|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Okay, I think I understand about the old testament. That seems to be the reason Jewish people have requirements that Christians don't. (such as kosher food) I did some more research on the topic and I found this line in Romans section 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.I can understand that this line talks about heavy lust which is a deadly sin, but the part of the line that says "men with men working that which is unseemly" seems to say that a man with a man is wrong. Also, they ended the first section by saying Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.They say "worthy of death" which reminds me of Leviticus. Was he saying that this law of Leviticus is still in effect? I understand that the main group of people he was talking about were those that choose not to believe in god, and rather in what they can see. However, it seems like he was quoting Leviticus when he talked about men with men. Whats you view on this line 1:27? Is it proof? Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=KJV
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:21 pm
Where does the passage talk about a loving monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex?
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:27 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening (Devil's advocate) Plus... Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, so the law is in some affect still in effect for Christians. Concerning Traditional Christianity, I've thought this one out, without having to rely on Paul's texts but Jesus's own words. Yes the Law of God is still in effect Matthew 5:17-18 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So what is the Law and the Prophets? Jesus sums it up. Matthew 7:12 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. He stress this right here the foremost thing in Christianity is the Law of Agape Matthew 22:36-40 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." So ergo, without getting into Paul's interpretations, if religious codes get in the way of expressing that love to God or love to one's neighbor or enemy, then it need not be followed. Especially when he clearly contradicts the Old Laws, especially that concerning cleanliness Matthew 15:11 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " Those who use this verse neglect Matthew 5:19 following Matthew 5:19 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Doesn't seem that anyone who breaks one of the old laws is excluded from Heaven by this passage. So why would one who breaks the law be the least in Heaven and not excluded completely? He goes into detail about the things that will keep you out though and I can provide the verses o show what those things are. So simply the Law is Agape and it's about keeping that love the best to our ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:51 pm
Quote: So what is the Law and the Prophets? Jesus sums it up. Matthew 7:12 Wrote: Quote: 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Interesting... very interesting. This line seems to give new meaning for a lot of my questions. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. Perhaps it is okay to be gay, as long you are respectful of everyone else's rights. If you can be gay in a way that won't offend anyone, or make people consider you indecent (such as flaming) then perhaps god will accept that gay person. Source http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=define:+unseemly&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 5:24 pm
caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:39 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. The OT canon we have today wasn't unified by Judaism until after Yeshua's death. Hell Judaism was very very diverse until the destruction of the 2nd Temple. Each sect of Judaism had it's own books that it considered holy and others it rejected. Anyway regardless I think there are two quotes in the OT that come close to this but it's quite possible (speculatively) that he could be talking about a different set of Laws from a different or reformed Hebrew sect (he did go missing between 12 and 36 and he was actually kind to Samaritans [Sect that rejected all prophets after Moses from what I understand]).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:58 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:01 pm
Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WickedRentSpringAwakening
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:11 pm
Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. I mean... the laws of the OT are not exactly loving. Killing someone who is not a virgin on her wedding day? Please. Killing kids who disobey their parents? Please. There is no justification for that and they are not loving at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:31 pm
WickedRentSpringAwakening Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. I mean... the laws of the OT are not exactly loving. Killing someone who is not a virgin on her wedding day? Please. Killing kids who disobey their parents? Please. There is no justification for that and they are not loving at all. You're talking about a very old text that most probably has been changed countless times over many years, especially during the time when the law was considered to be exact during the time of the Pharisees. They also said you would be sentenced to various punishments at that time if you walked to many steps on the sabbath. I could not tell you what the original writers felt, wrote, or said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:32 pm
Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. Guess I do not understand where you are coming from with the statement, could you please elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:21 pm
Someoneiknow Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. Guess I do not understand where you are coming from with the statement, could you please elaborate?
However, the defense against gay rights is involving religion.
Problem is, not only is the the nation suppose to be seperation of church and state, but cities near Jesus's time were also seperated from church and state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:38 pm
Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow WickedRentSpringAwakening caeruleus5765 Working that which is unseemly... perhaps this doesn't mean sex but rather lacking others consideration. (Definition of unseemly from Princeton.edu) Such as gay rape, or making out in public where children can watch. I know I wouldn't want someone making my kids gay. I draw the line here. To say that gay couples may not make out in public, but straight couples can is wrong. There is no basis in logic for that. Plus, you can't make kids gay. Being gay is being attracted to someone of the same sex, it's not something you can force on someone. And Jesus said that all of the laws of the prophets are summed up in loving others, I'm not getting that at all from the laws, most of them are pretty much against loving others. Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. Guess I do not understand where you are coming from with the statement, could you please elaborate?
However, the defense against gay rights is involving religion.
Problem is, not only is the the nation suppose to be seperation of church and state, but cities near Jesus's time were also seperated from church and state.Not entirely. Part of the reason the Jews had problems with tax collectors in the biblical narratives was that the taxes doubled as an offering to the Emperor who was considered a god and there were laws demanded worship to the Imperial cult. Though the Hebrews were exempt to having to worship since the Romans respected the obligations to their God and wanted to lower the hostilities those people had to the Roman Empire, but they still had to pay taxes which could be and was interpreted by some as idolatry (since the money also went to the imperial cults).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:42 pm
rmcdra Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow Captain_Shinzo Someoneiknow Actually I believe, according to what we have as scripture, is that "if you believe in this set of books, you follow this law. If you do not want to follow the law, then you have no reason to remain in this religion". No where does that state that you cannot love someone, it just means that if you want to remain in the religion, then you follow the law. Much like common laws of the land today. If you want to live freely in this country, you must follow the law. But, the counter part of that is, regardless if a person is of your religion or not, you must still love them and show care for them. You cannot banish them or force them to do something. People are allowed to perform and do what they want with their agency. Now, if your argument is more against ancient civilizations, then well they didn't always follow the doctrine as to what they should have, but they felt what they were doing was right. Now today, we have a little bit more free thinking in some areas and so thus we realize that not everyone is like us, but hey, we can love each other and care for each other's well being and respect each other and our beliefs. I hope that made sense, it was all a bit complicated to transport from my brain to the keyboard. Guess I do not understand where you are coming from with the statement, could you please elaborate?
However, the defense against gay rights is involving religion.
Problem is, not only is the the nation suppose to be seperation of church and state, but cities near Jesus's time were also seperated from church and state.Not entirely. Part of the reason the Jews had problems with tax collectors in the biblical narratives was that the taxes doubled as an offering to the Emperor who was considered a god and there were laws demanded worship to the Imperial cult. Though the Hebrews were exempt to having to worship since the Romans respected the obligations to their God and wanted to lower the hostilities those people had to the Roman Empire, but they still had to pay taxes which could be and was interpreted by some as idolatry (since the money also went to the imperial cults).
The Red Scare act still slightly pisses me off, too... stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:17 pm
Captain_Shinzo But then technically, that would make such a place a whole new type of government system. A theocracy if you will. Democratic countries should atleast keep laws and religion separate.
The Red Scare act still slightly pisses me off, too... stare I'm not saying they shouldn't. I was just trying to say that Rome was a bad example, though they did have a pretty good system set up for their time. I think present day England or France would be a better example of separation of church and state, though I could be mistaken on that too. I'm not to fond of the Red Scare either. It's just as paranoid and delusional as this 2012 and Nibaru garbage that's floating around now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
