I agree with that 100% Legislation changes nothing, sin or no sin, merely strengthens resolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Printable View
I agree with that 100% Legislation changes nothing, sin or no sin, merely strengthens resolve.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBlueBrock
Not a literalist. Context is everything. Probably would get chastized from my brethren, but I would say go with the way you lean, or check out both ways, pray about it, and pick one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krank
But those like Brock want to legislate their beliefs or feelings, seems the 'progressives' always look down their nose or other things at those who choose to believe different than they do but somehow only those that are 'progessive' in their thinking know what the heck is going on. I always laugh at people like brock or just ignore them.
I also find it interesting as I said before about Christians who only believe what they want to believe in the Bible as long as it pertains to how they think. Homosexuality is a sin, just as many other things that we all do is a sin. It is not a natural act.
Now I could care less what Collins does or doesn't do, it is his life so live it like he wants but just don't go around trying to force his thought process on young children. Now, courageous what he did, heck no. If he had told the world 8 years ago he was a homosexual, it would be a little more courageous, now, nope too many love the homosexuals and their way of life and believe they should have extra benefits because of what they do in their beds. Courageous is jumping on a live grenade to save your military buddies, courageous is jumping in front of a bus and pushing someone out of the way to save their life, courageous is jumping in water to rescue someone trapped in a car under water, it is not telling the world you like men better than women.
As far as love the sinner but not the sin, no that exact wording is not in the Bible, good phrase, one evidently puma doesn't believe in. But tell me where the Bible and its teachings tell us we are to love sin, because if you can show me that, then why do we have the ten commandments. Why do we even have any teachings what so ever about sin? Why doesn't the Bible just tell us to have a great time on earth and we will see everyone in heaven? We are told to love one another, we are told there is sin in the world and that each of us is a sinner and we are to confess our sins. And we are told there is one way to heaven, and it isn't thru works. And in the Old Testament and the New we are told what homosexual behavior is. And while it is human nature to judge people on so many ways, we are also told that only One will have the final judgment. If puma is right then all who live in daily sin, never repent, and thumb their noses at the teachings of God thru the Old and New Testaments will end up in the same place as Billy Graham when they die. The person who murders a child is just as good as the homosexual, no difference according to puma.
Now what I think he did was this. He is 34, makes way too much for what little he does, such as averaging less than 2 pts and less than 2 boards a game and more than likely does not get a contract next year for his big salary since he will be a free agent this summer. But if he finally gets around to telling the world he is a homosexual there is no way the NBA can not give him a contract in spite of the fact he isn't needed any longer and any NBA team can get someone who can produce what little he did for half the lprice, someone like Josh H at min wage contract. Too many who know nothing about basketball would scream bloddy mary, including your progessive president, if this guy doesn't get a contract now and he knew it. He played the game, now gets a big contract next year for sitting on his butt at the end of the bench, might play 20 games if he is lucky. Smart guy. And all these players claiming it makes no difference to have a known homosexual in their locker room parading around naked, I dont' believe it for a second when it comes to reality.
Like edward said, we are each accountable for our actions but on judgement day, I would not want to be in the shoes of Collins or others who daily live in sin on purpose, who thumb their nose at God and the teachings of the Bible and who try to convince people they are Christians but it is okay to change the way the Bible is to their way of thinking. I have done enough sin in my life w/o worrying about things like that. I am a sinner, do it daily because I am weak, and i ask forgiveness each night and for strength to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
I appreciate your viewpoint Jazy. I don't agree, but I appreciate you sharing it.
You know what? Not even worth the effort. Gay marriage will slowly be recognized as equal under the law across the country and there's naught people like jazy or Edward can do about it but piss and moan on message boards. I wonder if this is how it felt to argue on the side of equal rights and protections under the law for blacks in the 60s...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois
puma I did not want to quote your entire post so everyone would know which one I was responding to, so
Outstanding thoughtsQuote:
Sorry, this is a long post...feel free to skip down and read my summary at the bottom.
It's amateur hour on the theology board, apparently.
Its not about intolerance, its about truth is it not? There is only one truth, and that truth could care less about tolerance. Its the method by which the truth is taught or debated which causes human beings to allow feelings to enter and muddy the waters.....as seen above by the judgements being thrown out by both sides. But in the end, there are not two right answers, there is only One.
How about some Wolfhart Pannenberg, just to bring the voice of someone who isn't making it up as he goes along into this discussion.
Puma, I could not find the word rape in my Bible so according to you since it wasn't specifically mentioned, as far as we know since none of the writers mentioned it, by Jesus then it must be okay to rape a child or anyone else.
I Corinthians 6:9. Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor the idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor 'homosexual' offenders 10 not thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what so e of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our Lord.
Gal 5:16-24. So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. But you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
The acts of sinful nature are obvious sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery, idolatry and witchcraft, hatred.
, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of a God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.
6:7-8. Do not be deceived. God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction, the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
Puma, that is from the New Testament and I am pretty sure it is very explicit and maybe your church doesn't teach that nor believes that part of the Bible. Paul didnt mince any words there. Just because they didnt come directly from Jesus himself doesn't mean He wasn't involved with that teaching as I am pretty sure Paul was teaching from what he learned.
From the Old Testamlent
Lev 18-22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman, that is detestable.
18-30. Keep my requirements, and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and donor defile yourselves with them. I am the lLord your God.
Since I accept the teachings of the Bible and feel they are Gods words given to us on how we are to live and treat people, I love the sinner but hate the sin.
You questioned whether homosexuality is a sin because Jesus didnt speak directly about it, so using your reasoning I can't find where Jesus said directly for a man not to rape a child so it must not be a sin since He had other things on His mind at that time.
I know those that have told me they are Christians but don't take the Bible as being perfect and that it should be a living word that changes as they wish, you seem to beone of those. That is fine, do as you want but you and others should not criticize those of us that that take these words as they are written and accept them. The Old Testament is clear about homosexuality and so is the New Testament. Unlike those like Brock I am not going to say you must believe my way or you are a kook. For those that are Catholic, and one I have ad long discussions in the past reading how he said he was so strong in his belief in the church, I smile when they write words here that they believe is okay that is in direct conflict with the teachings of be Catholic Church.
Colin's can do what he wants, he played a smart hand to insure himself a million dollar contract.
OT: if there are any UNC-CH students who read this entire thread you will receive full credit (4 credit hrs) which you can apply to your required credit hours for the degree you are seeking. Athletes will receive only two credit hours so there will be no presumption of special benefits, however if the aforementioned athletes are actually capable of reading the entire thread you can apply for extra credit.
To receive accreditation for the course just PM...........lets go with badrose, eh hmm that's Professor badrose and be prepared to answer a few short questions concerning the topic.
Re: amateurs. Good thing the reformation happened, eh?
Stanley Hauerwas has been saying lately that the work of the Reformation was to put the Bible in the hands of the people, and the work of our time is to take it away from them (because now everyone thinks they're experts, and all interpretations are equal, which is utter nonsense).
Originally Posted by Krank:
"BTW, I would be very curious to know how the Biblical literalists who claim their knowledge and understanding of Judeo-Christian gospels is unassailable would identify hermaphroditic folks and who THEY choose to be with on a sexual/relationship level.
Any takers on that?"
Appreciate the reply, badrose, and I tend to agree (and props to puma, who has been EXCELLENT on this thread, not saying that because I tend to agree with him, but because I feel his thoughts are extremely logical and organized, as well as attempting to buffer the typical "either with us or against us" political BULLSPIT that ALWAYS garbles these sorts of discussions, i.e. he is trying to bring real life experience AND his religious beliefs into the fray).Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
The reason I asked the question about hermaphroditic individuals is that such an example, IMO, perfectly shows that the issue of GLBT rights is not as simple as many would like to make it out to be. If a person has BOTH sets of genitalia, then the answer to "what is natural?" becomes not so easy and certainly not definable by a religious doctrine (or at least any that I am familiar with).
So I ask, again, this time pointing a further fleshed out question towards the most conservative biblical literalists on this thread...
If a hermaphroditic individual, allegedly loved every bit as much by your deity of choice as any other human being would be, chooses to have sexual relationships with someone who is NOT hermaphroditic, then are they gay when they use their male genitalia with a male?
or are they lesbian if they use their female genitalia with a female?
or are they "gay sinners" simply because they are NEITHER completely male or female, thus dooming their partners AND themselves to "everlasting hellfire" by simply being involved with a uni-gendered partner (how does one check on that, BTW, should the government/church of your choice appoint a secret service agent for god that hides in the closets of hermaphrodites so as to guide them once they sin with each and every sexual act that is not the missionary position between individuals who are clearly ONE gender or "the OTHER"?)?
or are they given a pass because the human writers of the bible forgot to mention them, thus NOT being divinely inspired by a perfect "creator/god"?
or do you concede that biological reality on an issue such as this trumps unprovable mythology that insists that all words in a bible are directly inspired by "god"?
One might assume that I am attempting to embarrass the folks that this question is pointed toward, but I consider it a completely rational question that deals with real life individuals, folks you would NEVER know are hermaphroditic, thus it is NOT my attempt to bait or embarrass anyone. I am just curious to see if any of said folks have the guts to think about it and give a rational response.
Thanks in advance.
Peace.
Jazy, I apologize for not taking the time to respond to your entire post. I obviously know those verses are there and what they say. As I said earlier, I believe the whole Bible. I just don't believe it teaches what you are using those passages to teach. I just don't have the energy or the desire to go down that road. I would never be able to fully explain my viewpoint in a thread, so won't try. I disagree with how you are using them, but I will just keep it at that. I certainly understand why you believe what you do, and I certainly understand why you used those passages. I used to as well. There are other passages by the way that support your viewpoint, and I could list them if it helped.Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
To your comment about rape: First, rape is condemned in the BIble (several times...and ironically enough one is a time that people misunderstand as being about homosexuality). Secondly, if you re-read my post, I made it very clear that Jesus not mentioning it does not mean its not a sin. I said I think its significant historically. And it is. Culturally and historically. But, not theologically. In other words, Him not mentioning it doesn't mean its not a sin (we agree), but Him not mentioning it is very significant to why I believe what I do about what the Bible has to say about being gay (I know that doesn't make sense, but I promise it does to me). Again, I just don't have the time or the bandwidth to fully explain that.
All of that to get to your comment above. I just wanted to be clear about one thing. My church does not have a viewpoint on being gay. Some in my church believe exactly like you do. Many believe like I do. We don't have ones views on homosexuality on our litmus test. Most churches do in an unwritten way. Our church is what most would consider a standard, evangelical church. We are certainly not a UCC or anything close to it (an "amateur" guess?). My church is distinctly not a political church by choice, and we focus on loving as Jesus loves and serving the needy as Jesus taught (as well as a slew of other things I'm sure your church teaches). I just didn't want to paint a picture that said my church's viewpoint is________. We don't have one. I do. As do many of my friends, and people in my community group, etc.
I know I really should not respond to your post (I know better), but I will. Just a couple of things: It would be nice if instead of making critical comments toward everyone else and yelling from the cheap seats, you actually made a significant comment either way. You have added nothing to this thread except for insults and barbs. What is your opinion? Why? Since you call others amateurs, let's hear your viewpoint (I know, you are "above" this discussion, right?).Quote:
Originally Posted by elicat
Secondly, I am not sure what you qualify as "amateur hour on the theology board", but I am guessing I am the only one here with the degree I have. Maybe that doesn't make me an expert by any means, but I spent a lot of years studying to become an "amateur" then.
The Dukie is something we have common ground on. I don't agree with everything he has written, but do like much of what he teaches. A little odd that you use his name based on your viewpoint in this thread, but I digress.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicat
Krank, it's a legitimate question. I used to be a real B&W guy, had it all figured out and not without considerable thought. I don't know why God brought the hammer down on MY head instead of someone whom I could have read and came to the same readjusted conclusions but I think He did it because of my nature and knew I wouldn't waste it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krank
I believe God created a perfect world with two physically perfect humans, male and female, with the freedom to make moral choices. He knew ahead of time that no one would score 100% on those choices so He gave us laws that included those that would not allow us to forget Him in the process of trying to follow the rest. Being human, we broke them, bringing about changes in our DNA and and an imperfect environment. Our inability to keep the Law necessitated grace, a perfect sacrifice, his own perfect Son, who knew our brokenness and was full of compassion, not willing that any of us would perish. All of that to say that physical abnormalities are a result of human behavior but none of us have been forgotten by our creator Who desires our fellowship so long as we desire His based on our obedience to His instruction even knowing we will stumble in trying to do so.
I think the Bible is unique in all of literature in that it provides the most beneficial instruction on human behavior and survival. Others have come to the same conclusion. Of course the world is full of those who would try to reinvent the wheel whether it be those who would stone a woman who shows her ankles, those who would seek holiness by isolating themselves on top of a mountain, etc. It makes the most sense of who we are and our experiences. Grace with a code; can't beat it. I would go further here to say that our Constitution is the closest thing to an inspired document that exists outside of the Bible. (For another discussion and hopefully no time soon. I'm sooo ready for the Silly Season.)
Oops, I forgot the main purpose of my response. I would say that the question addresses legalistic tendencies of many who follow the bible while being legalistic in its own purpose. My answer would be to those considered here, Congratulations on having someone with whom you can share intimacy. Knock your socks off! All of this assuming they seek a relationship with their Creator, otherwise none of it really matters.
I responded to this backchannel, and I don't know what degree you have, but just going by what seems probable I doubt very much that you are the only one.Quote:
Originally Posted by ukpumacat
Dang dude...I stand corrected. I'm actually cracking up after reading your PM. Thanks for sending it.Quote:
Originally Posted by elicat
I love this community of people on here. We all may have different viewpoints, but I would down a beer with anyone and talk UK all night long.
I’ve been gone a few days and just finished reading your comments. I must “Come out” admit that I am a “Born Again” Christian and am proud to make that statement. As I tried to say; whether you believe homosexuality is right, wrong or indifferent has nothing to do with my statements. I am not saying you have to agree with me or anyone else on this board about anything on this board. I am saying we all have to account for our choices. Each of us made our choice on this subject, did we not? Then, so be it.
IMHO, when we get to the “End of days” there will be only two groups of people left, those who KNOW Jesus and those with NO Jesus. There is no door number three. And…we will all account for our choices.
Edward see you in the BLUE room in heaven, glad you are a brother
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward100
Thank you brother, jazyd
Mark 12:31
And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
Enough for me. (A Baptist by the way)
Just thankful we live in a country where these things can be openly debated and the sides presented don't have to be in lock-step.
I have a beloved family member who is a homosexual and it never has been an issue with us; he is how he is just like a beagle chases rabbits or a retriever loves the water, and it doesn't make a bit of difference, and I love him harder than thunder can bump a stump, but it has never an issue with me, he is my family. Period.