Quote:
The next two go together
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: - Romans 1 1:31("without natural affection" means homosexuality)
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1 1:32 (homosexuals, as mentioned above, deserve death)
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BigJ: You're quoting from the Old Testament, which is interesting,
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Leviticus also held:
- No garment should be made of 2 dissimilar fabrics, because it is an abomination.
- Crop mixing in the same field was forbidden (even though it was usually VERY beneficial) due to it being an abomination
- Men and women should NEVER use the same bed for any reason, because it was an abomination
- Men should NEVER cut their hair, or shave their beards, as it was an abomination.
- Jews should never eat of sea animals without scales, as they were abominations.
- You should not have sex with any close relatives, Esp. your mother as it would disgrace your father, and you shouldn't have sex with any of his other wives for the same reason, and it's an abomin... well you get the idea.
- Homosexuality between men was as bad a sin as touching a dead cloven hooved animal that did not chew cud because both were abominations (Are we seeing a theme here?).
- If you bathed and washed your clothes after an unclean or disgusting act, you would only be unclean until evening (and an abomination until then as well).
Leviticus was also taken from the Torah, which was originally passed from oral tradition. Basically, it was a simple manual about what should and should not be done, but had no rationale as to why. It also contradicted other portions of the Old Testament.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
The next two go together
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: - Romans 1 1:31("without natural affection" means homosexuality)
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. - Romans 1 1:32 (homosexuals, as mentioned above, deserve death)
Covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful in no SPECIFICALLY about homosexuals. It is meant to encompass:
- Adulterers,
- Thieves,
- Murderers,
- Tyrants,
- Non-Jews and Jews that did not hold the faith.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Also, your bit on Kings, and Lot: Even now, it is a bigger sin in the middle east (ie, where the biblical scriptures were written) to impose upon your guests. You basically treat them like Kings. The Angels that Lot was sheltering were to be "known" by the Sodomites (meaning the people of Sodom, not those whom practiced homosexual sex). The word to be "known" is a literal translation from Hebrew, and means nothing more than to introduce them. Lot did not do this as he did not want the angels to be corrupted by the people of Sodom, MAINLY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL PAGAN. They practiced ritual sex with both men, women and children, ritual slaughter and broke most of the covenants that were in Leviticus. Lot proffered his daughters because he did not want his guests to become corrupted by the Pagans, and also because he was the Guest of the people of Sodom.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you read the Bible a little less literally (because there is translation, you have to understand that there is built in allegory), you'll find a better spirit. Also (perhaps because I believe gnostic canon more than orthodox), you'll notice that in the Old Testament, God is hateful, vengeful, retaliatory, self-centered... basically everything that Man is now. In the New Testament, God becomes a little more responsible, and leaves it to us to find his path instead of berating us when we stray. If you look at God as a teacher in the latter Testament, you'll see why it is that Christianity can be a very powerful and positive force.
bigj480 wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:BigJ: You're quoting from the Old Testament, which is interesting,
Sure, it's interesting but it is still relevant. God did condone these actions at one time and what makes you think that he changed his mind? So I assume that you aren't arguing that god didn't dislike "sodomites" in the OT. I've heard people say that the laws in the old testament do not apply anymore because of "the new covenant" but just remember that god did condone these things and the 10 commandments are also in the old testament. Should we still follow the 10 commandments? Of course, because they aren't ridiculous, but you are picking and choosing which rules you want to follow. What about the part that says that you can't get into heaven if you are effeminate or gay and the chauvinistic portions of the bible? Also the Romans article is from the new testament but I see that you disagree with my interpretation of it so I will deal with that below.
Quote:
Boy, that sure does make me eager to take the bible seriously and consider it divinely inspired. Sure, there are many things in the bible that are ludicrous, you wont see me arguing with you about that.
Quote:Without natural affection means a couple things and you could justifiably say that it means homosexuals, but in context with the other terms:
Interesting, what leads you to believe this is the correct interpretation? Would you define what you believe the definition of each description is? Which one of the types of sinners is the bible referring to when they say "[those] without natural affection?
Quote:
I will quote some scriptures that I think backup my interpretation:
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" - Romans 1 1-26(the women were lesbians and that's unnatural? IDK also note that it says it is also a vile affection. If you take that and the fact that the bible says that homosexuality is unnatural, it is pretty clear that an "unnatural affection" is sexual attraction to your own gender)
Quote:
"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." - Romans 1 1-27 (here they say that the "natural use of the woman" is as a sexual object and that male homosexuality is "unseemly", see homosexuality = unnatural therefore male-on-male affection = unnatural affection, BTW there is another verse about lesbians in the bible)
Quote:
So you are saying that lot sent his two virgin daughters to the crowd of men to talk? How would that be a substitution for talking to angels? That's like telling the press "you can't talk to the president, but here, talk to the garbage man" and expecting that to satisfy them. After all, you don't believe that to "know" someone in biblical terms is to have sex with them. If that is the case then Lot was not saying that his daughters have never had sex with a man when he said that they "have not known man", he was saying that they have never met a man. OK, what about the following scripture?:
"And Adam knew his wife again; and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew." - Genesis 4 4:25
How could Cain "know" his wife again? Were the re-introduced? LOL Is it just coincidence that they had a kid after that? Notice that they are always male babies, male obsessed much?
Quote:
Not a very optimistic outlook of humanity there buddy. I'm not saying that we are perfect, but the majority of people are decent. I do understand that god does seem to "change" in the new testament. Why would god change? Did he really change or was it just the opinions of the people writing the scriptures that changed? Does that make all of the things he stood for in the old testament OK? SOME of the ideas in the bible are noble and healthy, but I still feel that you are overlooking the bad parts. Sure, there are some parts of the bible that are hard to translate, but modern translations should be fairly accurate. Are you telling me that all of the absolutely ridiculous parts of the bible are mistranslations?
Hahahaha wrote:Even still, it's all about the act, not the person.
God loves all his children, some of them do bad things.
PAX
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I'm not saying that all the old laws don't apply, but the new covenant "Love thy God, Love thy Neighbour" is pretty encompassing and magnifying. It also makes the "Honour thy Mother and Father" reciprocate with the kids, as well as unifying all the other laws into a simple idea that is easy enough to remember. If you look at it, the Sermon on the mount basically says everything is still in effect, but it will be magnified. The new covenant seems to magnify it.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The Old Testament, if you follow gnosticism, is the old God... before he became the God of the New Testament. The God of the Torah and the Old Testament is one that is imperfect, but massively powerful, the God of the New Testament is even more powerful, but is no longer impudent and vengeful.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you also remember, Moses destroyed the 2 tablets with the 10 commandments after seeing the Golden Calf.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think part of me leans towards the idea of question everything, and investigate anything that doesn't agree with the other facts.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Without natural affection means a couple things and you could justifiably say that it means homosexuals, but in context with the other terms:
Covenant-breakers, Implacable, and unmerciful... It could likely mean those that coveted their neighbour's wives, ass (not necessarily part and parcel), or those that fornicated with others in the temple as part of a rite. Also (less tactfully put) there were sects in that era that practised bestiality as a part of the religion. I'm not disqualifying any of the other interpretations, but I'm not saying one way or the other that one interpretation is correct or not. The wording of this is subject to interpretation.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:No, Lot was sacrificing his daughters' virginity to protect the angels. I'm not simple If you also remember in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, an angel told Lot to leave the Sodomites and Gomorrans as God was going to punish them for their transgression of corrupting his messengers, and that they should leave and not look back. God turned the people into pillars of salt, and Lot's wife who looked back received the same fate. (It is important to relate that in the real Sodom and Gomorrah, there ARE salt pillars, but they predate humanity.)
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I work in forensics, and I used to be an optimist. The majority of people are not decent, they're nice: Neither good nor bad (and usually not meek).
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:......The Christian God basically said that you can live your life as you wish, but this is my word, and it is your job to follow it if you want to be in heaven.
bigj480 wrote: I guess my problem with that is that there is no way of knowing which to follow and which to ignor, if any. People seem to fallow the laws that make sense and discard those that don't, but maybe they aren't folloeing gods will by doing so. How does one know?
Quote:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. - Matthew 5:17(Jesus had no problem with the laws set in place by the prophets before him in the OT?)
"And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee" - Exerpt from Matthew 5:29 (Kind of extreme and violent, ins't it?
Remember "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart". Does that mean that if I look at women and lust after them I should pluck out my eye?)
Quote:He's affirming that he speaks the word of God and that there is a consequence for not following it. This portion of the Gospels was used to justify the Crusades and forcing Muslims and Pagans and Indians in North America into Christianity. My thoughts are pretty simple: Jesus said that he isn't going to make the world peaceful, but, he'll give you the tools to equip yourself to do it.
"And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee" - Excerpt from Matthew 5:30
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (That comes strait from Jesus and sounds very peace loving, not)
Quote:
The next two go together
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4
(Earlier Jesus is criticized by the pharisees for not washing his hands before eating and he replies by saying that the elders did not wash theirs either. Then, in the scriptures quoted above, he goes on to say that the pharisees don't follow the commandment that requires them to kill their kids if they curse them. Man, I'm starting to like this guy)
Quote:
"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." - Matthew 18:25(Jesus says that it's fine to sell a family into slavery to pay their debts, he never rejects slavery)
Quote:
The next two go together
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(give to those that have, take from those that don't. Kick the unprofitable servants "into outer darkness")
Quote:
This is just from one book in the NT, but you get the idea. These things are pretty bad and if you take them with the fact that that jesus says to follow the old laws, condones slavery and the oppression of women. Even the fact that god would torment those who are sinners instead of just letting them cease to exist points to god being very vengeful and unforgiving. It's not enough to prevent them from getting into heaven and being happy for eternity, nope, they must suffer the worst punishment passable.
Quote:
What about it? Do you not believe that the current 10 commandments are and accurate transcription of those given by god or should not be followed?
Quote:As long as it isn't the only thing you make your decisions by (ie forfeiting your own sense), I have no problems.
I would, there is nothing wrong with gaining a better understanding of the book you use to help you make choices.
Quote:
Fair enough, but that isn't very measuring for believers. I mean, you're basing your whole life on ideas in a book that has many contradictions, has been edited and translated, is ambiguous and can be uninterpreted many different ways. Maybe it's just me.
Quote:
So what was your argument then? That they only wanted to talk to the angels and Lot let them have sex with his daughters to prevent it? Maybe I'm simple. Surely, some of the pillars must be from a time when we existed. That is, if that scripture is to be believed.
Quote:Certainly, I know the numbers, but I've seen in person and in study, some of the worst. You really don't see that more than once and not have some part of you changed.
Oh, I understand. However, you must remember that you are seeing a concentration of bad things committed by a few, percentage wise. I do agree though, MOST people fall somewhere in the middle.
Quote:
I have a question. Do you believe that god is all powerful? If so, why does he even allow bad people to exist? There would be no need for a test, he could simply only "make" good people.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Which to ignore?
"Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour"
This is pretty encompassing like I said. It's a lot easier to follow, and it doesn't matter if your neighbour is Gentile or Jew, Muslim or Infidel, Christian or Apostate. Your neighbour is your neighbour, and your God is your God. That is the Magnifying that Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The other thing, it's not really known how many laws were delivered to Moses, but the idea of TEN COMMANDMENTS may or may not have been written in the 3rd-4th Century, about 500 years after Moses. I don't claim to know God's will, but I know that 6 words is a lot easier to live by than 10 commandments that leave a good bit of open ground.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:In as far as Gays are concerned (back on topic ) they're your neighbours as well. Love the person, not the sin (not that I think homosexuality is neither sin nor virtue, it's like skin colour) .
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Jesus had no problems with the old law, but fulfil can be thought of in a few different ways, and one of them is to bring to a close. He also said that he was to magnify the old covenant, which I think he did. Coveting what is your neighbour's is what breeds iniquity and conflict. I think it's part of human nature to covet (as it's part of the urge we have for advancement and exploration), but it's a sin you can receive absolution for in prayer.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:He's affirming that he speaks the word of God and that there is a consequence for not following it. This portion of the Gospels was used to justify the Crusades and forcing Muslims and Pagans and Indians in North America into Christianity. My thoughts are pretty simple: Jesus said that he isn't going to make the world peaceful, but, he'll give you the tools to equip yourself to do it.
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (That comes strait from Jesus and sounds very peace loving, not)
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
The next two go together
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" - Matthew 15:3
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." - Matthew 15:4
(Earlier Jesus is criticized by the pharisees for not washing his hands before eating and he replies by saying that the elders did not wash theirs either. Then, in the scriptures quoted above, he goes on to say that the pharisees don't follow the commandment that requires them to kill their kids if they curse them. Man, I'm starting to like this guy)
I don't know this passage, so I can't really comment on it. I'm also not following what you're saying... We can come back to it
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:What I've found that deals with this:
Pharisees -- question Jesus for not using the ritual handwashing custom. Jesus -- From the heart (or mind) come evil thoughts: what is unclean is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it -- what you think or say. (Matthew 15:1-20) LINK
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
"But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made." - Matthew 18:25(Jesus says that it's fine to sell a family into slavery to pay their debts, he never rejects slavery)
Those that are indentured, yes, you commit to it, you repay your debts. Unbidden kidnapping, however, isn't alright. It's also supposing that the indebted are not committing usury.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
The next two go together
25:29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(give to those that have, take from those that don't. Kick the unprofitable servants "into outer darkness")
Again, if you serve, don't do it half-heartedly. You must commit yourself to your appointed task.
It's kind of funny, I can see both interpretations, but the pessimistic way is hardly a way to enlightenment.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
This is just from one book in the NT, but you get the idea. These things are pretty bad and if you take them with the fact that that jesus says to follow the old laws, condones slavery and the oppression of women. Even the fact that god would torment those who are sinners instead of just letting them cease to exist points to god being very vengeful and unforgiving. It's not enough to prevent them from getting into heaven and being happy for eternity, nope, they must suffer the worst punishment passable.
I don't think it's that cut and dry, nor do I believe that you just get punished because that's what you deserve just on God's say so: you reap what your sow, and you CAN make your life better.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Seriously, the reason Moses destroyed the tablets is because they meant NOTHING to the Hebrews that made the graven idol of the Golden Calf. Again, I also realise that Old Testament is taken from Oral Traditions, and may be slightly different from what really transpired. If you're getting hung up on technicalities, you're going to miss the message... but, if you understand that the message may be different than the original, then you have to figure it out for yourself. I'm not telling anyone what to believe, but I am trying to cajole some sense that you're not going to get things handed to you.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:As long as it isn't the only thing you make your decisions by (ie forfeiting your own sense), I have no problems.
I would, there is nothing wrong with gaining a better understanding of the book you use to help you make choices.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
Fair enough, but that isn't very measuring for believers. I mean, you're basing your whole life on ideas in a book that has many contradictions, has been edited and translated, is ambiguous and can be uninterpreted many different ways. Maybe it's just me.
I'm not basing my life off the Bible... Nor the dictionary
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Again, a lot of the reason the Bible is interesting is because there are contradictions and inconsistencies. It's also part of the reason I like forensics.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
So what was your argument then? That they only wanted to talk to the angels and Lot let them have sex with his daughters to prevent it? Maybe I'm simple. Surely, some of the pillars must be from a time when we existed. That is, if that scripture is to be believed.
Yes, Lot sacrificed his daughters' virginity to spare the angels from being corrupted by the Sodomites. Lot and his family were the only Jews among the Sodomites, and I think he wanted to protect the angels and spare them from the wrath of God.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:And the Salt Pillars in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah were deposits left over from the last glacial incursion.. the glaciers melted and created a shallow sea, and when that evaporated (or migrated to the Dead Sea, take your pick) the plumes from the salt flats congealed into larger pillars.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
I have a question. Do you believe that god is all powerful? If so, why does he even allow bad people to exist? There would be no need for a test, he could simply only "make" good people.
Bad people aren't born, they're made.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Personally, I think that salvation is yours to make or unmake. A riteous life may not mean 100% prayer all the time, but you can do the right thing when it's the right time for the right reason.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I may joke about WWCoW (it was a joke really) but the element of truth is that God may be all powerful, but he makes the rules. The rules (at least by my line of thought) are that you aren't promised anything, and that you make your own destiny if you treat people the way you would want to be treated (not in deed but in intent).
bigj480 wrote:Yeah, your basically saying that "Love Thy God, Love Thy Neighbour" is the general rule or message you get from the bible. It's funny, you seem so different from the Christians that I know and that's a good thing. You don't seem to be stuck on details, your beliefs seem more spiritual and less religious. So my basic feeling about the bible is that that the authors went through great lengths to set some ground rules and, to me, it seems that you are discounting them. I know, the sermon on the mount, right? Sure, you can believe that the sermon was meant to magnify certain ideas, but does that mean that the other aspects and rules are not to be followed? Even the ones in the NT? Or do you feel that all of the rules that contradict what is basically "the golden rule" should be ignored?
Quote:
Easier to follow? Sure. I just don't think that it is the only rule he wants you to follow, but who am I to say.
Quote:
You don't think that homosexuality is a sin? It's interesting that people can interpret the bible so differently.
Quote:
True, he may very well be saying that he is bringing them to an end. However, he seems to reinforce some of the old laws in the NT, like killing your kid if they curse you, and that makes me think that he isn't bringing them to an end. He also seemed to call the pharisees hypocrites for not following the rules of the OT in Matthew 15. Also, what about the part about plucking your eye out is in the NT. Do you think that it is merely figurative? Of course it is, it would be absurd if it wasn't.
Quote:
Yes, but not only is he not bringing peace, he is bringing suffering. You could argue that the suffering is only a result of disobedience, but that doesn't sound like a forgiving god to me. It also sounds like he is proud of it, but you can't always read emotions through text. Some parts of the bible portray god as vengeful, they even say he is, and other parts say the opposite.
[]
"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44 ... This doesn't shake out with Matthew 10:34 in the interpretation that he will do violence.
quote]It was in response to your claim that the god of the NT is "no longer impudent and vengeful". I'm quoting scriptures that I think disprove that statement. You can find online bibles for reference.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:What I've found that deals with this:
Pharisees -- question Jesus for not using the ritual handwashing custom. Jesus -- From the heart (or mind) come evil thoughts: what is unclean is not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it -- what you think or say. (Matthew 15:1-20) LINK
Quote:
Either way he is condoning slavery, not cool IMO. Even if it was customary.
Quote:
You say that the pessimistic way is not the way to enlightenment and I say that the optimistic interpretation is flawed and neither are the way. Remember, he is not saying to punish those that don't try hard enough, he is saying to punish those that are not successful.
Quote:
OK, so you think that you must follow god's word to get in? If it's just a "you reap what you sow" situation then one doesn't even need to believe in god, as long as you were good on earth your in. Still, why punish the bad? It would serve no purpose.
Quote:SOME elaboration is needed... I just think that the new covenant simplifies and magnifies. Again, I prefer the simple and elegant solution.
I understand, but I feel that the bible gets pretty technical for a reason. If not, then they could merely say "be good".
Quote:I know it using it as a guide is fine, but you have to think for yourself. I'm pretty sure we're in agreement on that.
That's obvious by your posts, I did not mean to imply that you are blindly following, that's why I said "help".
Quote:
It's not the basis? I'm not saying that it is all you use. I just assumed that, if you are a Christian, your choices were based on the bible. You now what they say about assuming though. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
Quote:
It is interesting and unbelievable for that very reason, among others.
Quote:It follows with some of the other decisions. Choose faith over the material.
OK, it's still a sick decision and a very humorous part of the bible. It would not be funny if I believed it.
Quote:OH! Certainly... I suspect that most of the stories in the bibles are apocryphal. True or not, the meaning behind the allegory is what is important.
I understand that, but that disproves the scripture and further proves that the bible was not divinely inspired IMO.
Quote:Bad people can become better, and you can make amends.
OK, but do you believe that god is all powerful? Why wouldn't he only allow good people to exist? Even if bad people are made, some people go through the same things and end up fine. People are a product of their environment, but only to an extent.
Quote:What's the point if you don't believe?
Do you think that you must believe in god to make it, or just be a good person?
Quote:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I may joke about WWCoW (it was a joke really) but the element of truth is that God may be all powerful, but he makes the rules. The rules (at least by my line of thought) are that you aren't promised anything, and that you make your own destiny if you treat people the way you would want to be treated (not in deed but in intent).
Is that the answer to my last question? Just follow the golden rule and your in? Then why not say JUST that?
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
I also know that if I judge someone, I'm basically a hypocrite because at some point, I'm not perfect... Again, I'm not ignoring the rules given, I'm just saying that I'm not God and I'm not going to judge my neighbour. I also don't speak for God. I can't look at a friend of mine that's queer as a $3 bill and say he's a bad person because he does something that someone said 4000 years ago was disgusting? I can't get behind that. I can credit Hahahaha for the line "love the Sinner, hate the sin," (it was the first time I had really heard it put that way), but my thoughts are "Love sinner, and forgive the sin." Forgiving sin is not about you and God... it's about you and the other person.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Hating someone (for whatever reason) means you are abdicating your personal power over to them. Seriously, I wonder about Fred Phelps, if he didn't have this corked up hate for gays, what would he be able to channel that energy in to.. I don't hate him, but I pity him.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I know what's right, and what's wrong, and that sometimes you need to bend a little instead of being rigid and causing problems.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
Easier to follow? Sure. I just don't think that it is the only rule he wants you to follow, but who am I to say.
True enough. I just figure that the New Covenant in comparison to the Ten Commandments is a lot simpler, more elegant and makes sense. The Ten Commandments leave a lot of ground uncovered (like homosexuality, killing versus murder... I'm all for simple, and I figure that people need to use their brain and morals a little more.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
You don't think that homosexuality is a sin? It's interesting that people can interpret the bible so differently.
I'm not God. Your sins are yours to deal with between you and God. If you sin against me, then I'll deal with it, if you sin against God, that's something you need to deal with on your own. Again, love thy neighbour... it means that you're not going to judge or condemn a person for their acts. It's against human nature, I know.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I believe it's also referencing Matthew chapter 15, verse 1-20, it says so at the end of the quote.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I don't think Slavery is a cool idea either, but your also talking about a time where Abject poverty was not only the norm, but utterly pervasive, those that had money would never loan to those without unless there was a way to be certain they'd get their money back.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
OK, so you think that you must follow god's word to get in? If it's just a "you reap what you sow" situation then one doesn't even need to believe in god, as long as you were good on earth your in. Still, why punish the bad? It would serve no purpose.
- I don't make the rules.
- Process without belief is nothing.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:
It's not the basis? I'm not saying that it is all you use. I just assumed that, if you are a Christian, your choices were based on the bible. You now what they say about assuming though. Do you consider yourself a Christian?
I don't know what I consider myself. Do I have a personal relationship with God? No, not really by my estimation. My choices are based out of what conforms with my belief system, and basically, a lot of it is congruent with Christianity, but with Gnosticism, neo-Buddhist, and renaissance idealogies. I'm not a devout Christian in that I go to church weekly, I don't follow the Dalai Lama's teachings intractably, and I don't subscribe to Priorie De Scion ideals with rigidity. I figure that there's good ideas everywhere: If it makes sense to me and will benefit me, I'll follow it.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:It follows with some of the other decisions. Choose faith over the material.
OK, it's still a sick decision and a very humorous part of the bible. It would not be funny if I believed it.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Quote:What's the point if you don't believe?
Do you think that you must believe in god to make it, or just be a good person?
Quote:Some don't, but then again, I think that part of humanity's mission (no matter our origin) is to learn about our selves, and there is credible and duplicated research behind the hypothesis that homosexuality is a biological condition (that can't be "corrected" any more than brown eyes or hair colour) and not a conscious choice.
That's admirable, but you don't even believe that homosexuality is a sin. To me that's great, even more so because you are semi-Christian. Too bad the "traditional" Christians don't feel this way.
Quote:His followers are mostly his extended family. They're not stupid, but I think they're going to be better off once Fred's dead. He's the Charismatic leader behind a hateful legacy. Some people like living in a small world. I just wonder what's going to happen to these kinds of people when they find out we're not alone in the universe.
What a sad legacy to leave, I think he and his followers have serious problems. As you say, it's pitiful.
Quote:It's part of human nature. That's why there's so many assholes out there.
I agree 100%, but I don't follow any religion. If all people would be a little less judgmental and stop trying to enforce their beliefs on others(including athiests) then I don't think we would have so much hostility.
Quote:I yam what I yam. I think the rules in laid out in the Bible are a good starting point, but they're of a different time. You said about slavery, and I understand that, but at the time, it was acceptable in the case of debt. At this time, it's not acceptable at all.
True, but you are basically saying for people to use their morals and not the rules laid out in the bible just because they are complicated or make less since. I agree, but that is not very Christian. You sound a lot like a humanist except for the whole god thing.
Quote:
Yeah, but you don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, right? Are you against gay marriage?
Quote:I still think (after reading it a few times) that Jesus was being facetious or ironical in that passage. He's not commanding the slaughter of children that don't follow the old laws. His New Covenant incorporates the old one... But instead of it being applicable to Jews, it applies to all, Jew and Gentile.
No opinion on the quote that seems to describe jesus as a pretty violent guy that supports the old law?
Quote:They also will miss the forest for the trees, more often than not. I think part of that is to make people honour their debts... I may be wrong though.
Like I said, even though it was the norm, you would expect the son of god to speak out against it. Every Cristian believes in jesus, a man who supported slavery, according to that scripture. You may doubt it's authenticity but many will not doubt any part of the bible and still believe.
Quote:I think that if you believe in heaven, you're already on that path. I'm not so concerned about the afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I'm more concerned about THIS life, and making it better for everyone. IF you believe and don't follow through, you're short-changing yourself. If you go through the process and don't believe what you're doing is for the better of EVERYONE, you're doing better for everyone else, but you're not going to get into heaven necessarily... You could be Mother Theresa, but if you don't believe in God, you're not going to get in.
I know you don't make the rules, but that does not mean that you don't have an opinion about them. Unless you are one of those who will not question anything that you believe comes from god, even if it is wrong. What do you mean by "Process without belief is nothing"? That, just because you are a good person doesn't mean that you will go to heaven? You must believe in god? So I can live my whole life doing thankless, selfless deeds and still go to hell simply because I did not believe in 1 particular washed down, mistranslated and unprovable religion? I don't mean this as an attack on you, I just think that it is BS.
Quote:
Interesting, I guess I could say the same. I follow what ever makes sense, it just so happens that religion is not one of those things. I just chose to have my own sense of right an wrong, much like you. I don't use a book to confirm it.
Quote:*Shrug* The closest I can say is that there are Gnostic texts where God in the New Testament was compared to the Old Testament and asked why there was a change, and much of it basically stated that though Jesus was the Son of the Lord, he was the Mortal Son and was God's living essence. The horrible floods (like the one Noah rode out), the Pestilences etc. were minor. Sodom and Gomorrah were razed because the Sodomites and Gomorrans wanted to corrupt the Angels that were visiting a faithful Jew and his family. They are acts of the Old Testament God.
I hardly consider children to be material. I would also expect any respectable god to stop this from happening. Can I ask A stupid question?(Like you could stop me) Why are there no more obvious acts by god?
Quote:You don't need God to be a good person. You need God if you want to get into heaven.
I'm just curious. I just think that it would would be pretty shallow of god, who I do not believe in, to require you to be live in him to make it in even if you were a great person.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:His followers are mostly his extended family. They're not stupid, but I think they're going to be better off once Fred's dead. He's the Charismatic leader behind a hateful legacy. Some people like living in a small world. I just wonder what's going to happen to these kinds of people when they find out we're not alone in the universe.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I still think (after reading it a few times) that Jesus was being facetious or ironical in that passage. He's not commanding the slaughter of children that don't follow the old laws. His New Covenant incorporates the old one... But instead of it being applicable to Jews, it applies to all, Jew and Gentile.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:I think that if you believe in heaven, you're already on that path. I'm not so concerned about the afterlife, I'll deal with it when I get there. I'm more concerned about THIS life, and making it better for everyone. IF you believe and don't follow through, you're short-changing yourself. If you go through the process and don't believe what you're doing is for the better of EVERYONE, you're doing better for everyone else, but you're not going to get into heaven necessarily... You could be Mother Theresa, but if you don't believe in God, you're not going to get in.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:You don't need God to be a good person. You need God if you want to get into heaven.