Compelled to change?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's side-stepping the point. As a matter of fact, it has little to do with anything.

And side-stepping is what you are best at as your posts indicate.

Originally posted by whodey
And side-stepping is what you are best at as your posts indicate.

You don't show me because you can't show me.

Okay, I'll make it easier. It's my position that committed homosexual relationships are not addressed by the bible. So show me where homomosexuality is condemned but doesn't refer to lust, homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You don't show me because you can't show me.

Okay, I'll make it easier. It's my position that committed homosexual relationships are not addressed by the bible. So show me where homomosexuality is condemned but doesn't refer to lust, homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abonimation. Neither shall you lie with any other beast to defile yourself therewith...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You don't show me because you can't show me.

Okay, I'll make it easier. It's my position that committed homosexual relationships are not addressed by the bible. So show me where homomosexuality is condemned but doesn't refer to lust, homosexual rape, male sexual abuse of boys, and homosexual prostitution, orgies, Pagan sexual rituals in temples, etc.

Your arguments are logical and sound, ThinkOfOne. You are obviously well versed in the Bible, and are able to see right through the nonsense that has now become Christianity.

But you are wasting your breath with Whodey. As I discovered a while ago, Whodey has locked his brain and thrown away the key. He is simply unable to see beyond the box he has placed himself in.

Find a more useful activity and leave him be.

Originally posted by Varqa
Your arguments are logical and sound, ThinkOfOne. You are obviously well versed in the Bible, and are able to see right through the nonsense that has now become Christianity.

But you are wasting your breath with Whodey. As I discovered a while ago, Whodey has locked his brain and thrown away the key. He is simply unable to see beyond the box he has placed himself in.

Find a more useful activity and leave him be.

Now was this directed at Moses or me? 😛

I gave what Thinkofone asked for, so whats the problem?

Originally posted by Varqa
Your arguments are logical and sound, ThinkOfOne. You are obviously well versed in the Bible, and are able to see right through the nonsense that has now become Christianity.

But you are wasting your breath with Whodey. As I discovered a while ago, Whodey has locked his brain and thrown away the key. He is simply unable to see beyond the box he has placed himself in.

Find a more useful activity and leave him be.

I keep hoping to find a way to help those who are blinded by bigotry, pride, desires of the self, etc. It's sad to think of them never overcoming their delusions to be able to see the Truth.

Originally posted by whodey
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abonimation. Neither shall you lie with any other beast to defile yourself therewith...

From what I've read, there is disagreement as to the proper translation of this verse. It has been interpreted as everything from condemning all homosexual acts to only male homosexual acts during a pagan temple ritual, depending on the biases of the translators. As such it may or may not be applicable to committed homosexual relationships.

Even if it does apply to all homosexual acts, what gives you the right to judge them more severely than gluttony and greed? If homosexuality deserved to be dealt with more severely than wealth, then why did Jesus speak several times against wealth while remaining mute on homosexuality?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I keep hoping to find a way to help those who are blinded by bigotry, pride, desires of the self, etc. It's sad to think of them never overcoming their delusions to be able to see the Truth.

A blind man is still hopeful of someday being able to see. Whodey believes he can see better than you. He believes he is guided by the Spirit. He does not for one moment believe that there may be a flaw in his thinking. He gets his revelations directly from God.

This kind of blindness has no cure.

Originally posted by Varqa
A blind man is still hopeful of someday being able to see. Whodey believes he can see better than you. He believes he is guided by the Spirit. He does not for one moment believe that there may be a flaw in his thinking. He gets his revelations directly from God.

This kind of blindness has no cure.

I think I understand how deep-rooted this blindness can be, especially with individuals deluded enough to mistake self-righteousness for the Holy Spirit. I've observerd that pride is particulary debilitating.

How can you be so sure that this type of blindness has no cure? Did Baha'u'llah speak of this?

Originally posted by whodey
I see, so you want me to tell you why I think homosexuality is a bad idea instead of the Bible simply saying it is a bad idea. From a Christian perspective, sin does three things which is to kill, steal and destroy. So how does homosexuality do any of these? I say that it robs people of the joy of bringing their own flesh and blood into the world. Either in scripture that I deem to be the inspired word of God even though others may mock me for it.

I'm sorry, but just because it makes you happy to bring new persons into existence through biological parenthood, that doesn't somehow mean it's morally imperative for all adults to seek out happiness through the same means. If it did, I guess you'd have to, by your own accounts, consider Jesus a real moral failure in that regard. I guess it's a good thing that our rational and social nature allows us to seek and find happiness in all sorts of different ways, being that some couples cannot conceive regardless of any or how much desire on their part to do so. I guess your god didn't deem it necessary that all should be able to find happiness in just the same way you have.

The rest is just not on point. What a child needs are guardian(s) who take entrustment of the child's interests seriously and who shower the child with love and proper care. You have no reasons to just assume that a homosexual couple will not be able to fulfill this role. But also, in case I'm just not making myself clear, I would rather you specifically address my example on Page 4. You'll see that it doesn't have anything necessarily to do with irresponsible promiscuity or STDs or adoption because these things are not inherent to the subject of homosexuality. To uphold a blanket view such as yours against something, you'll need to show basically that there's something inherently wrong with whatever it is you're blanketly against. I think I've presented a clear counterexample, and that's probably why you won't address it directly.

If there is some nucleus to a meaningful relationship, it probably rests in the love between the partners, where this love is a whole complex of dispositions. The love between homosexual partners can be every bit as real and beautiful as any other, and I just can't imagine that a loving, compassionate god would categorically belittle and condemn it. Besides, if it was his design intention that it not be the case, then he probably shouldn't have made the world such that there exists predisposition toward it stemming from genetic and environmental factors beyond the agent's active control.

I know it's also self-reassuring for you to just label all gays as unhappy, but many are as happy as anyone else -- despite any social reproach.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I keep hoping to find a way to help those who are blinded by bigotry, pride, desires of the self, etc. It's sad to think of them never overcoming their delusions to be able to see the Truth.

I have been following this discussion and I suspect that there is much misunderstanding of the teachings of Paul, which many churches try to apply without taking into consideration the obvious superiority of the teachings of Christ who in a nutshell said if you are sinful yourself then you cannot condemn anyone.

There are two mistakes that organised religion make that do not conform to the spirit of the teachings of Christ :

1. Their priorities - they are quick to condemn/expel members for sexual misconduct (as defined in the Bible), but dont take the same hardline with violations of more important commandments such as 'loving thy neighbour', and others (identified by ThinkofOne).

2. More serious, is the mistake of expelling or condemning a member or a follow of Christ who may be accepted on the day of judgment. We have no idea who will be considered worthy of salvation, hence the reason why we were told not to judge anyone. The reason is that expelling any member is likely to cause them to go astray, which is a very serious matter.

The adulterous woman, the thief on the cross, the good samaritan, and many others will get salvation before the religious leaders in the time of Christ. Similiarly a gay couple that gets expelled from a church for their sexuality can very well be welcomed into the kingdom because their charitable ways and love for others, outweigh the minor offence of being born with unusual desires.

1 Peter 4:8 - And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I have been following this discussion and I suspect that there is much misunderstanding of the teachings of Paul, which many churches try to apply without taking into consideration the obvious superiority of the teachings of Christ who in a nutshell said if you are sinful yourself then you cannot condemn anyone.

There are two mistakes that organised reli ngs have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins. [/i]

So if someone in your church in high authority is having adulterous relationships or fornicating and promoting thier lifestyle the church should burn a blind eye so as not to judge them and move on? When Christ showed mercy on the woman caught in adultery, he did not merely show mercy on her, rather, he told her to go and sin no more. However, when one cannot even determain or agree to what sin is there is a problem to say the least. Is there ever a good excuse to have an adulterous relationship? Can God bless it? For example, what if you had a marriage in name only for whatever reason? What if you felt forced to marry someone out of social obligation but really loved someone else instead? You then marry them but only have a committed relationship with another person with whom you are not married? I know of "Christians" who have held similar positions. In fact, one woman said that she and God had an "understanding".

We are warned in the Bible regarding calling sin good and good sin. Take heed to this how you will. In effect, what I am hearing is that the church has no moral authority to call anything a sin. The church has no moral authority to ask its members to leave if they are perceived as promoting apastasy and causing others to go astray. THis is all done in the guise of "we should not judge others". However, I am the one continuously being assulted on this thread by being called a hypocrite which is perhaps the worst offense recorded by Christ himself!! All I am trying to do is give my interpretation of what scripture tells me concerning proper sexual conduct when I am, in fact, not talking directly to any one in particular so who am I judging? I am, in fact, the only one being judged here. Perhaps I express no conveyence as to what sin is in peoples lives? Perhaps I should just tell people to do as they will even though this commandment is written in the Satanic Bible and not the Christian Bible. Should we not seek what God's will is on such matters? What gives those people the right to judge me? Should I be dealt with in a particualar church for percieved hypocrisy? What if I convert others to my way of thinking within the church if I were a church leader? Should I be dealt with for my alleged hypocrisy and promotion of percieved apastasy or should I just be welcomed with open arms to continue?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm sorry, but just because it makes you happy to bring new persons into existence through biological parenthood, that doesn't somehow mean it's morally imperative for all adults to seek out happiness through the same means. If it did, I guess you'd have to, by your own accounts, consider Jesus a real moral failure in that regard. I guess it's a good th nhappy, but many are as happy as anyone else -- despite any social reproach.

I knew this would be your response. Just keep in mind that I take my position only to warn others when I take no joy in telling others that they are in error. After all, who likes to be told they are in error? Who likes being the one to tell people they are in error? You are either rebuked as I am here or people are convicted and they repent. However, if I am right then I have a moral obligation to those that I love to tell them the truth no matter how it will be recieved. I do not wish to offend others but if offending others is what is required to do in order to stand up for what I percieve as the truth then so be it!!

Originally posted by whodey
So if someone in your church in high authority is having adulterous relationships or fornicating and promoting thier lifestyle the church should burn a blind eye so as not to judge them and move on?

The point is Whodey, is the church unbiased in the application of the guidelines? I know you can never answer 'yes' to that. All the churches I know of tend to focus on sexual misconduct. Here is what Paul letter to Timothy says about the conduct of senior members of the church.

1 Tim 3 : 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From what I've read, there is disagreement as to the proper translation of this verse. It has been interpreted as everything from condemning all homosexual acts to only male homosexual acts during a pagan temple ritual, depending on the biases of the translators. As such it may or may not be applicable to committed homosexual relationships.

Even if it ...[text shortened]... h, then why did Jesus speak several times against wealth while remaining mute on homosexuality?

So your position would have to be that if you lived back in Mosaic times you could, in fact, have a homosexual union that was "commtted" and not be stoned for it. Is that right?