 |
|
|
|
 Are church teachings on homosexuality driving millennials away from faith?
March 31st, 2014
02:18 PM ET
How evangelicals won a war and lost a generation
(CNN) - On March 24, World Vision announced that the U.S. branch of the popular humanitarian organization would no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages. It was a decision that surprised many but one that made sense, given the organization’s ecumenical nature. But on March 26, World Vision President Richard Stearns reversed the decision, stating, “our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake.” Supporters helped the aid group “see that with more clarity,” Stearns added, “and we’re asking you to forgive us for that mistake.” So what happened within those 48 hours to cause such a sudden reversal? The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the decision pointed to “disaster,” and the Assemblies of God denomination encouraged its members to pull their financial support from the organization. Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course. Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor, sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves. So World Vision reversed course. Stearns told The New York Times that some people, satisfied with the reversal, have called World Vision headquarters to ask, “Can I have my child back?” as though needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay and lesbian people. Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events unfolded. As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this. But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become. When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong. There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor. Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce. But we’re not. Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded? As I grieved with my (mostly 20- and 30-something) readers over this ugly and embarrassing situation, I heard a similar refrain over and over again: “I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this.” I feel the same way. Whether it’s over the denial of evolutionary science, continued opposition to gender equality in the church, an unhealthy alliance between religion and politics or the obsession with opposing gay marriage, evangelicalism is losing a generation to the culture wars. A recent survey from Public Religion Research Institute revealed that nearly one-third of millennials who left their childhood faith did so because of “negative teachings” or “negative treatment” of gay and lesbian people. Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus. So my question for those evangelicals is this: Is it worth it? Is a “victory” against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support? Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church? Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people? And is a “victory” against gay marriage worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks, "what if we get this wrong?" I, for one, am tired of arguing. I’m tired of trying to defend evangelicalism when its leaders behave indefensibly. I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism's culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.” I’m ready to stop waging war and start washing feet. Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.
« Previous entryDoes God have a prayer in Hollywood?
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN
Reblogged this on jwpruss.
Good for you...
"According the the Bible, it is not the government's job to recognize ANY marriage. That's up to the church." (Theo)
According to the bible? You are aware that the bible is irrelevant when it comes to making laws in our country, right?
Regardless, you still can't seem to give a logical answer. If you believe it's not the government's place to recognize marriages, then why do you specifically object to the government recognizing gay marriages and not the rest?
And this, right here , is why I am so very, very glad that marriages in this country are secular...unless one wants to be married at the whim of a church.
My wife and I were married by a Christian judge who said he didn't really feel he had that authority to do so. I found that amusing.
"why do you specifically object to the government recognizing gay marriages and not the rest?"
-----------
Because the so-called "marriage" of two sodomites goes against the created order of God. It is a dare of God's justice.
A marriage between a two-se.x couple at least recognizes the created order, although their preferred position is to deny the God who made them.
Fortunately, the USA is a secular state with secular laws that do not have to conform to Christian values. This is not even a Christian values issue. Plenty of Christians are not at all opposed to gay marriage. For your government to side with the view of a particular sect would put in in violation of your Consti.tution, would it not?
So...you're targeting gay people. But everyone else's secular marriage is okay.
A marriage between a man and a woman doesn't go against the created order.
And where can one see this "created order"?
"And where can one see this "created order"?"
----------
The fact that there are men and women, and not just men or not just women. The fact that two men or two women cannot make offspring.
Good thing that your opinion means nothing in our secular US.
Theo,
Why did God create animals to exhibit gay behavior?
It's found in nature. It's just not found in the Bible.
And your scenario, if marriage was dependent on offspring, would eliminate your marriage.
Sorry, I was hoping for a more authoritative source for your claimed "created order" than merely your subjective view.
"Sorry, I was hoping for a more authoritative source for your claimed "created order" than merely your subjective view."
-----------
Oh, OK. Genesis. There's no greater authority than God's word.
Technical note:
The "origin" of male & female present in nature is found ONLY in the "Creation Story" found in the Book of Genesis. There is no other explanation found anywhere else.
Why should Genesis or any other so called holy book apply to every person in the USA or anywhere?
Yep, targeting gay people.
Vic, what does that even mean?? Are you saying that Genesis is the only creation story out there? Or that nature is only defined by what Genesis says?
I hope you're not saying that there isn't gay behavior exhibited by non – humans found in nature. Because you would be wrong.
Wait a damn minute!! I can't have children any more...does that mean I shouldn't be able to marry the love of my life either??? If we all live by that view then no-one who is infertile or not wishing to have children should be able to get married!!
Vic, you are ignoring, lying about, the existence of other, much more plausible, science, not voodoo religion, based hypotheses for the origin of life in Earth. But ignoring your deceitful, sinful ways, a single alleged explanation for something does not mean it is in any way true. But when trying to con people, it is best to get your story out first, truth be damned. Congratulations to the dead jew zombie death cult for establishing a significant, but declining, market share among delusional believers.
None of the above.
What I am saying is that only the "Creation by God" explains why there is a male & female setup in nature, there is no other explanation for it anywhere else, e.g. Evolutionary Biology.
TP,
What's hilarious is by Theo's own standards, HE shouldn't be married.
That's a tired load of hooey. When people use that as the reason gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, it never fails to make me roll my eyes.
I would go a step farther and say if you get married and haven't had any kids within two years then you must get divorced. Of course according to the bible if you get remarried you are committing adultery so you can't get married again, and if you aren't married then no s.ex so we might as well castrate the newly divorced just in case they might go against what the bible teaches.
Theo Phileo
Yet, the Bible apparently considers incest part of the natural order.
Lot and his daughters.
Cain and Seth with their sisters, or their own mother.
Noah's grandkids with themselves, or their aunts, uncles, or grandparents.
How else does the Bible explain the growth of human population without there being inbreeding?
"There's no greater authority than God's word."
I don't know, I sort of think things that are real have greater authority than figments of your imagination.
Vic, I am not really sure what to say; there is gay behavior found in every species in nature, so if it were not set up that way, what is the reason?
Clearly these animals, birds, insects, etcetera didn't get the Genesis memo.
@Vic
Se'xual reproduction's primary evolutionary benefit is genetic variance.
We are not talking about behavior, we are talking about gender.
Nothing explains why we have male & female other than the "Creation by God."
Vic, it's just one possibility with no evidence. None.
Vic another explanation is Evolution. Now if we are talking about explanations that you will accept then god may be the only one
Vic
The evolutionary advantage over as3xual reproduction, which basically puts all your eggs in a single basket that can easily be wiped out by a single disease, really should be obvious.
Besides, God is supposedly just one gender and he originally created man as a single gender, only making women to solve the unforeseen problem of Adam's loneliness. Nothing about this creation was about reproduction, was it? Reproduction is only mentioned as part of God's curse upon humanity for the sin of thinking for ourselves.
For all you know, Eve was also male until this curse changed her into a female. There was no plan that they reproduce as obedient humans in the Garden, right? If that was the plan she would have suffered during childbirth like women do today, so God would have had to mess with her structure post initial creation to create the pain of labor. How do you really know then that Eve wasn't actually first created a "Steve" then?
Targeting? Marriage between a man and a women is part of Gods plan for mankind that was made in the image of God. Many generations have passed and few even know or care to know the blessings that follow for those who live their lives in that image. Biologically a man could be more of women and vice versa yet it is male and female God created in his image. More importantly God specifically created a woman so that man could be united in completeness of relationship to the extent one is a significant part of the other. This principle of unity applies to the natural as well as symbolic relationship between God and man.
Gay marriage fails not because of the genetic predisposition of the partners but because it does not bring Glory to God. Gay marriage is the wedge which has destroyed much faith in the Word of God, undermined the credibility of Moses, Old Testament law and Paul. This action is an affront to God and the order intended for creation. No excuse as to equality of financial distributions will overcome spiting upon God. Society can provide whatever measure of equality it wants but it should not take part in undermining the religious foundations of a country.
"Society can provide whatever measure of equality it wants but it should not take part in undermining the religious foundations of a country."
Our gov't is a secular gov't. The gov't is to be neutral as to religious issues. As such equality is required for ALL.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Undermining the Word of God, credibility of Moses and Paul not to mention the authority of church leaders today is not a neutral position. It is actually a politically motivated position and equality has nothing to do with it. If it was equality they wanted they should strip all benefits away from marriage period.
Yup! Equality for all. Even silly people clinging to their religious beliefs that more resemble astrology than rational thought. But delusional believers, please, confine your silliness to your homes and cult clubhouses and keep it away from children.
You are not going to convince many married people to give up their tax breaks so you are left with granting the same breaks to gay couples.
hotairace
Two men playing the role of mommy and daddy following a gala wedding in an accidental purposeless existence out of rock sounds just as silly.
Fred, yes, targeting.
Gays being married does not affect your religious marriages in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM.
All the rest of your opinion deals with religion, and as such, has no bearing on the topic of marriage equality for everyone.
They are two separate issues.
"Undermining the Word of God, credibility of Moses and Paul not to mention the authority of church leaders today is not a neutral position."
So if the gov't does not acquiesce to YOUR religious belief YOU are being discriminated against. That is just absurd. You are arguing for a Theocracy...be carefull what you ask for. What about those Christians that believe god does not have a problem with gay marriage? Why should your belief supercede theirs? I "undermine the Word of God" every chance I get...are you going to try and legislate your belief over mine on that basis?
"If it was equality they wanted they should strip all benefits away from marriage period."
If everyone was treated equally I wouldn't have an issue with this.
joey3467
Actually it is the failure of our politically motivated leadership to manipulate our attitudes (and votes) with inequality in the distribution of wealth. Bob and Robbie do not deserve a tax break based on a 70 year old structure simply because of marriage. If the government did not want to undermine traditional family or the Bible then all it had to do was issue civil union licenses to everyone. What one chooses to do with their civil union licenses as to marriage ceremony should be none of the governments business.
fred, you repeatedly mention life from rocks (which is not what scientists are investigating) yet you believe your alleged but never proven god created Adam out of dirt/clay. Can't you see that both feats would be pretty much the same? Why do you believe one and not the other.
Gay marriage is not about procreation – it's about love. Why won't you and your ilk allow all consenting adults to express their love publicly and guilt free?
believerfred,
Yep. The government doesn't allow much of God's warped views of marriage. We aren't allowed to FORCE marriage on people like God wants. We aren't even allowed to take women as prizes of war for our pleasure.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
No, the government should have simply shown the same amount of respect to Christians as it does to Muslims, or should I say show the same amount of fear.
Ok fred, I'll bite. How does the government give more respect to muslims than christians, and why should the government fear muslims more than christians?
fred,
None of that answered the question. Why should YOUR religious belief supercede others?
believerfred,
Do you see any Muslims in our country raising TENS of MILLIONS of dollars to try to deprive our citizens of equal rights? Do you see them working to change laws to diminish rights?
Try again.
"The "origin" of male & female present in nature is found ONLY in the "Creation Story" found in the Book of Genesis. There is no other explanation found anywhere else."
Sorry Vic, but no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first_men_or_women_in_mythology_and_religion
Share and enjoy!
believerfred
hotairace
"you repeatedly mention life from rocks (which is not what scientists are investigating)"
=>Last I heard existence began with inorganic matter. I simplify it as a rock rather than discuss various baryonic matter forms.
" yet you believe your alleged but never proven god created Adam out of dirt/clay"
=>actually, Genesis says formed out of the dust of the earth (which actually contains the same base matter as science speculates was present when inorganic matter became organic). I don't know what process or matter God used.
"Can't you see that both feats would be pretty much the same? Why do you believe one and not the other."
=>it very well could be, I don't know. The language is wide open in Genesis to even allow for a quantum flux without cause.
"Gay marriage is not about procreation – it's about love."
=>I am not hung up about the physiology of male, female or procreation. When God said be fruitful and multiply there were several directions in fruitfulness one of which was procreation.
" Why won't you and your ilk allow all consenting adults to express their love publicly and guilt free?"
=>as I said remove the word "marriage" from license and issue only civil union licenses to everyone. If you want to celebrate an old fashion wedding of what ever kind or public celebration go for it. Why would anyone want to get married in a church that understands it is not a biblically endorsed marriage?
I agree it is wrong to dump negative thoughts or expressions at anyone's choice of marriage partner or type of ceremony.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
"What about those Christians that believe god does not have a problem with gay marriage? Why should your belief supercede theirs"
=>It should not. This is why I said no more marriage license period just issue civil union licenses or permits to everyone. Traditional marriage itself is going out of style and I have no clue what direction we are headed. You have license now get married where and however you want. No need to trash any one faith or target any one belief.
believerfred,
Let's call marriage "marriage". It's a LEGAL event with OPTIONAL religious involvement.
Congratulations fred, your recent posts indicate your dead jew zombie beliefs are evolving if not waning. You are on the road to atheism.
"Let's call marriage "marriage". It's a LEGAL event with OPTIONAL religious involvement."
Yep, just like it is now....no religious requirment at all.
hotairace
"How does the government give more respect to muslims than christians, and why should the government fear muslims more than christians?"
=>The government commissions artists to hang pictures of the Virgin Mary covered in poop, the cross stuck upside down in a bowl of urine etc. none of which is sanctioned against Mohamed
fred,
I can tell you I would be happy to see Mohammed and Islam get equal treatment. And I will admit CHristians are more tolerant of criticism....albeit often grudgingly.
Blessed are the Cheesemaker
"Yep, just like it is now....no religious requirment at all."
=>the difference would be government would not be using its power and force to destroy faith in God by intentionally establishing a religion that undermines the Word of God.
=>As Stalin proved godlessness is every bit as bad as Theocracy.
=>The government commissions artists to hang pictures of the Virgin Mary covered in poop, the cross stuck upside down in a bowl of urine etc. none of which is sanctioned against Mohamed
Comissioned?>/I> Really? Or they have given grants to artists and this is what the ARTISTS did?
Apply for a grant. Get it granted. Dip Mohamned in poo and hang him upside down.
Go right ahead. Your freedom of expression is sanctioned also.
=>the difference would be government would not be using its power and force to destroy faith in God by intentionally establishing a religion that undermines the Word of God.
The gov't isn't destroying faith, you are being melodramatic. They are not "establishing" a religion, that is a complete dishonest distortion of the situation. And it is not the "Word of God" it is the "word of your god" which doesn't get precedent over the word of any other god. Gov't sanctioning marriage doesn't affect you or your belief at all.
And as far as Stalin goes...belief or non-belief should not be legislated one way or the other.
" This is why I said no more marriage license period just issue civil union licenses or permits to everyone."
Typical fred. Typival hypocrite. Contemporary Christians began their whining about "government marriage" only when it became apparent that they no longer controlled the word.
Fred
I'm pretty sure that most of the atheists you'll likely encounter probably believe in freedom of thought, which includes your right as an adult to believe in whatever whacky things you want to, as long as that doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.
This is why the concept of a vengeful God who punishes people for simply having the "wrong" thoughts seems particularly disgusting to many of us.
'A marriage between a man and a woman doesn't go against the created order."
How can you be certain that a certain minor percentage of the population being attracted to the same gender is not part of the "created order"?
Marriage is a state matter. If you disagree, try getting married without a state license. Whether it agrees with your religious views is irrelevant.
"Marriage between a man and a women is part of Gods plan"
Who the fvck gives you the authority to speak for god?
And the word "marriage" doesn't belong to Christianity.
Christianity doesn't get to define what that word means. Only what it means to other Christians, and there's wide dissension there.
"And the word "marriage" doesn't belong to Christianity"
------------
Sadly, not anymore.
But God did create it with the first man and woman, and when He did so, He set the standard in Genesis.
Except that Adam and Eve never actually existed, and thus your entire argument is based on nothing.
How nice that you feel that way. Fortunately, that's only your opinion.
He set the standard with two genetically identical males? LOL.
"But God did create it with the first man and woman, and when He did so, He set the standard in Genesis"
More conjecture from corn pone
Pone, your being childless is against "god's order"....
But what if the people aren't Christian and don't share your religious views? Why should your religious views be relevant to the law?
And again, even if you think it's ok to inject your religious views into the law (and it absolutely is not), why would you not object to atheists getting married? We are surely much more sinful in the eyes of a Christian than a gay person and we will produce children likely to also oppose your religious views. We're the ones you should be watching out for, not gays.
It is pretty simple, most of the folks like Theo just don't like gay people, and instead of admitting it they hide behind the bible and use it as an excuse to discriminate against people.
"Because the so-called "marriage" of two sodomites goes against the created order of God. It is a dare of God's justice."
Theo,
If you don't like gay marriage don't get gay married. To assume your religious belief should trump the rights of others IS completely arrogant. Freedom is about allowing other people to do things you yourself may not agree with. I think your religious belief is a crock and a sham. I would never, however, want the gov't to outlaw you right to believe it, and i would fight against it if they tried. If you believe your god punishes whole groups of people because some of them behave against his wishes your god is an ass.
I do not understand how anyone's marriage affects anyone except the participants.
It falls under myob.
The government is not here to reinforce your religious bigotry, corn pone
fvck your and your god's "justice"
The Legal Enforcement Branch of atheism is the GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET. Every time I made a spelling mistake they use their toothpicks as spears to pick me over and over, all the while they yell DIE, DIE, DIE. JAJAJA oops I meant to say HAHAHA.
It took me a while to figure out you can't spell "salt/water" without "t/wat"
That's a good one, good thing I don't use that often.
I got caught once with "drift/wood" because it has FT/W in it.
I just discovered that a winking smiley face gets you a 'Your comment is awaiting moderation'
Yeah, that's a new one. I got caught the other day.
I think that's because of the overuse of it by thefinisher, Sal, His Panic, and the old EX Catholic...who all sound very similar, n'est ce pas?
Although finisher is still doing it. He seems to get around things a lot.
Vivid imagination or schizophrenia?
The latter...funny how sale disappeared for a couple of weeks-could it be s/he was on a special holiday out of societies way?
Doin' the old thorazine shuffle in the padded white castle.
I don't mind eccentric (cough, cough), but Salero is a mean one.
World Visions' total contributions for 2008 were $1,113,918,057 with the US taxpayers donating $280,590,001
to this total. It is time to end US taxpayers' support of this organization.
Any "Christian" that pulled support from a poverty stricken child is a monster. A delusional, hate filled monster.
“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” You know what's not in that verse? "Unless they're gay. You can totally let them starve if they're gay. Because Gay is the worst sin."
What kind of cookies?
"what kind of cookies?" Tossed.
The text you are quoting refers to the Judgement of the Nations/peoples. The church IS NOT a Nation, therefore IS NOT going to be in that Judgement. Read again carefully and slowly 4 times. If after that you still don't understand, them you might as well forget it you are NOT in the Plan.
"The text you are quoting refers to the Judgement of the Nations/peoples."
You are now positing that gay people are not people? And that Jesus won't be judging a nation by how it treats all individuals?
Mathew 25 was written to prevent marginalization of citizens...
And Mathew 7 1-5 was written for people who like to act like hypocrites but don't recognize themselves...
Is the GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET the Legal enforcement Branch of atheism "Moderating" my comments?
Perhaps the moderators are simply fed up with your constant barrage of trolling and total lack of useful or interesting contributions. Your posting are generally inflammatory and seemingly designed to bait atheists.
You are a master baiter.
Same to the letter can be said of yours.
How so? You come here and spread hate, not much. Doc isn't hateful.
god is moderating your comments.
even he can't believe the tripe you post.
every time you hit post and it is denied it's a little miracle.
Nope you can't have it both ways!! If you are an unbeliever (atheist) you can't turn and come back with arguments in favor of God doing this or that. Either you are or are not an unbeliever (atheist). No middle ground is accepted.
LOLOLOLOLOL
You can if you're being facetious.
@bostontroller,
Nope, unacceptable!! Either you believe or you don't!! Better be a doubter than being a Total unbeliever. Even one of the Apostles doubted.
Boston, you made a pretty bold assumption by assuming he knows what facetious means. Based on his response, it seems he does not.
Salero21
One does not need to believe in Darth Vader in order to criticize the actions his character did in the movies, yes?
In the Bible, God is a character who does certain set things. How is it invalid to criticize those actions, and people's interpretation that he would do radically different, uncharacteristic things if he existed today?
The GRAMMAR GESTAPO OF THE INTERNET is the Legal Enforcement Branch of atheism. If I made a spelling mistake they'll will pick me with their toothpicks over and over till I die.
Nah,Sombreo 6 &1/2, it's probably because the mods can't figure out what you ramble on about...nothing of importance. That is, you contribute nothing.
If you can't figure out, then you need to go back to 4th grade and acquire some basic reading and comprehension skills.
As I said Sombrero 6&1/2, you say and contribute nothing of importance. Actually DD, he thinks he's a salt lick for jeebus.
why do you name yourself "salt shaker"?
OMG OMG Who is "Moderating" my comments, an atheists, an idolater, the Vatican, an evolutionist?
maybe Jesus got sick of you making Christians look bad?
So then... Do you believe what and who Jesus IS?
I belive that Jesus was a human who died a long time ago.
He may have been a guy who died a long time ago. There's so little evidence outside of the bible that you can't be 100% sure he's a real historical figure.
The only part you get right is that HE was human then, HE was born as a man. HE was like one of us humans for awhile, for a very short time. However HE really is was NOT one of us. HE IS, WAS the Son of God.
so your story book says.
Did you know Harry Potter thought he was a muggle until he was invited to Hogwarts. True fact.
@ dyslexic,
The book is not mine! The History Narrative of the Bible is better than your Potty Potter book!!
hmmm ... at least you're admitting that it's just a book.
JK Rowling is a much better writer. And we know who she is. The bible is poorly written and we don't know who most of the authors were.
the bible gets points for having a leather cover sometimes. Harry Potter is typically in paperback.
Harry Potter is more realistic. The bible story is waaaay too far fetched.
I don't know ... I think the Harry Potter story wins.
Harry Potter is a licensed character with only one author where Jesus is written about by several authors in a collection of books known as the New Testament. Jesus is more analogous to a collection of the stories and movies written about a public domain character like Dracula.
If OMG stands for 'oh, my God', why are you constantly breaking the 3rd Commandment?
Theo Phileo,
Any idea why sodomy is perfectly acceptable when done by Christian heteros and bad when not done by heteros?
The word translated as ho.mos.exual is "a.rs.enoko.ites" – the Greek Lexicon gives this as it's definition: a sodomite: an abuser of (that defiles) self with mankind. This is someone who has a relationship with the same s.ex. Romans 1:18-32 is very clear that the act of ho.mos.exuality defiles…
Sodom was a city known for hom.os.exuality of men and women. Therefore to call someone a sodomite refers to either a man or woman who has s.exual relations with the same se.x. The original use of the word does not refer to a specific act.
Theo Phileo,
The word "sodomy" is NOT in the Bible. If you don't know what it means, please use a dictionary.
The Bible does say that the "sin of Sodom" was not s3xual orientation but GREED. Please read it.
The word "sodomy" is NOT in the Bible. If you don't know what it means, please use a dictionary.
--------------
The word "ar.senokoites" is in the Bible, and we derive "sodomite" from that, as well as from the sins found in Sodom that were the reason for it's destruction.
"The Bible does say that the "sin of Sodom" was not s3xual orientation but GREED. Please read it."
--------------
Sure, greed was ONE of the sins of Sodom, but not THE sin of Sodom. Read this:
2 Peter 2:6-10 – …if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men (for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.
Clearly, Peter claims the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah was the “sensual conduct of unprincipled men” who “indulged their flesh in its corrupt desires,” and “despised authority.”
The problem with saying that the sin of Sodom was greed or inhospitality is that it does not account for the offering of Lot's daughter to the men outside the home (a sinful act indeed), but one that was rejected by the men outside who desired to have relations with the two angels in Lot's home. Genesis 19:5 says, "and they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.'" Those men wanted to have se.xual relations with the angels who appeared also as males. Does it make sense to claim that God destroyed two cities because the inhabitants weren't nice to visitors? If that were the case, then shouldn't God destroy every household that is rude to guests? Genesis 18:20 says that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was "exceedingly grave." Not being hospitable to someone has never been considered an exceedingly grave sin, especially in the Bible. But, going against God's created order in violation of his command to fill and multiply the earth in the act of ho.mose.xuality is an exceedingly grave sin. In fact, we know that it is exceedingly grave because in Romans 1:18-32 we read about the judgment of God upon the ho.mos.exuals, in that he gives them over to the depravity of their hearts and minds. This is a serious judgment of God upon the sinner because it means that the sinner will not become convicted of his or her sins and will not repent. Without repentance there is no salvation, and without salvation there is damnation. Therefore, the argument that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because they were not hospitable carries absolutely no validity.
Theo
Actually, wasn't the problem in Sodom the fact that the male crowd wanted to force the angel/men, basically to ra-pe them?
They didn't politely invite these angel/men out to a party that Lot was being a prude about, the crowd wanted to ra-pe them. Point is, nobody is arguing that ra-pe is ever right, no matter what the gender of the victim.
Gay people fear ra-pe just as much as everybody else. Lot, however, didn't have any problem with sending out his daughters to get ra-ped and, since God supposedly judged him as righteous in spit of this, isn't that reason enough to question God's morality?
Theo Phileo
"Sure, greed was ONE of the sins of Sodom, but not THE sin of Sodom"
WRONG. The Bible says that "THE SIN OF SODOM" was GREED.
Read the Bible. The people of Sodom were sinners like ALL Christians say they are themselves. The SIN was greed.
Hopefully, by now you've had time to use a DICTIONARY so you know what "sodomite" means.
AR.SENKOTAI – Has been translated as "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "se.xual per.verts" (RSV), "sodo.mites" (NKJV, NAB, JB, NRSV), those "who are guilty of hom.ose.xual per.version" (NEB), "men who lie with males" (Lamsa), "behaves like a hom.ose.xual" (CEV), "men who have se.xual relations with other men" (NCV), and "ho.mose.xual offenders" (NIV). The New American Bible (Roman Catholic) translated ar.senokoitai as "practicing hom.ose.xuals". After much protest, the editors agreed to delete this term and replace it with "sodo.mites" in subsequent editions.
'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century.
MALAKOI – Literally means "soft" or "males who are soft". This word has been translated as "ef.feminate" (KJV), "hom.ose.xuals" (NKJV), "corrupt" (Lamsa), "per.verts" (CEV), "catamites" which means call boys (JB), "those who are male prosti.tutes" (NCV), and "male prost.itutes." (NIV, NRSV). Until the Reformation in the 16th century and in Roman Catholicism until the 20th century, malakoi was thought to mean "mas.turb.ators."
The OT wasn't written in Greek originally, was it, Doc?
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
I actually have heard the cause of Sodom's downfall be inhospitality, being as that was very important to the wandering nature of the culture back then...with a soupçon of greed thrown in for basically not sharing food and water with weary travelers.
Those who like the fire and brimstone kind of thing will point to the gay aspect to jibe with their interpretation and confirmation bias.
Theo mentioned those terms.
In so far as the Bible is concerned, those Greek words were used in the 1 Corinthians 6:9 list of vices that'll keep you out of Heaven.
"'Ar.senokoitai' referred to male prosti.tutes for Paul and Christians until the 4th century."
-------------
Yup, but not exclusively. It's like saying the word "s.ex" has different meanings in different uses. It COULD just mean gender. But it could mean many other things. The word Sodomite literally means "related to or associated with Sodom" and since the place was known for its rampant h.omo.s.exuality, the word is synonymous with the sins of Sodom, namely, ho.mose.xuality.
Or greed, if you are reading Genesis.
I'm still not sure how 2. Peter relates to the Genesis account except as revisionist.
and of course the authorship of 2 Peter is questionable at best.
I though you don't believe in the Biblical narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah. Really, really!!
Well, just concurring with what has already been furnished by the posters above.
From my Bible Study understanding, everything mentioned in the Bible concerning homosexuality means same-sex sex.
And that would be a problem because that was something common within the Greek culture, and Jews were very concerned with separating themselves from gentile culture, correct? Why should we consider this to be any different from the laws of circa.umcision, dietary laws and clothing laws that also set the Jewish people apart, and which Christians totally reject?
A personal note.
My son called me last night to discuss an incident at work that disturbed him. He is early 20's in a professional environment.
He said a co-worker approached him and asked my son why he hated him. My son was taken aback, and asked him why he thought that. The other young man said, because you are an atheist and you hate Jesus, therefore you hate must hate me. My son was unsure how to respond but he told the young man that he didn't hate him at all. The other young man then pressed him as to how he could be atheist. My son told him that he didn't want to discuss it further. The other young man pressed, explaining how Jesus was God, my son refused, finally the other young man went off in a huff.
I always taught my son to be respectful of other people's beliefs, and i was happy with how he handled the situation. He told me that he was shaken by the confrontational tone in the other young man, and he asked how he could be so irrational. I told him that many religious people trust their own senses and imaginations more than logic and science. I said, imagine if someone came over to you and claimed that gravity was a figment of your imagination. They then presented a logical fact filled argument. Your first reaction would be to think that while you couldn't immediately find the factual or logical error, it must be there because it is obvious that gravity is real, I feel it. I said, that is the way many religious people regard God. They can't understand how you can't feel it. He got it, and felt better about how to engage with this person in the future.
I still don't get why many Christians think atheists hate them. I don't know any atheist hates Christians in general. Accusing someone of hate is a strong thing and shouldn't be over used (like premature pulling of the racist card, or the anti-Semite card). I do see that thrown about on the blog quite a bit. Perhaps it's just to elicit a response, but this young man used it in a professional work place. I hope it is not being taught in churches.
I cannot explain the actions of delusional believers high on Jesus Juice. Did your son mention this incident to his superiors? I would probably let one incident go but if it happens again, he should warn the Jesus Freak to back off or he's going to HR with a complaint about creating a hostile workplace. Unfortunately, it is likely that their are numerous believers there and in positions of authority so a complaint may be frowned upon. Your son's time or prospects there may be limited already, complaint or no complaint. He should keep his eye out for Babble groups at the company.
haa,
My son didn't mention lodging a complaint, that wouldn't be his nature. Where he works there is a broad range of beliefs and he is respected by almost everyone, that is why he was so taken aback by this confrontation.
Thanks. To be clear, I wouldn't lodge a complaint the first or even the ,second time but if the behavior continues it will affect the workplace and people's performance if not dealt with. Your son may be in a no win situation. Best wishes to him and you.
bostontola
What an amazing coincidence that Theo's son would run into yours, a small world indeed.
ausphor,
For your information, my wife and I are unable to have children. And while we're on the topic of hate, I have never once been personal nor hateful to you. I have never gotten personal with any of my comments, but you have. Between the two of us, you are the hateful one, not me.
Theo
Well if you think ridicule and pity is equivalent to hatred in your world then I guess I am guilty in your mind. Of course coming from someone that knows the only truth that applies to all 7 billion on earth, I will take your judgement of me for what it is worth, nothing. You could be a very nice man, extremely aggravating in regards to your proselytizing, but you have lots of company in that.
"Well if you think ridicule... is equivalent to hatred in your world then I guess I am guilty..."
---------------
So what do you call ridicule? You certainly wouldn't seriously ridicule your wife if you love her, so yeah, ridicule is hate. I don't see how it can't be. You can differ with someone and even tell them they are wrong about something, but that isn't hate. It's when you attack that person that it becomes hate.
"Of course coming from someone that knows the only truth that applies to all 7 billion on earth, I will take your judgement of me for what it is worth, nothing."
----------------
Stating to know a truth that is applicable to all people on earth, and then sharing that truth isn't arrogant, nor is it hateful. Stating to know a truth that is applicable to all people on earth, and yet saying nothing about it is hateful.
"You could be a very nice man, extremely aggravating in regards to your proselytizing, but you have lots of company in that."
----------------–
Preachers are very rarely popular, but then medicine rarely tastes good. Salve burns when rubbed into open wounds, but it cures nontheless. "Preach the word in season, and out of season."
Theo
You and your wife of course are extremely able to have children, it is called adoption. Lots of children available right here in America and million of refugee children all around the world. Do your part, or would you be one of those Christians that would withdraw support from a child for some silly Christian prejudice?
Theo
Ridicule. the subjection of someone or something to mockery and derision.
You seem to have your own definition for every word in the language. I wouldn't hurt a hair on your deluded head.
"You and your wife of course are extremely able to have children, it is called adoption. Lots of children available right here in America and million of refugee children all around the world."
-----------
I really won't get into my personal life with you, and the reasons why we can or cannot do everything that you would have my wife and I do, but suffice it to say that it is for health reasons that we cannot have children. That is true for both our natural ability to have children and our ability to adopt.
Now, if you're through picking at THAT scab, can we move on?
" I wouldn't hurt a hair on your deluded head."
----------
You couldn't if you wanted to... I'm bald. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Stating to know a truth that is applicable to all people on earth, and then sharing that truth isn't arrogant, nor is it hateful. Stating to know a truth that is applicable to all people on earth, and yet saying nothing about it is hateful.
When you can't prove what you claim is any more likely to be true than anyone else who believes in any other god or gods then it is indeed arrogant. And using your "truth" to ban gay marriage when you can't even prove it is true seems pretty hateful.
"Stating to know a truth that is applicable to all people on earth, and then sharing that truth isn't arrogant"
That is precisely what it is, corn pone
"Preachers are very rarely popular"
It is because they are pompous a$$es.
Everyone has the wrong interpretation but YOU
Everyone misunderstands words but YOU
You are nothing but the southern fried version of Rainy Helmut
You two should get a room together and have a Jeebus Circle J***
If one of you has a problem getting engorged, maybe the other can read some fire and brimstone until the blood flows to the appropriate area
Thomas Jefferson
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.
How did TJ know the likes of you would still be trying to hustle the people into the scam so many years later. BTW these are the words of TJ taken from his speeches and letters during his life and times, not like the supposed words of your messiah written by who knows who decades after the fact.
Since when do we quote presidents as shining examples of intelligence? Should I quote Clinton, or Bush for that matter?
Theo
Well, I think even you will have to admit that presidents are proven to be real, while absolutely no god has ever been proven to be real. See the difference yet reality versus myth, when are you ever going to catch up?
Theo
Neither Clinton, nor Bush was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. That's why Americans tend to believe that Jefferson was a pretty smart cookie.
Thank you for sharing this.
All of us who don't believe in God can easily relate to this experience. In it lies the answer to the question "why do atheists frequent the belief blog".
I suspect very few of us go about our daily lives ranting about atheism to our co-workers or our family members who don't want to hear about it. An anonymous blog is a place where these ideas can be expressed without hurting job prospects or alienating relatives or annoying the nice person behind the counter at the store.
It is clear that people fear atheism as something that contradicts their world view. They simply cannot process it.
I agree, unfortunately, atheists still need an anonymous outlet. I have personally witnessed workplace discrimination based on belief. I also keep it pretty quiet.
That's why I just keep my lack of belief to myself at work.
Wow, bostontola, I'm sorry your son had to go through that. It's rather upsetting.
It was for my son, he is a lot more sensitive than I am.
bostontola,
Notice that you didn't get ONE response from a believer.
Why do you think that is?
I think it comes down to how non-believers and theists perceive personal "belief". Non-believers often see "belief' as ideas to be vetted for accuracy, because of that we are not as personally tied to positions and we do not connect "belief" to our "identi.ty". Believers on the otherhand inextricably tie their belief to their very identi.ty, so to attack their belief is to attack them personally. Our very existence can be an attack, even if we say nothing. While I label myself an "atheist" it is not a major personal indentifier, for believers "Christian" is often a major identifier and many work hard to put it above anything else.
I don't know how that guy thought it would be OK to evangelize at work, especially if he could see that it was creating an awkward working environment. He could actually be disciplined for that.
As to whether or not an atheist hates me or not, well, I don't take anything personally that they say to me, or about me, or even how they may or may not feel about me. There was one guy that threatened me with a machete that made me nervous, but in the end he chickened out from actually using it. Oddly enough, it's only been in THIS country, where we have freedom of religion that my life was threatened...
Wow, that stinks as much as Boston's story...and this guy targeted you specifically because you were a Christian?
That is worse, threatening physical violence is a step up and totally not acceptable. If that happened to me, i would report that.
"and this guy targeted you specifically because you were a Christian?"
-------------–
well, it wasn't because he thought my head was a coconut! Or maybe he did... Hmmm.... I've found that when you come across these types, and you're in a croud, try to ignore them. It's when you give them an audience that they feel pressured to do something stupid. Now if they start swinging you can't ignore them, but if all they're doing is talking and shaking a large blade... Well, anyway, I'm still here, and nothing happened. I didn't mean to get on THAT topic. Yikes. Not one of my more fun moments.
Stay safe Theo! There are a lot of nutters out there!
Theo Phileo
I have friends and family in the US military, and they tell me that evangelicals have swamped the chaplain corps, openly proselytize everyone, even non-Christians, and will complain infringement of their religious freedom to spread the Word if questioned about it. Is that a good workplace practice where good team building is essential?
thanks for sharing. Very awkward for your son.
Where I live in the US South, I would be reluctant to report this to management in my own interest. If Christian management found out that I was an atheist I could kiss my career prospects goodbye.
I have to warn my kids not to say a word at school when god is discussed, lest they see lower grades from Christian teachers.
And before Christians reading this get up in arms: you may not behave that way but the religious passions here in the south are beyond any sense of rationality or being fair. Discrimination against atheists is alive and well.
I know a number of folks that grew up in the south. Amazingly nice people, but it is best to keep the topic off religion (which is easy to do).
Fortunately there is NASCAR and SEC footbal for such times.
I guess I'm fortunate to live where I do.
I work with a muslim from Afghanistan, a Christian from Nigeria, a lapsed Catholic from Quebec and a Ukranian agnostic.
We've all got good senses of humour and joke around all the time.
That sounds like a great environment. Most of the people I work with are very cool. It's sad, but it only takes a small percentage to spoil it.
While I wouldn't file a report for one instance, I'd be sure to doc.ument the date, time and the name of the person involved, along with a brief account of the incident, on my personal computer, just in case it becomes a harassment problem or escalates in some way.
Good suggestion doobzz, I'm going to suggest my son do that.
Might be good to have him send you a copy so you have multiple time/date stamps. Keep a paper trail.
I know it sounds paranoid, but I worked in an industry where "if it's not docu.mented, it didn't happen".
Thanks, when it comes to legal, you can't be too paranoid.
Pardon me for not believing your melodramatic story.
Not surprising given your typical behavior.
Excellent example of Christian behavior, Salero. Jesus must be so proud of you.
Yet you believe the nonsense in the bible.
Sal: Absolute ignorance!! A heartfelt story and you slam this person. Stop whining if you're not going to act any better than those you profess to hate!
Sal, stay classy.
I find this article to be a half-informed straw man with little information, but much fuel for the culture wars.
I wrote an article about this here: http://www.theboohers.org/hypocrisy-the-evangelical-response-to-world-visions-reversal/
If the facts presents are inaccurate then please enlighten us.
I will not be following your link.
Alias, I'm sorry, I don't think this format is very good for constructive dialogue and I don't have any facts in my post, but I do make several arguments which you might want to consider.
Apologies, I read some of your other comments and see that you would not be interested in my post at all. Don't waste your time.
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
Christianity
John 3:16,17
"16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." (NASB)
"It's true. I am the Chosen One, only I can destroy him, but in order to do so, I need to know what Tom Riddle asked you all those years ago in your office, and I need to know what you told him. Be brave, sir. Be brave like my mother." [Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince]
"Hearing voices no one else can hear isn’t a good sign, even in the wizarding world."
-Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
The books you are quoting allowed the use of love potions, and clearly theey would have been used for rape. The elves were slaves. they taught black magic to children. You are no more moral than the christians, and I reject your books too.
Yeah, but all the bad stuff was Voldermort's fault.
"For god so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son,
that whosoever would believe in him would believe in anything."
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord is 100% Pure Bullshit With No Factual Basis ♰ ♰ ♰
"Brahman is Reality, Knowledge, and Infinity."
– Taittiriya Upanishad 2.1.3
Theo Phileo,
Since you are so concerned about s3xual sins, here is an HYPOCRISY TEST:
Jesus NEVER said anything about gays. He did have lots to say about the s3x lives of heteros and much of it was bad.
Here is what Jesus said (Mark 10:11–12): “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Since you likely have women in your family or friends that have divorced and remarried, how many of them have you told to divorce and repent since they are openly disobeying the Ten Commandments as ADULTERERS?
Number please.
I have already answered this twice before.
Saying that Jesus condoned hom.os.exuality only reveals a lack of Bible study. Furthermore, to isolate a moral truth to JUST the words of Jesus is to deny the doctrine of inspiration of all the other writers in the Bible. The doctrine of inspiration tells us that not only are Jesus' words the words of God, but also are those of Paul, Peter, John, and all the other authors of the Bible since their words were directed by the mind of God.
Isaiah 5:20 – Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…
The words of Jesus:
Matthew 19:4-6 – “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and s.exuality. For those who follow Jesus, se.xual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of se.xual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of s.exuality sinful. This would include same-s.ex activity.
The words of Jesus:
“Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, se.xual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20; see also Romans 1:24–31).
And se.xual immorality is ANY se.xual act outside that of the prescribed order in Genesis – 1 man with 1 woman in holy matrimony for life. See also Hebrews 13:4 – the marriage bed is undefiled – everything outside of this is fornication.
"to deny the doctrine "
Yes, I deny that doctrine. In fact I deny all the made up mumbo jumbo ideology that has created over 42,000 varieties of Christian. You deny the doctrines of other Christian churches I assume since you aren't likely following all of them, I just deny one extra doctrine, yours.
Theo: "Saying that Jesus condoned hom.os.exuality only reveals a lack of Bible study. Furthermore, to isolate a moral truth to JUST the words of Jesus is to deny the doctrine of inspiration of all the other writers in the Bible. The doctrine of inspiration tells us that not only are Jesus' words the words of God, but also are those of Paul, Peter, John, and all the other authors of the Bible since their words were directed by the mind of God. "
Of course no one know who authored the Gospels. Since we don't know who authored the Gospels, there's no need to believe the characters represented in them actually said the things attributed to them there. We do of course know that the earliest key writing about Jesus was authored by Paul.We could say that Paul's words were approved as Scripture and "God-breathed" by Peter, but alas, that was in Peter 2 and, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know that most Biblical scholars contend that Peter did not author Peter 2. People shouldn't wield Gullible's Travels so seriously.
"Of course no one know who authored the Gospels"
------------
I still say that you sound like a chem-trail conspiracy theorist when you say stuff like that.
Why? Because someone disagrees with you, it must be a conspiracy theory?
Although I will agree that the chem trails aren't chems. But people wouldn't understand when it's much more fun to pretend we never landed on the moon.
"I still say that you sound like a chem-trail conspiracy theorist when you say stuff like that."
I guess most textual scholars (including those that are believers) are conspiracy nuts too...
@Theo
The Bible itself makes clear that Peter and John could not have written the books attributed to them because they were illiterate.
In Acts 4:13, they are described in the original Greek as "agrammatoi" – which means "unlettered".
how can you possibly speak about "what jesus said"?!?!
The King James version of the new testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the church of England. There were (and still are) NO original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down 100's of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these old manuscripts with no two alike. The king james translators used none of these anyway. Instead they edited previous translations to create a version their king and parliament would approve. So.... 21st century christians believe the "word of god" is a book edited in the 17th century from the 16th century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st century.
So we have a little evidence that a man named jesus existed, but we have no proof of any of the miracles or that he was the son of god, and we absolutely do not have any proof of what he may or may not have said!!!
Seriously?! Claiming that jesus said certain phrases is utter mind numbing nonsense, and yet you seem to base your belief on this! Pathetic.
"Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and s.exuality."
You mean Adam and his genetically identical twin? Eve was genetically a male, since (s)he came from Adam's rib.
Come on Doobzz,
If God could make Adam out of clay, He could make Eve genetically different from Adam even having made her out of Adam's rib.
I really don't think that God has some lab in the sky where He clones folks like we have been able to do in our labs.
If you are going to try to throw kinks into our faith, at least make them good kinks.
Of course he could. Or he could have seen that he "forgot" to create a female human when he clearly created male and female animals.
He could also have figured out a better way to teach people than drowning them, or a better way to show the devil his greater power than killing Job's children and torturing him. There are a lot of things that your god could have done better.
You'd think that god, who must have known about genetics, would have mentioned taking the rib and changing cellular data to fashion a female to avoid this modern day contradiction.
Or, it could be that the creation myth was written long before our knowledge of genetics, so the men writing it couldn't have known that they were writing a story that can be easily disproven.
When all else fails, "but god can do anything!" is the default position for explaining away the contradictions and impossibilities of the bible.
Yep. God could make a man out of dirt, so there was no necessity for him to IMPREGNATE an engaged woman.
You are not smarter than God.
Psalm 14:
Only fools say in their hearts,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;
not one of them does good!
The LORD looks down from heaven
on the entire human race;
he looks to see if anyone is truly wise,
if anyone seeks God.
But no, all have turned away;
all have become corrupt.*
No one does good,
not a single one!
Will those who do evil never learn?
They eat up my people like bread
and wouldn’t think of praying to the LORD.
Terror will grip them,
for God is with those who obey him.
The wicked frustrate the plans of the oppressed,
but the LORD will protect his people.
Who will come from Mount Zion to rescue Israel?
When the LORD restores his people,
Jacob will shout with joy, and Israel will rejoice.
Stop hardening your hearts to the word of God.
Oh, guidedans, are you really so naive?
The book tells you that anyone who doesn't believe in the book is a fool.
"Stop hardening your hearts to the word of God.'
Can't help it. I'll NEVER support slavery, discriminations and beating helpless children with rods.
Matthew 13:3-9
"A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”
Doobzz, don't be a plant that was choked by thorns...
Guidedans, do you really think I've never seen this bible story before?
The farmer is not much of a farmer if he sows 75% of his seeds into unviable soil. Likewise he's not much of a farmer if he sows the seeds and then does nothing further, like tilling, weeding and watering.
Guidedans, don't be the seed that was eaten by birds.
doobzz ... never argue with an idiot ... they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience
LOL, very true. Even harder to argue with someone who became a Christian to please his wife. I don't have the "no nookie till you say you believe" card to play.
doobzz,
The things you say are pretty mean, you know that?
I opened up about my conversion story and you ridicule me for it.
I am really sorry that you lost your way and fell out of Christianity, but you don't have to be mean about it.
Seriously man. Stop saying such mean things.
Someone who starts believing in imaginary beings for your stated reason of to please your spouse deserves ridicule. Getting talked into religion to make another person happy is like having a baby to please someone else. It's the wrong reason to make a decision like that.
Tough toenails, dude. You made the choice, now you have to live with it and the ridicule you'll get from it.
So, guidedans, you became a christian to get in your wife's pants?
doobzz,
I pray for you frequently.
I believe I said that I came to Christ because I realized that outside of God, life is pointless. As an aside, I mentioned that it also made my wife happy.
That would be like me saying that you spent 50 years with Jesus and only left His side because you couldn't handle the truth of the Bible and it made you feel bad to trust in God.
That's called a Strawman fallacy, I am sure you know about it.
You are distorting my story into a weaker form and then arguing against the weakened form of it.
Why do you stir up strife?
And I hope that you come back to reason.
guidedans,
Rather than pray for atheists, why not pray for all your fellow Christians who HYPOCRITICALLY pick on gays while being ADULTERERS for divorcing and remarrying? There's MANY MANY MORE Christian adulterers than there are gays. Don't you care about them?
guidedans
I keep saying this but, back in those times, before science started discovering the real explanations for things, you really would have seemed like a fool for denying some god existed without an alternative explanation to offer.
Nowadays, however, it's the polar opposite. Only a fool would deny obvious scientific truths such as evolution.
guidedans
"Matthew 13:3-9"
Funny thing is, this parable precisely describes the state of education in the USA today, with rampant homeschooling representing "rocky areas" and fundamentalist thinking representing "thorns" to acquiring accurate knowledge of the sciences.
Theo Phileo,
Sorry you missed my question above. Please read it.
Number please.
Actually, both of my parents had been divorced according to the allowance given in Matthew 19:7-9. No one else in my family has been divorced. My family takes marriage VERY seriously – it is a covenant to God.
Theo Phileo,
Number please.
It is imperative to note that the Lord Jesus Christ was born in the flesh under the Law and preached during His Ministry on earth under the Law of Commandments. Now, that does not mean it was final and for all for no man can fulfill the Law of Commandments. What happened is that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself fulfilled the Law on our behalf and concluded with His Passion for the "Remission of Sins." With His Resurrection and Ascension to Heaven, the Dispensation of Grace reigned.
The Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled God's "Ultimate Provision" for our Redemption by the Gift of Salvation by Grace through Faith ALONE. That's how Satan lost.
More Biblical Fallacies:
1. God is satisfied with his works, Gen 1:31, God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples, 2 Chron 7:12,16, God dwells not in temples, Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light, Tim 6:16 God dwells in darkness, 1-Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard, Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/Ex 24:9-11, God is invisible and cannot be heard, John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests, Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6, God is never tired and never rests, Is 40:28
Not one thing you referenced was a fallacy.
1. God is satisfied with his works, Gen 1:31, God is dissatisfied with his works. Gen 6:6
God was happy with what He made initially, because it was perfect, but then man fell from grace, so God was saddened by that.
2. God dwells in chosen temples, 2 Chron 7:12,16, God dwells not in temples, Acts 7:48
God is everywhere
3. God dwells in light, Tim 6:16 God dwells in darkness, 1-Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
God is everywhere
4. God is seen and heard, Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/Ex 24:9-11, God is invisible and cannot be heard, John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
God can show Himself through the Angel of the Lord or however He wants to, but He can also choose not to show Himself.
5. God is tired and rests, Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6, God is never tired and never rests, Is 40:28
God "will not grow tired or weary," but that doesn't mean He does not rest or take time to enjoy what He created.
Everything you stated is nothing more than your personal interpretation, as opposed to what was actually written...
making excuses for an imaginary god... so sad..
5. God is tired and rests, Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6, God is never tired and never rests, Is 40:28
God "will not grow tired or weary," but that doesn't mean He does not rest or take time to enjoy what He created.
What do you mean? That is a direct contradiction?.... "god is tired".... "god is never tired".... ...
How about the truth? god is obviously nothing more than an invention of man., and you have no evidence to indicate otherwise..
guidedans,
"God dwells in chosen temples, 2 Chron 7:12,16, God dwells not in temples, Acts 7:48
God is everywhere"
Yep. Obvious ERROR in Acts.
Hey Observer,
If I said that air was outside the house and air was inside the house, would that be a contradiction?
If I said God was in the temple and God was outside the temple, would that be a contradiction?
No.
Also, 2 Chronicles is saying that God exists in temples and Acts is saying that God's permanent residence is in Heaven, not in Temples.
Here are the two referenced verses:
2 Chron 7:12 & 16:
The Lord appeared to him at night and said:
“I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple for sacrifices."
and
I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there.
Acts 7:48-49
"However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 'HEAVEN IS MY THRONE, AND EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF MY FEET; WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME?' says the Lord, 'OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REPOSE?…
They are saying two completely different things. The first is saying that God is with you in the Temples, the second is saying that God is not ONLY in temples for His throne is in Heaven.
Stop trying to lead people astray with deception.
guidedans,
The Bible is LOADED with contradictions.
@guide.. "If I said that air was outside the house and air was inside the house, would that be a contradiction?"
But what I posted above IS a contradiction.... "God is tired and rests, Ex 31:17/ Jer 15:6, God is never tired and never rests, Is 40:28" and of course you dodged that one....
Deception you say? yea, your deceitful book of mythology.... hardly the words of any god.
If god exists, and I don't believe it does, it probably meant that it tires of all the delusional believers that think it gives a damn, but never tires of atheists who live in the real world and don't give a damn about what some alleged but never proven god thinks.
Ephesians 2:8,9
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." (NASB)
"What if that wand never belonged to Snape? What if its allegiance was always to someone else? Come on, Tom, let's finish this the way we started: together!" [Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2]
An update regarding responses (or lackthereof) to my question:
Not surprisingly, no Christian has been able to explain why they don't oppose hetero atheists getting married. If this had anything to do with sin, surely they would oppose two sinful atheists getting married and creating sinful atheist children (actually, all children are born atheists, but I digress). Clearly, this isn't about sin, it's about Christians being afraid of people who are different and doing what they do best – discriminating against them.
"Not surprisingly, no Christian has been able to explain why they don't oppose hetero atheists getting married. If this had anything to do with sin, surely they would oppose two sinful atheists getting married and creating sinful atheist children (actually, all children are born atheists, but I digress). Clearly, this isn't about sin, it's about Christians being afraid of people who are different and doing what they do best – discriminating against them."
-----------------
Although sinful men have accosted the insti.tution of marriage for their purposes, it is in fact not a secular insti.tution. It was the first, ordained by God Himself. According to the word of God, Marriage is to be a demonstration to the world of what a right relationship with God is supposed to look like. The man plays the role of Jesus, while the woman plays the role of the church, so that the world will see their covenant relationship to one another and have an idea of what it is like to be in a right relationship with God.
In that regard, how can two atheists have a covenant relationship that honors God? I don't think that two atheists being married is a violation of any of God's laws, but they certainly do not honor God with their covenant, but then, being an atheist does not honor God either, so how can we expect one who has chosen a life of dishonoring God to honor Him with their marriage?
Theo: "According to the word of God, Marriage is to be a demonstration to the world of what a right relationship with God is supposed to look like. The man plays the role of Jesus, while the woman plays the role of the church"
Of course no one know who authored Matthew. We do of course know that the earliest key writing about Jesus was authored by Paul. Since we don't know who authored the Gospels, there's no need to believe the characters represented in them actually said the things attributed to them there. We could say that Paul's words were approved as Scripture and "God-breathed" by Peter, but alas, that was in Peter 2 and, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know that most Biblical scholars contend that Peter did not author Peter 2. People shouldn't wield Gullible's Travels so seriously.
Doris,
No one knows who wrote "The Prince." I mean some people argue that Niccolò Machiavelli wrote the book, but no one can be sure. So why even read it? Why even trust the advice give by it?
I say that, unless we know the author personally, and we saw the author write the book, and we can verify that what the author is writing was true because we ALSO saw whatever he is writing about take place, AND that we can verify that we are not actually dreaming our experiences. Then AND ONLY then, should we trust anything.
If someone wants me to base my entire life on a book, and to make laws for everyone based on it, then they better know who wrote every last word of it. So in this case who wrote the bible is much more important than who wrote "The Prince"
Guidedans, no one is trying to encode The Prince into civil law as far as I know. No one is using The Prince to deny civil rights to certain people under the law.
God and the Bible didn't invent marriage.
I have not chosen a life dishonoring God, I have been realistic in the fact that my forty year search for him has come up empty. Should I just chuck my reason and logic out the window and just pick one of the many versions offered by man since I found zero evidence of any God? Wouldn't that mean they all have just as much chance of being true as any other? As much chance as there is that Leprechauns have real world effects? If you cannot admit this to yourself then you are simply deluding yourself intentionally so you don't feel so alone, which is fine, I get it, but don't expect everyone else to jump on your shoddy band wagon, theres barely enough room for all the racists and bigots as it is...
The insti/tution of marriage pre-dates the Abrahamic religions.
The ancient Chinese were getting married before Yahweh as were Hindus and Shintoists.
Same gender marriage was practiced by Indiginous America tribes like the Lokota, Cheyenne, Navajo, Tewa, Mohave, Paiute and Zuni long before the Missionaries came along.
Doc, I can't believe you unless you provide a quote from a book of fiction that is at least 2,000 years old.
Theo, you didn't even come close to addressing the question. Why would you object to the government recognizing gay marriage, but not object to it recognizing atheist marriage?
We are not talking about your religious version of marriage – it is irrelevant to those who don't share your religious views. We're talking about the legal recognition of marriage, which is completely unrelated to religion.
"Theo, you didn't even come close to addressing the question. Why would you object to the government recognizing gay marriage, but not object to it recognizing atheist marriage?"
---------------
According the the Bible, it is not the government's job to recognize ANY marriage. That's up to the church. Furthermore, the Bible describes what marriage is, and it isn't between two sodomites. So if two sodomites want to get "married" then they'd better call it something else, because it isn't "marriage."
Theo Phileo,
Skip the HYPOCRISY. What does God do to HETEROS when he peeps in their window and sees them engaging in sodomy?
Since the state is what licenses marriage, and you cannot have a legal marriage without a state license, marriage is whatever the state says it is. Definitions from the bible are irrelevant
Anyone else think "male plays jesus, female plays the church" is just plain looney tunes? Delusional believers can't establish that their god even exists and they expect us to accept Mr. Dress Up rituals. They're not helping their case!
"The man plays the role of Jesus, while the woman plays the role of the church"
And Jeebus comes in through the back door of the church
Reblogged this on Postmodern Mystic and commented:
I don't usually reblog in this forum, but this issue is near and dear to my heart.
My partner's family are old world Catholics.
Her uncle won't speak to his lesbian sister because her marriage is "unnatural" and the Bible condemns her sinful lifestyle.
Said uncle is married to his first cousin.
Apparently, incest is A-OK with God but not ho/mose/xuality.
God hates the exact same people the believer does.
Isn't that odd?
And then they accuse atheists of being our own god...the irony.
“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” -Anne Lamott
An Oregon mother and her boyfriend have been found guilty of murder in the beating death of her 4 year old son – because they thought he was gay. Congratulations, evangelicals. These are the people you've aligned yourselves with.
Wrong. People who weild the Bible unwisely have only themselves to blame, it does not show fault in the Bible. If a man uses a gun to kill someone, you don't blame the gun, but the man weilding it.
What's that phrase you employ so often ? You reap what you sow ? For decades now, the anti-gay rhetoric from the evangelical has escalated to the point of drumbeats of war. Like it or not, you are now seeing the fruits of your efforts.
Personally I've not used that phrase here, and if I did, I don't remember, but certainly not enough for it to be a catch phrase of mine.
There is a war against sin, true enough. And I don't think that there has been ENOUGH preaching against sin. And not just the one that is popular in our culture now from both sides of the argument, but preaching against all sins. People complain that Christians make this their "pet issue," but it is not Christians who have made an issue of this, but as society has gradually become more and more debased in its s.exuality, Christians have equally increased their attention on the "sin of the age."
Although we must preach against ALL sins, whatever sins are most prevelant in society gets more attention and calls to repent.
Theo
Your war against sin is very selective. You have railed against the sins of the gay community but are strangely silent about the aduterers and the divorced. You may not see yourself as a bigot but most others do.
"silent about the aduterers and the divorced."
------------
That's because there hasn't been an article on CNN about these issues. To comment on THAT under and article about sodomy would be a non-sequitur. And I couldn't care less what people's opinions of me are. If being against what the Bible calls sinful makes me a bigot in your eyes, then you have no idea how bigoted I am.
Phileo re "you have no idea how bigoted I am." no actually I think we have a pretty good idea of just how bigoted you are, or at least the low threshold. Yes you are a freakin se.xist bigot. Emphasis on the freak part.
Theo
Of the last 10 stories on this blog only 3 on Phelps could be relative to gay bashing, but I would bet in every story you managed to get into bashing gay sin, it is what you do, you hateful moron.
"Of the last 10 stories on this blog only 3 on Phelps could be relative to gay bashing, but I would bet in every story you managed to get into bashing gay sin, it is what you do, you hateful moron."
--------------
Now, Phelps taught hate and violence, that is not in accord to Scripture.
All I have done is proclaim that sodomy is sinful. How is telling someone they are wrong about something BASHING them? If that's the case, then parents BASH their children all the time. Teachers of math classes BASH their students all the time then. That's ridiculous.
So Theo, are you one of the Christians who believe that all of the old law of the OT is mandated by God to be applicable for all Christians?
Theo
No you are ridiculous. Your stupid belief system clearly states that disobedient children should be punished severly. You analogies are simply moronic, without reason or logic. I love the one about one person believing that a person sitting on a bench knows it is a bench and another believing it is a pink lizard or whatever to gage the truth of a statement, hilarious.
Theo. A math problem can be shown to have a right or wrong answer – no equivalence to your opinion.
Basic hermeneutics 101 for determining if an OT law is still applicable to the Church Age.
a)Divide the Mosaic law into 3 components: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial
oThe Civil Laws are gone because we are not Israel living in that time period
oThe Ceremonial Laws are gone because we have the Lamb slain once for all time (Jesus)
As a part of this, the dietary laws are gone – see Acts 11
oThe Moral Law (10 Commandments) ARE STILL applicable to the New Testament church today, except the Sabbath Law, the 4th Commandment. This is gone because under the New Covenant, we have a rest in Christ.
b)The OT law is not enforceable unless the NT says it is
c)The OT law is still enforceable unless the NT says it is not
I can go into more detail, but this is the basics.
And yet what is obviously evident, Theo, is that Christians are obviously in wide disagreement over your funny little set of rules that I'm sure for many, leaves more questions than answers them. Even your own answer here hints at that.
"Basic hermeneutics 101 for determining if an OT law is still applicable to the Church Age."
LOL, Theo, the bible is not an actual legitimate subject. Your statement is no different than saying, with a straight face, "You idiot, it's Star Wars 101 for interpreting the thoughts of Yoda".
The bible is a BOOK. Your religious views are your insane interpretation of an old (and boring) book of fiction. Wake up!
Theo Phileo,
Pretending that all the heartless commands in the Old Testament don't count any more has one huge fault.
It's the SAME GOD in both testaments.
Which side has actually used violence? A little hint...it is not the Christian side.
"Pretending that all the heartless commands in the Old Testament don't count any more has one huge fault.
It's the SAME GOD in both testaments."
--------------–
Yes it is the same God. He governs His interactions with man through Covenants. No covenant violates the nature or laws of God, but because revelation was progressive, his dealings with man became more complex over time.
Theo Phileo,
Yep. It's the same God in both testaments that could watch every child, baby, fetus, and embryo on the face of the earth be torturously drowned, but can't handle watching two consenting adults of the same s3x make love in the privacy of their bedroom.
kev2672
"Which side has actually used violence? "
Ever heard of the Salem witch trials in our own land? Wow!
"Yep. It's the same God in both testaments that could watch every child, baby, fetus, and embryo on the face of the earth be torturously drowned,"
-----------–
We have already been through this ad nauseum.
@kev2672
Which side has used violence?
How about the Manmasi National Christian Army and the National Liberation Front of Tripura, who force Hindus to convert at gun point and are known to encourage the murder of Hindu children?
How about The Army of God and other groups who kill doctors in the U.S. ?
What about white supremacist Christian terrorist groups like the Aryan Nations, Aryan Republican Army, Phineas Priesthood, and The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord?
If you don't want to be viewed as picking on gays, Theo, then I suggest that you start a movement to ban people who have been divorced from getting remarried since that is prohibited in the Bible. If you do this you can at least make the argument that you aren't just singling out gay folks.
"...but as society has gradually become more and more debased in its s.exuality, Christians have equally increased their attention on the "sin of the age." "
Absolute hogwash. Were this true, then Christians would have been equally vocal regarding divorce, adultery, wife-beating, etc. Such is not the case. It simply IS your issue. You own it.
"Absolute hogwash. Were this true, then Christians would have been equally vocal regarding divorce, adultery, wife-beating, etc. Such is not the case. It simply IS your issue. You own it."
---------------
You have NO IDEA what I preach against. You hear only a very small portion of my preaching on this blog. How can you say that this is my issue when you have never once heard me speak? Were this article about divorce, I would list scriptures against that. The truth is, society doesn't care about divorce, so CNN doesn't write articles on it, so there is no opportunity for me to comment on it in this blog.
Christians ARE vocal about those issues you mentioned. And to prove my point, go to Grace to You, Ligonier Ministries, and Desiring God as 3 examples of men who speak on these and MANY other issues on a daily basis. You may also want to check out Steve Lawson, Albert Mohler, Jr., Ravi Zacharius, and Erwin Lutzer. While you're at that, read John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, John Flavel, Oswald Chambers, and on, and on, and on...
The truth is, you don't know what you're talking about.
Phileo re "You hear only a very small portion of my preaching on this blog." Well even that is way too much. Way way WAYYYY too much. Put a few dozen socks in it already. Pulllleeeeease!
@Theo
I think the hypocrisy he's pointing out is that Christians fight tooth and nail to deny gays the right to marry but they don't even whisper about making divorce illegal.
Theo
You are a bigot plain and simple. The prevalence of what you call of gay sin is miniscule compared to adulterers and divorces.
WARNING: Any comments posted by Theo Phileo should not be considered as true or reasonable adopting any of these propositions could turn you into a bigot and be shunned by the majority of society.
" The truth is, you don't know what you're talking about. "
Nonsense. You don't like the fruits of your efforts, and so attempt to distance yourself from the results.
"I think the hypocrisy he's pointing out is that Christians fight tooth and nail to deny gays the right to marry but they don't even whisper about making divorce illegal."
--------------
Fair enough, but there are some allowances for divorce:
1) Se.xual Immorality (Matthew 19:7-9)
2) If an unbelieving spouse abandons a believer (1 Corinthians 7:15)
On the other hand, there are no allowances for s.exual immorality.
Theo: [Matthew and Corinthians.]
Of course no one know who authored Matthew. We do of course know that Corinthians was most likely authored by Paul. We could say that Paul's words were approved as Scripture and "God-breathed" by Peter, but alas, that was in Peter 2 and, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know that most Biblical scholars contend that Peter did not author Peter 2. People shouldn't wield Gullible's Travels so seriously.
no one knows
infidelity isn't even the #1 reason why half of American marriages fail.
So why aren't evangelicals lobbying to have "adultery" and "apostasy" made the only legally recognized reasons for divorce?
Like the average Christian, Theo prefers the buffet version of Christianity.
"The truth is, society doesn't care about divorce."
You are quite right, despite what Jesus may have said about it.
Let me be the first to welcome you to 2014. Society doesn't object to gays or gay marriage either in exactly the same way that it doesn't care about divorce. The only difference is that Jesus doesn't mention gays.
Isaiah 5:20 – Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…
The words of Jesus:
Matthew 19:4-6 – “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and s.exuality. For those who follow Jesus, se.xual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of se.xual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of s.exuality sinful. This would include same-s.ex activity.
The words of Jesus:
“Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, se.xual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20; see also Romans 1:24–31).
And se.xual immorality is ANY se.xual act outside that of the prescribed order in Genesis – 1 man with 1 woman in holy matrimony for life. See also Hebrews 13:4 – the marriage bed is undefiled – everything outside of this is fornication.
Of course no one know who authored Matthew. We do of course know that Romans was most likely authored by Paul. Since we don't know who authored the Gospels, there's no need to believe the characters represented in them actually said the things attributed to them there. We could say that Paul's words were approved as Scripture and "God-breathed" by Peter, but alas, that was in Peter 2 and, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know that most Biblical scholars contend that Peter did not author Peter 2. People shouldn't wield Gullible's Travels so seriously.
Of course no one know who authored Matthew. We do of course know that Romans was most likely authored by Paul. Since we don't know who authored the Gospels, there's no need to believe the characters represented in them actually said the things attributed to them there. We could say that Paul's words were approved as Scripture and "God-breathed" by Peter, but alas, that was in Peter 2 and, gosh darn it, wouldn't you know that most Biblical scholars contend that Peter did not author Peter 2. People shouldn't wield Gullible's Travels so seriously.
---------------
you sound like a Chem-Trail conspiracy theorist.
Theo, while you are busily dumping bible bile on us from your horrid Christian book of nasty, let's take a look at some of the other evil instructions in there purportedly from your vicious, murderous sky fairy. From both foul testaments:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
Theo Phileo
"you sound like a Chem-Trail conspiracy theorist."
You have proof then that Matthew actually authored Matthew?
Se.xuality is not something that should be approached with fear, shame, repression and guilt.
What consenting adults do in private is nobody's business but their own.
Theo Phileo
Since a dozen people can take the exact same verse and each come up with different interpretations of what it means, the Bible appears to be a gun that shoots wildly, and we really would blame a gun like that for hurting people, wouldn't we?
Would you take a medication if you had no idea how to use it? Of course not. Even the most helpful of medications can be harmful if it is used in an incorrect manner.
Far too many people take the Bible and use it without having the slightest idea of how to use it. Without proper hermeneutics, people like T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Dollar, Baker, and others have taken verses out of their intended context and used it to support their agendas. That's not only dangerous, it's damning.
theo, Generally a medication can be shown to be effective under certain conditions – that is not true for the bible.
Theo Phileo
Depends on who gets to define what an "incorrect manner" is. For a long time, the Christian consensus was that the Bible supported slavery. Then some Christians began to see that slavery was just just too awful to be something that their understanding of God and Jesus would support. So, they found verses and developed an interpretation that supported their view.
This is like having a gun with a flexible barrel, but happens to have the reputation of never missing it's target. Everyone takes a shot, hits something or someone, and then declares that this is what they intended to hit and that the gun is 100% accurate.
The Bible doesn't come with it's own set of instructions. Everyone makes up their own instructions on how to use it. It's kinda like pot: who is to say that just using it as a medication is the only "proper" use for it? The Bible is out there, interpreted by many hundreds of denominations differently, with many satisfied people in each group. Interpreted by professional scholars, arguably the people in the best position to do this, in drastically different ways from the interpretations pastors hand down to folks in the pews. Who are you to define the one, proper use of this thing?
kudlak,
Reading the Bible doesn't involve some mystical experience... Although some will tell you it does. The rules for reading it are no different than reading any other book.
Ask these questions:
1) Who was the author of the passage?
2) Who were the recipients?
3) What is the historical background of the passage?
4) What is the outline / structure of the passage?
5) Are any words repeated? Any significance to the repet.ition?
6) Are there any unusual words in the passage that call for more exploration?
7) How does the passage fit into the surrounding paragraph? Chapter? Book? Bible?
8) Why did the author place the passage here and not somewhere else?
9) In one sentence, what is the main point of the passage?
10) How would the original audience have been affected by the passage?
11) How does this passage connect to the overall storyline of the Bible?
12) How does this passage reveal Jesus as savior?
13) How does God want this passage to function in my life?
14) What kind of response does this passage call for?
Things to avoid in interpreting the Bible
1)Avoid seeking a point or a result at the expense of the proper interpretation. Do not use the Bible to “proof text” anything
2)Avoid a lack of study, or superficial study
3)Avoid “spiritualizing” or “allegorizing” – let the Bible say what it wants to say, don’t put meaning into it (Eisegesis)
Theo Phileo
And every denomination either has it's own set of rules designed to support the theology it believes the Bible states, or they're using something very close to these rules and still coming up with interpretations different from yours.
Besides, do you really know how to answer these questions accurately? Do you really know who wrote passages in the Bible? Can you really put yourself in the mindset of an intended reader. Does that even matter? Perhaps those original readers are so far removed from the problems of our time and culture for the Bible to be of any value? And so on ...
I "let the Bible say what it wants to say," which is how I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really isn't very nice, and that Jesus never intended for his message to extend beyond fellow Jews, or the years immediately following his death. It plainly states this, following many of your rules, so it amazes me that people read into it something else.
Exactly right, kudlak; that's what I was attempting to say yesterday when I got the park bench example.
Theo is right in hizzer interpretation...FOR THEO.
"And every denomination either has it's own set of rules designed to support the theology it believes the Bible states, or they're using something very close to these rules and still coming up with interpretations different from yours."
--------------–
Yeah, sadly, it is so easy for people to read into the text their own personal bias. We all do this instinctively, which is why it is a practice that must be unlearned, and unfortunately, it proves too difficult for some.
"Besides, do you really know how to answer these questions accurately?"
---------------–
Sure, systemmatic theology is not difficult, just labor intensive.
"Do you really know who wrote passages in the Bible?"
------------------–
Yeah, there are only three books whose authors are genuinely unknown, Job, Esther, and Hebrews, and the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles are attributed to Ezra, but there are some who speculate otherwise.
"Can you really put yourself in the mindset of an intended reader."
----------------–
Sure. We may not understand all of the suttle nuances of being a Gentile in the 1st century, but we can understand enough of the culture of the day to be able to grasp the topics spoken of in the gospels.
"Does that even matter? Perhaps those original readers are so far removed from the problems of our time and culture for the Bible to be of any value?"
-----------------------–
They could be too far removed from us today for us to be able to fully understand them, but in respect to the issues brought up by Jesus and His Apostles, there stands nothing outside of our ability to grasp.
"I "let the Bible say what it wants to say," which is how I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible really isn't very nice, and that Jesus never intended for his message to extend beyond fellow Jews, or the years immediately following his death. It plainly states this, following many of your rules, so it amazes me that people read into it something else."
------------------------
You are reading your personal bias into the text, the bias that the ultimate "good" is the happiness of man. But this isn't the case that the Bible depicts – the ultimate good is the glory of God. In America, we are culturally biased to favor the idea of a compassionate God, and it's hard to see that God is also a God of wrath who hates sin. Most people have a very shallow view of the love of God, and cannot see that when God demonstrates justice, it is out of love for righteousness. When many see the wrath of God, they don't see that the punishment fits the crime because they have no grasp of how holy and righteous He is. Therefore whenever we see God doing anything that affects the happiness of men, some see God as being mean or cruel, when He is in fact upholding righteousness.
Akira,
I think I said this yesterday, but there's no such thing as "personal truth." Truth just is. Our beliefs do not create truth, nor do our lack of belief destroy truth. That's why I gave you the park bench example because as ridiculous as it is, it bears out the idea that truth is not in the eye of the beholder.
If truth is relative, then you cannot tell me that my belief in God is wrong.
Theo Phileo
If you insist that God is a real being that exists, then it's not a relative truth whether he does, or doesn't. A lack of objective evidence for his existence doesn't hold well for your position, does it?
"If you insist that God is a real being that exists, then it's not a relative truth whether he does, or doesn't. A lack of objective evidence for his existence doesn't hold well for your position, does it?"
----------–
I have already proved over and over that both objectivity and subjectivity have authority in determining truth. The existence of God can be proven through reason and logic by looking at causality and contingency, as well as looking at the testimony found in design, and the internal evidences of scripture in fulfilled prophecy. God's existence is not a relative truth, it is axiomatic.
Theo Phileo
"God's existence is not a relative truth, it is axiomatic."
False. There is zero PROOF of God's existence. Even if it could be proved that intelligent design is correct, there is ZERO proof that it was God from the Bible. Hopefully, if it turned out that there was a god, he is far nicer, kinder and more intelligent than the one in the Bible.
Theo, I've never said that your belief in God is wrong.
I said your interpretation of the Bible is yours, and works for you.
Your interpretation of the Bible isn't sacrosanct. I don't understand your apparent inability to admit that it isn't.
"Your interpretation of the Bible isn't sacrosanct. I don't understand your apparent inability to admit that it isn't."
--------------–
I never said that my reading and understanding of the Bible is beyond reproach. As a matter of fact, I have said numerous times before that if, by using the Bible (since that is the only authority on this matter) that I can be shown that my understanding is flawed, I will change my views accordingly. That should be the att.itude of any Bible student.
Theo, this is good. You can admit that your interpretation may differ from another's.
Excellent.
We're getting somewhere.
Theo Phileo
How do you know that you aren't just reading into the text your own personal bias? You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you're one of the crowd that is getting it wrong. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the rest all generally believe that they have it right too?
"Labor intensive", like the work of noted biblical scholars John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, who can show you in great detail how they draw their conclusions, unlike most professional apologists?
Do you know who actually wrote the canonical Gospels? They aren't signed in any way. Their ti.tes are just a matter of tradition, are they not? Several of Paul's letters are generally regarded as forgeries. Who knows who John of Pathmos was, and no scholar seriously holds that Moses wrote about his own death, making his being the author of the whole Pentateuch ridiculous.
What about being a first century Jew, like Jesus and his close followers? Do you have a Jew's understanding of who the expected messiah would be, and do? That's who preached this message, and that's who it was primarily aimed at, right? You have to go to the version of the gospel that Paul was selling to gentiles at that time to make your argument, but that doesn't line up with the people Jesus mostly was speaking to.
Even then, how much do you really understand of them? Do you hold in your mind the concept that gods like Zeus can have sons with human mothers? Do you hold with the idea that people can be enslaved like people of that culture took for granted? Can you imagine viewing women like that culture did? I highly doubt that very many of us can even come close to putting ourselves in that mindset.
How do you know that there's nothing outside of your ability to grasp when it comes to properly putting Jesus' message in context? You don't have any first century people to bounce your understanding off of to check, do you? Even the very best scholarly work can't be tested this way, but it does offer the best case for an understanding. All you seem to be doing is guessing.
I take what the best scholars conclude as the basis for what the Bible most likely intended to say. Your take appears to take a different path, one that veers off into theological constructs that match more what Christians want the Bible to say.
You speak of God's wrath as some kind of "justice" that we should respect. Yet, our justice systems are developed through democratic means, where citizens are all held to the same standard, and all have a say in the formation of laws. God's law is dictatorial, the imposed law of one species over another. How is that even close to what we understand by the word "justice"? It's more analogous to a human swatting ants that don't follow the path he sets out for them; basically punishing them for being ants.
Good conversation, but I gotta go for a while.
TTFN
"How do you know that you aren't just reading into the text your own personal bias? You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you're one of the crowd that is getting it wrong. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the rest all generally believe that they have it right too? "
-----------------
I'm a fallible man, and if my understanding of scripture is flawed, then show me with scripture how my understanding is flawed. This has been my att.itude for as long as I've been a student of the Bible. The law of non-contradiction says that something cannot be both "a" and "non-a" at the same time and in the same way. So if there are two contradictory understandings of the Bible, then someone or both of them needs correcting. How do you do that? No scripture is an isolated island. Scripture interprets scripture, and by looking at parallel passages, we can understand what is the right way of understanding the text.
Theo Phileo
We must respect the other fellow's religion,but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. H. L. Mencken
Subjectivity, then, really doesn't have the weight as evidence that you assume it has. If it did, all gods would be equally valid based on the fact that each has, or had it's own supporters who all had subjective reasons to conclude they were real. Some had prophecies seemingly fulfilled. Some had their own holy books, and others had evidences that even Christianity doesn't tap into. They all could offer up similar "logical and reasonable" reasons too, so how is your belief any different?
TTFN
""Labor intensive", like the work of noted biblical scholars John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman, who can show you in great detail how they draw their conclusions, unlike most professional apologists?"
------------
I would put Bart Ehrman into the same category of historical revisionists as the man who says that the Confederate States of America won the War of Northern Aggression in 1865...
More outright contradictions from a book of mythology
44. Baptism commanded, Matt 28:19 Baptism not commanded, 1 Cor 1:17,14
45. Every kind of animal allowed for food, Gen 9:3/ 1 Cor 10:25/ Rom 14:14 Certain kinds of animals prohibited for food, Deut 14:7,8
46. Taking of oaths sanctioned, Num 30:2/ Gen 21:23-24,31/ Gen 31:53/ Heb 6:13 Taking of oaths forbidden, Matt 5:34
47. Marriage approved, Gen 2:18/ Gen 1:28/ Matt 19:5/ Heb 13:4 Marriage disapproved, 1 Cor 7:1/ 1 Cor 7:7,8
48. Freedom of divorce permitted, Deut 24:1/ Deut 21:10,11,14 Divorce restricted, Matt 5:32
49. Adultery forbidden, Ex 20:14/ Heb 13:4 Adultery allowed, Num 31:18/ Hos 1:2; 2:1-3
50. Marriage or cohabitation with a sister denounced, Deut 27:22/ Lev 20:17 Abraham married his sister and God blessed the union, Gen 20:11,12/ Gen 17:16
51. A man may marry his brother's widow, Deut 25:5 A man may not marry his brother's widow, Lev 20:21
52. Hatred to kindred enjoined, Luke 14:26 Hatred to kindred condemned, Eph 6:2/ Eph 5:25,29
53. Intoxicating beverages recommended, Prov 31:6,7/ 1 Tim 5:23/ Ps 104:15 Intoxicating beverages discountenanced, Prov 20:1/ Prov 23:31,32
54. It is our duty to obey our rulers, who are God's ministers and punish evil doers only, Rom 13:1-3,6 It is not our duty to obey rulers, who sometimes punish the good and receive
Theo uses the "subjectivity of reason" argument to diminish empiricism and elevate subjective views. When he is done prattling on incessantly, he, nor any other believer, does not have a single bit of actual evidence for the existence of his alleged, but never proven, god. Therefore, discussing theology or the content of The Babble with him is nothing more than hacking over the arcane theories and rules of a fantasy role playing game, with heavy emphasis on fantasy and game. He is very good with words and will say anything to defend the dead jew zombie death cult, but again, he has zero actual evidence for any of his god delusions.
"he has zero actual evidence for any of his god delusions."
-------------
The physical universe exists. Therefore God exists.
We've been through this, and I won't get into it again.
Theo Phileo
The physical universe exists. Therefore Zeus or a committee of zombies (or an infinite number of other possibilities) must exist.
Theo Phileo
I wouldn't even go to scripture first to point out where you're wrong because I find no reason to even suspect that the Bible has it right to begin with. The canon of the Bible was only decided upon in reaction to Marcion's effort to establish a canon of Christian writings. Basically, the stronger side judged which books matched their theology at the time, and decided that only they must be considered Christian scripture. They did this by council agreement, not through some magical determination that these books were actually divinely inspired. This is basic Christian history.
Theo Phileo
"I would put Bart Ehrman into the same category of historical revisionists as the man who says that the Confederate States of America won the War of Northern Aggression in 1865..."
I know that his findings are in contradiction to your own, but can you illustrate how he gets it wrong? Most of his positions are fairly common within actual academic circles. Do you have a doctorate degree, peer-reviewed thesis that proves his findings are wrong?
Theo Phileo
No, really, why does the existence of a physical universe have to indicate God? Can you prove that it didn't come about naturally? If you can, why don't you have a Nobel Prize in Physics?
Theo, won't or can't. I'm going with can't. You are a puffed up ball of words with zero substance.
hotairace
Right! The situation is that we just don't know how the universe started, yet. What we do know is that everything in nature whose explanation has been found was discovered to have an ultimately natural explanation. Nothing supernatural has ever been proven. Theo claims a supernatural explanation, so it's completely up to him to prove his claim. Otherwise, we are fully justified in rejecting his claim until he can back it up. Simple.
"People who weild the Bible unwisely ... weilding it."
The word is "wield", junior.
Hey, I never claimed to be a good speeler.
You mean like using the Gideon if you run out of toilet paper in your hotel room. Actually I think that that is a perfectly practical use of the bible, maybe the only one.
Matthew 12:36-37 – But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Theo
Scary stuff, you maybe trembling in fear reading that nonsense, me, not at all. Threats to keep the sheep and easily deceived in line.
@ausphor
In a pinch, you can use the Gideon Bible's rice paper in lieu of Zig Zags should you run out.
(for tobacco only, of course)
Doc
Colorado. Coming to your state soon if they see a large uptick in State revenue, it is usually about the money.
ohcaptainmycaptain
HYPOCRISY TEST:
Jesus NEVER said anything about gays. He did have lots to say about the s3x lives of heteros and much of it was bad.
Here is what Jesus said (Mark 10:11–12): “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her and if a woman divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery."
Since you likely have women in your family or friends that have divorced and remarried, how many of them have you told to divorce and repent since they are openly disobeying the Ten Commandments as ADULTERERS?
Number please.
Good luck with the test. I'll check back later today even though I know what the result will likely be.
As a supplement to this test, some rigorous historic testing of the passages involved:
Jesus' commentary about divorce has been rated authentic Jesus by most contemporary historic Jesus scholars e.g..
Against Divorce: (1) 1 Cor 7:10-11; (2) 1or2?Q: Luke 16:18 = Matt 5:31-32; (3) Mark 10:10-12 = Matt 19:9; (4) Herm. Man. 4.1:6b,10 multiple attestations from the first stratum, 30-60 CE
See http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=015_Against_Divorce and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb015.html
Although I don't bring this up with my divorced Christian friends or relatives, I jokingly, on occasion, note this to my RCC wife about the incongruity in her and my former religion. She never thinks my comments are funny. (LoL)
Isaiah 5:20 – Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil…
The words of Jesus:
Matthew 19:4-6 – “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
Here Jesus clearly referred to Adam and Eve and affirmed God’s intended design for marriage and s.exuality. For those who follow Jesus, se.xual practices are limited. Rather than take a permissive view of se.xual immorality and divorce, Jesus affirmed that people are either to be single and celibate or married and faithful to one spouse of the opposite gender. Jesus considered any other expression of s.exuality sinful. This would include same-s.ex activity.
The words of Jesus:
“Out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, se.xual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander” (Matthew 15:19–20; see also Romans 1:24–31).
And se.xual immorality is ANY se.xual act outside that of the prescribed order in Genesis – 1 man with 1 woman in holy matrimony for life. See also Hebrews 13:4 – the marriage bed is undefiled – everything outside of this is fornication.
Theo, while you are busily dumping bible bile on us from your horrid Christian book of nasty, let's take a look at the evil instructions in there purportedly from your vicious, murderous sky fairy:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelation 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
And further, ask yourself why we should have to rely on very stale, thousands-of-years-old, many-versioned old text, that is only reasonably subject to debates over its meaning. Why is it that your pathetic sky fairy can't even get with the past decade and create his own web presence (no, religious shill sites don't count), or push some tweets out? Even the pope, that creepy hider of criminal priests, could do that much, as can most children. After thousands of years of radio silence, reasonable doubt in the existence of your sky creature is easily justified, to say the least. Your absurd "god" is also apparently less capable at communication than any modern 10 year old.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement.
Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
58. Man was created after the other animals, Gen 1:25,26,27 Man was created before the other animals, Gen 2:18,19
59. Seed time and harvest were never to cease, Gen 8:22 Seed time and harvest did cease for seven years, Gen 41:54,56/ Gen 45:6
60. God hardened Pharaoh's heart, Ex 4:21/ Ed 9:12 Pharaoh hardened his own heart, Ex 8:15
61. All the cattle and horses in Egypt died, Ex 9:3,6/ 14:9 All the horses of Egypt did not die, Ex 14:9
62. Moses feared Pharaoh, Ex 2:14,15,23; 4:19 Moses did not fear Pharaoh, Heb 11:27
63. There died of the plague twenty-four thousand, Num 25:9 There died of the plague, but twenty-three thousand, 1 Cor 10:8
64. John the Baptist was Elias, Matt 11:14 John the Baptist was not Elias, John 1:21
"The definition of marriage has been changed many times."
No, it has not. In the Bible the definition of marriage was always between a man and a woman. Jesus wen't so far as to affirm this. Even during slavery, marriage was between a man and a woman. People where just limited on which race of man or woman they could marry.
ohcaptainmycaptain,
WRONG. The Bible tells about many people with multiple wives and doesn't criticize them. Is 1,000 wives and concubines more than 1 wife? Work on your math.
Please read a Bible SOMETIME.
ohcaptainmycaptain,
Your arguing in support of the Bible's view on marriage is a waste of your time. There's virtually no chance that you support all of the Bible's rules on marriage. I'd guess you don't believe it should be FORCED on people who may even hate each other although God supports that.
Marriage in the bible includes:
Man and woman
Man, woman and woman's slave (Genesis 16)
Man, woman, and lots more women (Genesis 4)
Man, woman, and various concubines (Judges 19)
And there are the various God sanctioned means of finding a wife – like getting caught rap/ing her and having to pay her dad $50 (Deuteronomy 22), or taking her as a spoil of war {insert booty joke} (Deuteronomy 21) or if you're a slave, having your master command her to marry you (Exodus 21).
Meanwhile, Peter and perhaps some of the other apostles abandoned their wives (and possibly their wives) to follow Jesus around for years. How were they supported during that time?
And then there's this:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
Surely, if he just meant to love him more than one's family or self he would have just said this simply, correct? What kind of marriage is Jesus promoting then? Certainly not one where you love your wife, children, and extended family.
God and the Bible didn't invent marriage.
Solomon got in trouble later, but not before the Bible said "(I Kings 4:29-31) And God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great understanding, and largeness of heart like the Sand on the seashore
Ok, so what? God gave Solomon wisdom, and then he sinned, so there was a punishment. What is your point?
Solomon, praised by the Bible as the SMARTEST man in the world had 1,000 wives and concubines. Number of times criticized for that in the Bible: zero, none, zip, nada, not one.
The only issue I see here is that World Vision's backtracked. They shouldn't have made the decision in the first place.
The Bible is very clear on it's stance of marriage, and wether it's true or not, doesn't matter, it's the foundation of World Visions's beliefs. Someone who doesn't stand by their beliefs, deserves no respect.
I would have rather them just said, "we believe marriage is between a man and a woman", and left it at that. It's better than caving to what's en vogue, and then backtracking when you loose support.
WV tried to follow the Golden Rule. No wonder so many Christians got upset.
The "Golden Rule" is predicated on Loving God first, and that means doing what he says. God ordained that marriage was strictly between a man and a woman. Simple as that.
Also, the Golden rule is still in effect. "Love your neighbor as yourself". I'm loving my neighbor by telling them that I think their actions are wrong. If I didn't love them, then I would just say "do what you want". A person doesn't love you if they condone every vain inclination that pops into your head.
It's really not so hard to understand. Once you start changing definitions, to conform to the needs of each individual, and adopt a practice of inclusion, you end up excluding somebody.
Right now I can't go and legally get married to two women. Why not? From a secular perspective, I can't see why this would be wrong at all. Why should I have to choose? And why stop at two women, why not let me marry 10, 20, or 200? If two men can get married, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with me wanting to marry two women. And there are plenty of people that love animals, more than humans. So why not let them marry their dog, or their chimp, or their prized horse? Why should anybody tell them this is wrong?
ohcaptainmycaptain,
Why are so many bigoted people unintelligent enough to not be able to separate h0m0s3xuality from bestiality? Try hard to stay on topic if you can.
IF you have read a Bible, what does it say that "the law and the prophets is all about"? Take a guess if necessary.
ohcaptainmycaptain
"The "Golden Rule" is predicated on Loving God first"
Nonsense. It existed THOUSANDS of years before Jesus mentioned it. Please try to do some research.
I think you've been watching too much TV. This is what Jesus said,
"The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. "
So yes, the second law is predicated on the first.
"Why are so many bigoted people unintelligent enough to not be able to separate h0m0s3xuality from bestiality? Try hard to stay on topic if you can."
Because under your worldview they are no different. If morals hinder on a matter of choice, then whatever I choose becomes moral. I'm sorry that you can't see this fundamental flaw.
Also, I noticed you had no reason as to why I can't marry multiple women. Seems perfectly sensible from a secular point of view.
ohcaptainmycaptain,
We are talking about gays and their marriages.
Do you COMPREHEND the difference between that and a discussion of POLYGAMY. Of course, you know that Solomon, praised by the Bible as the SMARTEST man in the world had 1,000 wives and concubines. Number of times criticized for that in the Bible: zero, none, zip, nada, not one.
" Of course, you know that Solomon, praised by the Bible as the SMARTEST man in the world had 1,000 wives and concubines. Number of times criticized for that in the Bible: zero, none, zip, nada, not one."
I don't think you've ever read the Bible. I think you've just visited popular atheists blogs and regurgitated what you saw. I seem to remember God taking the kingdom away from Solomons decedents and splitting up the tribes of Israel as a direct result of his polygamy.
"We are talking about gays and their marriages.
Do you COMPREHEND the difference between that and a discussion of POLYGAMY."
Once again. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. If we are changing the definition of marriage, to fit the choices of certain individuals, then there's no reason why we can't change it again to support me wanting to marry two women.
ohcaptainmycaptain
"I don't think you've ever read the Bible."
Solomon got in trouble later, but not before the Bible said "(I Kings 4:29-31) And God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great understanding, and largeness of heart like the Sand on the seashore. Thus Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the men of the East and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men”
"I don't think you've ever read the Bible."
ohcaptainmycaptain,
The definition of marriage has been changed many times. In Biblical times it often did mean POLYGAMY. (Read a Bible). In the last century it often meant "within the same race".
Solomon got in trouble later, but not before the Bible said "(I Kings 4:29-31) And God gave Solomon wisdom and exceedingly great understanding, and largeness of heart like the Sand on the seashore
Ok, so what? God gave Solomon wisdom, and then he sinned, so there was a punishment. What is your point?
"The definition of marriage has been changed many times."
No, it has not. In the Bible the definition of marriage was always between a man and a woman. Jesus wen't so far as to affirm this. Even during slavery, marriage was between a man and a woman. People where just limited on which race of man or woman they could marry.
In the case of animals, how do you demonstrate consent?
" In the Bible the definition of marriage was always between a man and a woman. "
Actually, if you want to go back to the first "marriage", it was between Adam and his genetically identical helpmeet, (St)Eve. Since (s)he was fashioned from Adam's rib, (St)Eve was genetically a man, whatever genitalia (s)he may have had.
So the first "marriage" was really Adam and Steve.
"So the first "marriage" was really Adam and Steve."
-------------
I don't think that Evil Kneivel could make THAT leap...
Theo Phileo,
The first marriage for human beings born on earth was God's sanctioning of that of a MURDERER and his own sister.
"God works in mysterious ways". lol.
Theo, genetics and how genetic information is transferred can be demonstrated.
Your god and your bigoted rulebook, not so much.
Captain,
You completely lost your argument when you compared the rape of children and animals, who cannot give informed consent, to gay people.
There is no excuse for people who think they are intelligent enough to interpret the Bible to have such an uniformed, ignorant view. I pray you get a little of Solomon's supposed wisdom.
I don't care if someone wants to marry two women or two men as long as everyone is of age and knows what they are getting into.
So them changing their views according to the updated info is wrong? Marriage is not owned nor has it ever been owned by the church. Marriage in one form or another has been around longer than christianity. The government issues the marriage license, not the church, therefore the church has little say in who can and can't get married-if they don't wish to marry someone so be it but I wouldn't attend such a divisive group, it simply doesn't show care for all.