no problem at all with Christianity. I think it's awesome. I have a very big problem with organized churches who misrepresent things (often knowingly) in order to keep their pockets lined and maintain the obedience of the people...and I hate to tell you this sister...but that is not uncommon.

I never said that every preacher or pastor is out to deceive. Some of them are fantastic...but a lot of them aren't. Some of them do study ancient languages and cultures....most of them don't.

Furthermore, as a college professor I will be quick to point out that course work is great but it should not be taken by itself. Professors are going to teach according to their own biases just like anyone else...and they learned what they know from people with other biases just like everyone else.

So no....I have no problem with Christians or Christianity in general. I love the Lord and my search in life has been to become closer with Her. I love Jesus and praise His name....but what Jesus said and what Paul said are sometimes completely opposite. What Jesus said and what Billy Graham says are often polar opposites.

From my experience and research, I have concluded that Christianity as it is practiced today is FAR different than what Jesus was talking about and how it was practiced shortly after his death. You are perfectly free to conclude something else. At the end of the day I really don't care what someone else believes so long as they believe it because they have reached their conclusion through research, meditation, prayer, communication with the spirit, whatever. If it works for someone and gives them meaning in their lives then who am I to tell them they are wrong? What annoys the hell out of me is when people believe what they do because someone in a robe told them to believe it, they never questioned it, they never challenged it, they never researched it, and they go around hammering the shit out of everyone else as a result.

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today? And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs? Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Bump for BP...

 

[Newby]

There is nothing "sinful" about sex. If we make mistakes, we should recognize them and try to avoid repeating them, but we should not develop guilt-complexes about them.

Sexual lapses are not uniquely wicked, and in fact all but the grosser forms of sexual misconduct are probably on the whole less harmful socially than a lot of other things many people do. But it should be borne in mind that sex does usually involve at least one other person, and potentially the next generation. In this respect it is strictly incumbent on us at all times to act responsibly which means compassionately. Otherwise, the physical and emotional consequences for somebody may be very serious.

Buddhism and Sex

This is what makes sense to me.

Sounds like preaching to me... you aren't telling others how to live their lives, are you sky?

 

[BluePhantom]

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

Newby, good Lord, it's not specific denominations. There are those (Catholics for example) wherein you must have formal training in such things before becoming a priest. There are others (Mormon and Baptist for example) where you don't. But that's beside the point. It's not an issue of "denominations", it's an issue of people. Pastors and priests are people too and some of them study very deeply and some of them don't. It cuts across all denominations not just one.

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today?

That is a thread unto itself and I could go on for several pages answering that question. The short answer is that the differences are vast and it really depends on the time frame you are talking about. But shortly after the death of Jesus basically what you had was the spread of his ministry but they all took different paths. Thee was no Bible as we know it today. One group would use a given collection of books, another group would use a different collection of books, and there were power struggles regarding who was going to lead all this. Peter and Paul specifically struggled for power and indeed in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter warns not to pay too much attention to Paul. The reason why is open for interpretation but the basic gist of it is that if you pay too much attention to Paul it will lead you to destruction.

Everything changed when Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of Rome. Christianity became "Romanized" and Paul became the major influence on Christian thought. IL pointed out earlier that people were killed for having copies of banned books. This is absolutely true. After the canon was standardized at the Third Council of Carthage, owning a copy of Thomas or James or Mary was eventually met with a swift execution not only of you, but sometimes your entire family if they refused to renounce you.

You really started to see a major shift in Christian philosophy and it stopped being about communication with the Holy Spirit, growing within the spirit of God, etc and it started to become about obedience and order. This makes sense because a Roman Emperor demands order and obedience and the writings of Paul are so easily manipulated that they are the perfect catalyst through which to control the people.

I mean seriously I could go on forever with the differences but the main point is that the focus changed from personal communion with God to power and control.

And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs?

I am not sure "superior" is the right word. I would argue that it's more in depth, it's more thorough, it takes more things into account, and it probably leads to a deeper understanding of scriptures that can enhance a personal understanding of and relationship with God. On the other hand it can really lead to a crisis of faith. It can be pretty brutal to find out that a given concept that you have held onto all your life and gave you intense meaning was a bunch of bullshit that was literally just fucking made up by some asshole Pope or king in order to control the people. That aspect of it can really suck.

Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Disregard? No...and it's not that I necessarily have a bias against Paul. It's that I know his writing have been so spun and twisted that it becomes hard to tell anymore what is Paul and what is bullshit attributed to Paul. So when I read Paul I don't just toss it over my shoulder, but I look for large themes and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the minutia. His writings are simply far too unreliable and problematic as a source of information for me to take small details from and base my life on. So I have to look for the grand overall theme and even that can be difficult at times, because in some places, it's simply not clear what he is referring to.

 

[mal]

Two Dishonest and Dismissive Trolls... One picking the fleas off the other's back.

Classic.



peace...

And that's STILL better than being a hater, and using the Bible to beat people up.

We are to Share the Word... Not Selectively Hide the Truth from Certain Sinners...

Or outright LIE to them about what the Book says.

A Dangerous Path you Follow if you are calling yourself a Christian.

Jesus never Spoke about his Father's Disgust with Homosexuality... Or Beastiality...

Which are Listed together in Moral Law.

Does Jesus Approve of both or either?...

Does Jesus Condone Sin?

Can you Answer those Questions?



peace...

peace...

 

[mal]

There is nothing "sinful" about sex. If we make mistakes, we should recognize them and try to avoid repeating them, but we should not develop guilt-complexes about them.

Sexual lapses are not uniquely wicked, and in fact all but the grosser forms of sexual misconduct are probably on the whole less harmful socially than a lot of other things many people do. But it should be borne in mind that sex does usually involve at least one other person, and potentially the next generation. In this respect it is strictly incumbent on us at all times to act responsibly which means compassionately. Otherwise, the physical and emotional consequences for somebody may be very serious.

Buddhism and Sex

This is what makes sense to me.

For Barry's Sake... this Thread is about JESUS!...

Jesus!



peace...

 

[Buford]

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

Newby, good Lord, it's not specific denominations. There are those (Catholics for example) wherein you must have formal training in such things before becoming a priest. There are others (Mormon and Baptist for example) where you don't. But that's beside the point. It's not an issue of "denominations", it's an issue of people. Pastors and priests are people too and some of them study very deeply and some of them don't. It cuts across all denominations not just one.

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today?

That is a thread unto itself and I could go on for several pages answering that question. The short answer is that the differences are vast and it really depends on the time frame you are talking about. But shortly after the death of Jesus basically what you had was the spread of his ministry but they all took different paths. Thee was no Bible as we know it today. One group would use a given collection of books, another group would use a different collection of books, and there were power struggles regarding who was going to lead all this. Peter and Paul specifically struggled for power and indeed in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter warns not to pay too much attention to Paul. The reason why is open for interpretation but the basic gist of it is that if you pay too much attention to Paul it will lead you to destruction.

Everything changed when Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of Rome. Christianity became "Romanized" and Paul became the major influence on Christian thought. IL pointed out earlier that people were killed for having copies of banned books. This is absolutely true. After the canon was standardized at the Third Council of Carthage, owning a copy of Thomas or James or Mary was eventually met with a swift execution not only of you, but sometimes your entire family if they refused to renounce you.

You really started to see a major shift in Christian philosophy and it stopped being about communication with the Holy Spirit, growing within the spirit of God, etc and it started to become about obedience and order. This makes sense because a Roman Emperor demands order and obedience and the writings of Paul are so easily manipulated that they are the perfect catalyst through which to control the people.

I mean seriously I could go on forever with the differences but the main point is that the focus changed from personal communion with God to power and control.

And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs?

I am not sure "superior" is the right word. I would argue that it's more in depth, it's more thorough, it takes more things into account, and it probably leads to a deeper understanding of scriptures that can enhance a personal understanding of and relationship with God. On the other hand it can really lead to a crisis of faith. It can be pretty brutal to find out that a given concept that you have held onto all your life and gave you intense meaning was a bunch of bullshit that was literally just fucking made up by some asshole Pope or king in order to control the people. That aspect of it can really suck.

Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Disregard? No...and it's not that I necessarily have a bias against Paul. It's that I know his writing have been so spun and twisted that it becomes hard to tell anymore what is Paul and what is bullshit attributed to Paul. So when I read Paul I don't just toss it over my shoulder, but I look for large themes and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the minutia. His writings are simply far too unreliable and problematic as a source of information for me to take small details from and base my life on. So I have to look for the grand overall theme and even that can be difficult at times, because in some places, it's simply not clear what he is referring to.

The scripture says "Jesus, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow". Do you believe Jesus would say marriage is a man and a woman today?

 

[BluePhantom]

Now if you have found a great church where you are comfortable and have fellowship and it gives you strength within the Lord, well Hallelujah! Praise the Lord, I am happy for you. Personally, I have yet to find one that isn't a coffee klatch or so filled with ritual that the meaning and passion is lost.....and trust me....I have looked.

You know I'm a fan of yours Blue, but if you have looked and have never found a church that wasn't a coffee klatch or so filled with ritual that the meaning and passion is lost, you haven't looked hard enough.

(There ARE no perfect church denominations or church congregations because every single one of them are made up of imperfect people. So to look for perfection among the imperfect is going to be a fool's errand every time. Neverthless, God has used some very imperfect people through the ages to accomplish some amazing things. I know of no Atheist or agnostic organizations that are running soup kitchens, homeless shelters, thrift shops, leper colonies, and selflessly serving the most hopeless of people in some of the world's seemingly most hopeless places. Such are almost always staffed and held together by imperfect Christians funded by imperfect churches.)

Oh look....everyone has their biases that are formed from their life experiences and I am no different. It appears that Newby and perhaps you have found great churches and Newby's experiences with church have been far different than my own. Hey that's great...good for her, you know?

Certainly it could be that due to my previous experiences, the moment I hear gossiping trash-talk bullshit I quickly give the place a big one finger salute and off I go when in reality that might represent a very small population of the congregation. Sure, I will concede that. But you know, that's fine too. I have reached a place where I have no patience for that kind of stuff because from my experiences I have seen it all too often and frankly I am comfortable enough with the path I am on that I don't see a real need for church.

like I said before, if others do...wonderful. If they find fellowship and strength with the Lord through it...awesome! For me...meh...I am happy doing something else.

 

[Newby]

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

Newby, good Lord, it's not specific denominations. There are those (Catholics for example) wherein you must have formal training in such things before becoming a priest. There are others (Mormon and Baptist for example) where you don't. But that's beside the point. It's not an issue of "denominations", it's an issue of people. Pastors and priests are people too and some of them study very deeply and some of them don't. It cuts across all denominations not just one.

But, yes, it is specific denominations. You made the claim that 'they' are not educated historically or linguistically. So you're telling me that you don't know who the 'they' is that you were referring too? Of course pastors/priests are human, so are you, how does that make them any more biased or infallible in their knowledge/learning than you are? You just dismiss them it seems because they have not come to the same conclusions from their study that you have?

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today?

That is a thread unto itself and I could go on for several pages answering that question. The short answer is that the differences are vast and it really depends on the time frame you are talking about. But shortly after the death of Jesus basically what you had was the spread of his ministry but they all took different paths. Thee was no Bible as we know it today. One group would use a given collection of books, another group would use a different collection of books, and there were power struggles regarding who was going to lead all this. Peter and Paul specifically struggled for power and indeed in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter warns not to pay too much attention to Paul. The reason why is open for interpretation but the basic gist of it is that if you pay too much attention to Paul it will lead you to destruction.

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

I don't see those two verses saying that at all... How does your translation differ?

Everything changed when Constantine declared Christianity as the official religion of Rome. Christianity became "Romanized" and Paul became the major influence on Christian thought. IL pointed out earlier that people were killed for having copies of banned books. This is absolutely true. After the canon was standardized at the Third Council of Carthage, owning a copy of Thomas or James or Mary was eventually met with a swift execution not only of you, but sometimes your entire family if they refused to renounce you.

You really started to see a major shift in Christian philosophy and it stopped being about communication with the Holy Spirit, growing within the spirit of God, etc and it started to become about obedience and order. This makes sense because a Roman Emperor demands order and obedience and the writings of Paul are so easily manipulated that they are the perfect catalyst through which to control the people.

I mean seriously I could go on forever with the differences but the main point is that the focus changed from personal communion with God to power and control.

That was more of a history lesson, not the differences between what Jesus taught or his disciples taught once He was gone, and what is taught in many churches today. I've always learned that it's about personal communion with God, an individual relationship with Christ. How did I come up with that notion since I've recieved the majority of my education of the Bible via my church/pastor? I'm not saying that you're not partially correct, religion has certainly been used to the ends you describe, but the majority of churches out there are altruistric and trying to do the right thing and help people in their communities.

And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs?

I am not sure "superior" is the right word. I would argue that it's more in depth, it's more thorough, it takes more things into account, and it probably leads to a deeper understanding of scriptures that can enhance a personal understanding of and relationship with God. On the other hand it can really lead to a crisis of faith. It can be pretty brutal to find out that a given concept that you have held onto all your life and gave you intense meaning was a bunch of bullshit that was literally just fucking made up by some asshole Pope or king in order to control the people. That aspect of it can really suck.

So, you honestly feel that you've studied it more 'in depth' and 'more thorough' than the majority of pastors out there who have devoted their entire lives to it and you've gotten it right, but they've gotten it wrong? I hope you can understand my skepticism here.

What do you feel was 'made up' to use for the sole purpose of 'control'? All of it, half of it?

Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Disregard? No...and it's not that I necessarily have a bias against Paul. It's that I know his writing have been so spun and twisted that it becomes hard to tell anymore what is Paul and what is bullshit attributed to Paul. So when I read Paul I don't just toss it over my shoulder, but I look for large themes and I don't pay a whole lot of attention to the minutia. His writings are simply far too unreliable and problematic as a source of information for me to take small details from and base my life on. So I have to look for the grand overall theme and even that can be difficult at times, because in some places, it's simply not clear what he is referring to.

What are you using as your source?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Sorry, but now you just sound like your average everyday Christian basher with an agenda. Every preacher or pastor is not out to lie to you, from personal experience I've known many people with theological degrees who study Greek, they study the culture and history of Bibilical times, etc... I don't know where you get your information about what exactly someone with a theology degree is educated in, but I don't think you're accurately representing those who have spent years at school studying what you claim to have studied on your own. If you can't acknowledge that, then all you have is bias and an agenda to go with it.

I think you misunderstand. I have no problem at all with Christianity. I think it's awesome. I have a very big problem with organized churches who misrepresent things (often knowingly) in order to keep their pockets lined and maintain the obedience of the people...and I hate to tell you this sister...but that is not uncommon.

I never said that every preacher or pastor is out to deceive. Some of them are fantastic...but a lot of them aren't. Some of them do study ancient languages and cultures....most of them don't.

Furthermore, as a college professor I will be quick to point out that course work is great but it should not be taken by itself. Professors are going to teach according to their own biases just like anyone else...and they learned what they know from people with other biases just like everyone else.

So no....I have no problem with Christians or Christianity in general. I love the Lord and my search in life has been to become closer with Her. I love Jesus and praise His name....but what Jesus said and what Paul said are sometimes completely opposite. What Jesus said and what Billy Graham says are often polar opposites.

From my experience and research, I have concluded that Christianity as it is practiced today is FAR different than what Jesus was talking about and how it was practiced shortly after his death. You are perfectly free to conclude something else. At the end of the day I really don't care what someone else believes so long as they believe it because they have reached their conclusion through research, meditation, prayer, communication with the spirit, whatever. If it works for someone and gives them meaning in their lives then who am I to tell them they are wrong? What annoys the hell out of me is when people believe what they do because someone in a robe told them to believe it, they never questioned it, they never challenged it, they never researched it, and they go around hammering the shit out of everyone else as a result.

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today? And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs? Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Actually, the majority of evangelical churches do not require learning ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to obtain bachelor's, master's or doctor's degrees in divinity. This would in include Baptist too.

Sorry, but now you just sound like your average everyday Christian basher with an agenda. Every preacher or pastor is not out to lie to you, from personal experience I've known many people with theological degrees who study Greek, they study the culture and history of Bibilical times, etc... I don't know where you get your information about what exactly someone with a theology degree is educated in, but I don't think you're accurately representing those who have spent years at school studying what you claim to have studied on your own. If you can't acknowledge that, then all you have is bias and an agenda to go with it.

no offense, newby, but from what i've seen anyone who isn't in step with your view of christianity is an *average every day christian basher* in your eyes.

perhaps you should consider the plank in your eye...

Well, no offense, Del, but that's just simply not true. I don't start thread after thread here calling out other's people's beliefs and belittling them because of it. This thread was started for that very reason, yet you seem to have no trouble with that? I respect you Del, but in this case I think you let your bias cloud your judgment. As long as you agree with the premise, it doesn't matter if it's belittling or condescending to others, especially if it's aimed at a group that you hold disdain for, i.e. what you see as 'judgmental christians'. I guess I just don't see the people that you agree with as being any different than the so called 'judgmental christians', they're just as judgmental and condescening, they're just from the other side of the fence, i.e. flip side of the same coin. I understand that to meet with your approval, those of us with faith and respect should just take the mockery of our beliefs in silence, so I guess it's good that I care about your approval about as much as you care about mine.

Let's see. Hmmm. The irony is rather overwhelming here. You're talking about other people being insulting and judgmental in this thread??? I don't mock your beliefs but now, I do mock you. You are completely ignorant of the faith you use to look down on others with. You are the blind man laughing at others for claiming there is light.

no offense, newby, but from what i've seen anyone who isn't in step with your view of christianity is an *average every day christian basher* in your eyes.

perhaps you should consider the plank in your eye...

Well, no offense, Del, but that's just simply not true. I don't start thread after thread here calling out other's people's beliefs and belittling them because of it. This thread was started for that very reason, yet you seem to have no trouble with that? I respect you Del, but in this case I think you let your bias cloud your judgment. As long as you agree with the premise, it doesn't matter if it's belittling or condescending to others, especially if it's aimed at a group that you hold disdain for, i.e. what you see as 'judgmental christians'. I guess I just don't see the people that you agree with as being any different than the so called 'judgmental christians', they're just as judgmental and condescening, they're just from the other side of the fence, i.e. flip side of the same coin. I understand that to meet with your approval, those of us with faith and respect should just take the mockery of our beliefs in silence, so I guess it's good that I care about your approval about as much as you care about mine.

no offense, newby, but if missing the point was an olympic sport, you'd be a gold medalist.

have a nice day

No kidding!!!! Want to look back through the thread and see who STARTED the hostilities? And then, after getting caught up in her negative BS, I apologized - and how to the "Christians" respond? Um, yeah. Jesus would be SO proud of that example. Like I said, no wonder so many people are turned OFF by Christianity. Congrats Newby, Mal, Amelia. because of people like you, fewer people will ever consider the Christian faith.

Its' fascinating to watch the left translate the Scriptures.

They can NOT get past that Jesus didn't run around Approving ANY Sins that his Father Repeatedly called out.

Time for you to Cut & Run again Junior. You're dead wrong on this one. YOU use the New testament and sayings of Jesus to run around a LOT of laws that were strictly spelled out in the Old Testament. So you're lying. Oops.

They Want beyond Reality for it to be some other way but Christ no more OK'd Homosexuality than he did Beastiality.

The Chrisitian Church, according to the only 2 Books they have, can NOT Embrace Homosexuality.

They know this... They are Deliberately Defying the Warning in Revelations.

IF they were Christians, they wouldn't even Dare.

This is why I can Conclude that they are not and that they have no Intentions of doing anything but breaking that Religion down.

Ah. So now you set yourself in The Throne and can sit in judgment of who is a Christian. Not like we didn't see that level of self-righteousness coming...

And they do so Acting as if they are part of it.



peace...

You are exactly what Christ found most disgusting. The Pharisees and Sadduccees had become so self-absorbed and self-righteous, they went around judging who was worthy of God's love. As if you are anywhere NEAR worthy to do such a thing. They used religion as justification for arrogance, hate and political influence. Sounds like the evangelical church, nowadays, doesn't it?
Christ referred to people like you as snakes and vipers.
And for good reason.

Like Newby, you're ignorant as hell about your own religion. And you're a coward.

Tell me again snake, Jesus did not "run around" ANY sins outlined in the Old Testment? Or only the sins that certain denominations and you, find convenient to ignore?
Tell me Newby and mal, do you two snakes claim you do not completely ignore certain commands of Christ?

You and newby are cowards who will not answer a direct question about the faith you use to judge others because you quake in fear at the Truth.

Run now. Do NOT answer the questions. You will be trampled under foot.

 

[mal]

I think you misunderstand. I have no problem at all with Christianity. I think it's awesome. I have a very big problem with organized churches who misrepresent things (often knowingly) in order to keep their pockets lined and maintain the obedience of the people...and I hate to tell you this sister...but that is not uncommon.

I never said that every preacher or pastor is out to deceive. Some of them are fantastic...but a lot of them aren't. Some of them do study ancient languages and cultures....most of them don't.

Furthermore, as a college professor I will be quick to point out that course work is great but it should not be taken by itself. Professors are going to teach according to their own biases just like anyone else...and they learned what they know from people with other biases just like everyone else.

So no....I have no problem with Christians or Christianity in general. I love the Lord and my search in life has been to become closer with Her. I love Jesus and praise His name....but what Jesus said and what Paul said are sometimes completely opposite. What Jesus said and what Billy Graham says are often polar opposites.

From my experience and research, I have concluded that Christianity as it is practiced today is FAR different than what Jesus was talking about and how it was practiced shortly after his death. You are perfectly free to conclude something else. At the end of the day I really don't care what someone else believes so long as they believe it because they have reached their conclusion through research, meditation, prayer, communication with the spirit, whatever. If it works for someone and gives them meaning in their lives then who am I to tell them they are wrong? What annoys the hell out of me is when people believe what they do because someone in a robe told them to believe it, they never questioned it, they never challenged it, they never researched it, and they go around hammering the shit out of everyone else as a result.

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today? And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs? Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Actually, the majority of evangelical churches do not require learning ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to obtain bachelor's, master's or doctor's degrees in divinity. This would in include Baptist too.



Let's see. Hmmm. The irony is rather overwhelming here. You're talking about other people being insulting and judgmental in



No kidding!!!! Want to look back through the thread and see who STARTED the hostilities? And then, after getting caught up in her negative BS, I apologized - and how to the "Christians" respond? Um, yeah. Jesus would be SO proud of that example. Like I said, no wonder so many people are turned OFF by Christianity. They see people like this. Congrats Newby. You make sure fewer people will ever consider the Christian faith.

Its' fascinating to watch the left translate the Scriptures.

They can NOT get past that Jesus didn't run around Approving ANY Sins that his Father Repeatedly called out.

Time for you to Cut & Run again Junior. You're dead wrong on this one. YOU use the New testament and sayings of Jesus to run around a LOT of laws that were strictly spelled out in the Old Testament. So you're lying. Oops.

They Want beyond Reality for it to be some other way but Christ no more OK'd Homosexuality than he did Beastiality.

The Chrisitian Church, according to the only 2 Books they have, can NOT Embrace Homosexuality.

They know this... They are Deliberately Defying the Warning in Revelations.

IF they were Christians, they wouldn't even Dare.

This is why I can Conclude that they are not and that they have no Intentions of doing anything but breaking that Religion down.

Ah. So now you set yourself in The Throne and can sit in judgment of who is a Christian. Not like we didn't see that level of self-righteousness coming...

And they do so Acting as if they are part of it.



peace...

You are exactly what Christ found most disgusting. The Pharisees and Sadduccees had become so self-absorbed and self-righteous, they went around judging who was worthy of God's love. As if you are anywhere NEAR worthy to do such a thing. They used religion as justification for arrogance, hate and political influence. Sounds like the evangelical church, nowadays, doesn't it?
Christ referred to people like you as snakes and vipers.
And for good reason.

Like Newby, you're ignorant as hell about your own religion. And you're a coward.

Tell me again snake, Jesus did not "run around" ANY sins outlined in the Old Testment? Or only the sins that certain denominations and you, find convenient to ignore?
Tell me Newby and mal, do you two snakes claim you do not completely ignore certain commands of Christ?

You and newby are cowards who will not answer a direct question about the faith you use to judge others because you quake in fear at the Truth.

Run now. Do NOT answer the questions. You will be trampled under foot.

So tell me again how Jesus didn't Speak of Homosexuality so that makes it OK but it doesn't work that way for Beastiality as listed by his Father as WORSE than Homosexuality...

You can point that fucking finger up your ass!

If you Claim Christianity and are Attempting to tell people Jesus would Embrace what his Father so CLEARLY called Abomination and Sin then it is you who is the Snake.



peace...

 

[BDBoop]

So tell me again how Jesus didn't Speak of Homosexuality so that makes it OK but it doesn't work that way for Beastiality as listed by his Father as WORSE than Homosexuality...

You can point that fucking finger up your ass!

If you Claim Christianity and are Attempting to tell people Jesus would Embrace what his Father so CLEARLY called Abomination and Sin then it is you who is the Snake.



peace...

rofl!

/tears of mirth

Ya can't make this shit up, I tell you what.

Oh, god. Too funny.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Can you be a little more specific instead of using generalities? Which denominations do you see having clergy or pastors that have not or do not study the historical and linguistic aspect of the Bible? You claim that 'most' don't, so what do you see as 'most'? Which denominations do you see as being 'out to control' people as opposed to teaching about Christ?

What differences do you see with how it was practiced in Jesus's time versus how it's practiced today? And again you reference 'those people' who just do what 'someone in a robe' tell them to do, and even if there are some people who may fit that description, why is your way of learning superior to theirs? Do you disregard all of Paul's teachings since you seem to have a bias against him? If not, then how do you decide what to disregard and what not to disregard?

Actually, the majority of evangelical churches do not require learning ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek to obtain bachelor's, master's or doctor's degrees in divinity. This would in include Baptist too.



Let's see. Hmmm. The irony is rather overwhelming here. You're talking about other people being insulting and judgmental in



No kidding!!!! Want to look back through the thread and see who STARTED the hostilities? And then, after getting caught up in her negative BS, I apologized - and how to the "Christians" respond? Um, yeah. Jesus would be SO proud of that example. Like I said, no wonder so many people are turned OFF by Christianity. They see people like this. Congrats Newby. You make sure fewer people will ever consider the Christian faith.

They can NOT get past that Jesus didn't run around Approving ANY Sins that his Father Repeatedly called out.

Time for you to Cut & Run again Junior. You're dead wrong on this one. YOU use the New testament and sayings of Jesus to run around a LOT of laws that were strictly spelled out in the Old Testament. So you're lying. Oops.

They Want beyond Reality for it to be some other way but Christ no more OK'd Homosexuality than he did Beastiality.

The Chrisitian Church, according to the only 2 Books they have, can NOT Embrace Homosexuality.

They know this... They are Deliberately Defying the Warning in Revelations.

IF they were Christians, they wouldn't even Dare.

This is why I can Conclude that they are not and that they have no Intentions of doing anything but breaking that Religion down.

Ah. So now you set yourself in The Throne and can sit in judgment of who is a Christian. Not like we didn't see that level of self-righteousness coming...

And they do so Acting as if they are part of it.



peace...

You are exactly what Christ found most disgusting. The Pharisees and Sadduccees had become so self-absorbed and self-righteous, they went around judging who was worthy of God's love. As if you are anywhere NEAR worthy to do such a thing. They used religion as justification for arrogance, hate and political influence. Sounds like the evangelical church, nowadays, doesn't it?
Christ referred to people like you as snakes and vipers.
And for good reason.

Like Newby, you're ignorant as hell about your own religion. And you're a coward.

Tell me again snake, Jesus did not "run around" ANY sins outlined in the Old Testment? Or only the sins that certain denominations and you, find convenient to ignore?
Tell me Newby and mal, do you two snakes claim you do not completely ignore certain commands of Christ?

You and newby are cowards who will not answer a direct question about the faith you use to judge others because you quake in fear at the Truth.

Run now. Do NOT answer the questions. You will be trampled under foot.

So tell me again how Jesus didn't Speak of Homosexuality so that makes it OK but it doesn't work that way for Beastiality as listed by his Father as WORSE than Homosexuality...

You can point that fucking finger up your ass!

If you Claim Christianity and are Attempting to tell people Jesus would Embrace what his Father so CLEARLY called Abomination and Sin then it is you who is the Snake.



peace...

Nice dodge. You're a coward who runs like a little blitch from a simple question:

YOU cannot get around the fact that Christ DID "run around" sins outlined in the OT.
YOU ignore commands of Christ.

Period.

Go ahead. Claim that you don't. Coward.

 

[BluePhantom]

Then why make 'the guy wearing robes' comment over and over again if you know that's a dishonest representation? It just makes you appear to have an agenda to belittle and disrespect.

Well it depends on what church you are talking about. Some churches are very traditional in their services and the priest wears the robes, burns the incense, and all that...and some are not. You are missing the point, Newby. The comment was about blindly believing what an authority figure tells you to believe. Read up on Milgram's experiments if you are not familiar with them and you will get my meaning.

There are some who fit that description, but is that a reflection of the church, Christ, or the Bible? Not really...

The church, yes. Christ and the Bible? No and that's the point. Why would I go to a church to praise God and find fellowship with others in the Lord's love if the people there are more interested in talking shit about other people? Now you said you have had different experiences...hey that's awesome. Unfortunately, my experiences differ dramatically.

So, you see no call to discipleship in the Bible? I might also point out that there is nothing promoting 'force' either.

Discipleship is one thing....judgement and intervention is something quite different.

But you don't get involved whenever you see your faith being attacked? This thread, if I'm in the right one , is a discussion about Jesus condoning homosexual relationships. I didn't see any degrading or oppression going on at all, just an attempt to discuss what Christ taught on the matter? Do you see anyone questioning whether or not homosexual behavior is condoned by God as an attack? This thread was also not about the Constitution or anything to do with civil law.

When someone attacks my faith I try not to freak out. I don't always succeed but for the most part I kind of shrug my shoulders and let it go. It's pointless to talk to someone who is not willing to listen.

As far as this thread is concerned, there hasn't been a whole lot of attacking homosexuals going on in this particular thread no, but there has been a lot of misunderstanding. The OP quotes several scriptures in order to support his position that I have referred to as being mistranslations or problematic: Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9, etc. I merely pointed out the problems with those particular scripture. I could have gone through the other ones he quoted as well, but I figure everyone pretty much gets the point.

As far as not having evidence in scripture to support it, we part ways there. Any kind of lust or sexual activity outside of marriage was condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Are you claiming that it never was?

Lust and sexual activity outside of marriage is not a homosexual institution. If you deny them the right to marry you force them into an adulterous relationship. It's like "well if we can't take away your guns, we'll just take away your bullets". How fair is that? And as Ravi pointed out (which I was unaware of) gay marriage was indeed perfectly legal in Rome until it was banned by Constantius II in 342 AD. Now certainly homosexuality and gay marriage was not endorsed by the Jewish culture, but that would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? Christianity is based on Judaism and by the time Constantius came along Rome had become Christian so it makes sense that he would ban gay marriage (although slaughtering all those who did anyhow might have been a bit much.

So the point is that the New and Old Testaments do condemn adultery but since same-sex marriage was legal according to Roman law it would not be considered adulterous.

'Most' and 'Many' aren't that very different from an absolute.

Yes they are. They are totally different.

 

[Ravi]

mal breaks this commandment all the time.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

And that IS a commandment and a much graver sign than homosexuality, which was never addressed in the ten commandments. At this point, it looks like it was never addressed in the bible, period.