Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by a d e p t
I will speak, interact with and be of assistance to homosexuals, unwed mothers and pastors equally.
Unwed mothering is a sin too?
*sigh* here we go again...
Okay... some quick questions:
What about rape victims being impregnated?
What about mothers who leave abusive fathers?
What about unwed fathers? Are they sinners too?
What about surrogate motherhood for infertile couples?
What about kids who the Christian faith has denied sexual education to and therefore have gone out and gotten pregnant without knowing who the father is?
What about etc.?
[/poke holes in statement]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Unwed mothering is a sin too?
*sigh* here we go again...
Okay... some quick questions:
What about rape victims being impregnated?
What about mothers who leave abusive fathers?
What about unwed fathers? Are they sinners too?
What about surrogate motherhood for infertile couples?
What about kids who the Christian faith has denied sexual education to and therefore have gone out and gotten pregnant without knowing who the father is?
What about etc.?
[/poke holes in statement]
You're taking his statement a little too literally I think.
Knowingly and purposefully having a child out of wedlock IS a sin. I don't believe rape victims would fall under that category. Mothers that leave abusive fathers would probably fall under the sinner category because marriage is supposed to be until death do us part, no if's ands or buts. Unwed fathers would be considered sinners because sex (according to the bible) is supposed to be for procreation ONLY, and is only to happen between a man and his wife. Surrogate mothers (in my opinion based on the bible's teachings) would be sinners because that's not the way God intended for people to reproduce. I see science as a sort of loophole in God's plan...as for your last example, the only sexual education the Christian faith needs to provide has already been stated, sex is for procreation only, and is only to happen between a man and his wife, so yes, those children would be considered sinners.
Intentionally doing something that you know to be wrong in the eyes of God is a sin.
I know these words must make me look like a die-hard christian, but believe it or not I'm more of an agnostic than anything else. My only rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Most churches also have that rule included in their teachings somewhere, but the funny thing is that just a couple hundred years ago we were burning witches at the stake and the church was not only ok with it but they were leading the pack. Up until the civil war time, slavery was as common as owning a tv set. I don't recall reading anything about the church speaking out against that or doing anything to help the slaves. I think most slave-owners attended church regularly in those days. So based on that history, why on earth would I believe that the churches we see today are any less self-serving and hypocritical than the ones of 200, 500 or 2000 years ago? If the writers of the bible had written things that the church did not like, do you think it would have been included in the bible?
I don't have a problem with unwed mothers or gays or divorced people, my problem is with ignorant people that show no regard for others. If everyone lived by the golden rule, just think how great this world would be! There wouldn't be telemarketers calling your house during dinner, there wouldn't be frivolous lawsuits, there wouldn't be small print on contracts, heck there probably wouldn't even be contracts because a person's word would be good enough on any deal. There probably wouldn't be any salesman or lawyers either...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Mothers that leave abusive fathers would probably fall under the sinner category because marriage is supposed to be until death do us part, no if's ands or buts.
Now how is a faith that believes this supposed to ATTRACT followers? Let's say some mother discovers her husband is incestuously raping her daughter. Are you telling me the church would say it is a sin for her to leave him?
I say this is bull.
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
...sex (according to the bible) is supposed to be for procreation ONLY, and is only to happen between a man and his wife.
What a sad, sad life you must live. :D
Ok. God gave us sex. God made it feel good. God gave us brains to know how to do it without harming anyone. People who do it without harming anyone are happy. People who don't do it tend to be uptight and unhappy.
Priests who don't do it tend to take it out on altar boys, it seems.
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
Surrogate mothers (in my opinion based on the bible's teachings) would be sinners because that's not the way God intended for people to reproduce.
Okay, so what about people who are genuinely infertile? Has God just decided to screw them? They aren't allowed to reproduce because it is a sin? Even if they are righteous, practicing Christians?
I think this is bull too.
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
...the only sexual education the Christian faith needs to provide has already been stated, sex is for procreation only, and is only to happen between a man and his wife
It has been observed in the real world, time and time again, following a program of abstinence-only sex education CONSISTENTLY results in an INCREASE of sexual activity on the part of minors, underage and unwed pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Seems to me the Bible is not so much advocating something wrong in this case as something stupid.
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
I know these words must make me look like a die-hard christian...
They do. I am trying not to treat you as an extremist but your beliefs are very difficult for me to accept. They seem to fly in the face of common sense to me.
Quote:
Originally posted by imaeditedbysowulo
...the funny thing is that just a couple hundred years ago we were burning witches at the stake and the church was not only ok with it but they were leading the pack. Up until the civil war time, slavery was as common as owning a tv set. I don't recall reading anything about the church speaking out against that or doing anything to help the slaves. I think most slave-owners attended church regularly in those days. So based on that history, why on earth would I believe that the churches we see today are any less self-serving and hypocritical than the ones of 200, 500 or 2000 years ago? If the writers of the bible had written things that the church did not like, do you think it would have been included in the bible?
Are you attacking the church here or supporting it? I'm not clear. Because if you are supporting it the logic doesn't make sense -- i.e., because the church has been hypocritical for the last 2000 yrs so that makes it okay for it to go on being hypocritical now.
If that's not what you're saying, then I am curious why you suddenly decided to attack the Church you are supposedly defending?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Now how is a faith that believes this supposed to ATTRACT followers? Let's say some mother discovers her husband is incestuously raping her daughter. Are you telling me the church would say it is a sin for her to leave him?
I say this is bull.
What a sad, sad life you must live. :D
Ok. God gave us sex. God made it feel good. God gave us brains to know how to do it without harming anyone. People who do it without harming anyone are happy. People who don't do it tend to be uptight and unhappy.
Priests who don't do it tend to take it out on altar boys, it seems.
Okay, so what about people who are genuinely infertile? Has God just decided to screw them? They aren't allowed to reproduce because it is a sin? Even if they are righteous, practicing Christians?
I think this is bull too.
It has been observed in the real world, time and time again, following a program of abstinence-only sex education CONSISTENTLY results in an INCREASE of sexual activity on the part of minors, underage and unwed pregnancies, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Seems to me the Bible is not so much advocating something wrong in this case as something stupid.
They do. I am trying not to treat you as an extremist but your beliefs are very difficult for me to accept. They seem to fly in the face of common sense to me.
Are you attacking the church here or supporting it? I'm not clear. Because if you are supporting it the logic doesn't make sense -- i.e., because the church has been hypocritical for the last 2000 yrs so that makes it okay for it to go on being hypocritical now.
If that's not what you're saying, then I am curious why you suddenly decided to attack the Church you are supposedly defending?
Those are not my beliefs at all, merely my interpretation of what the church believes. I agree with you that it's not okay for churches to be hypocritical now, that's exactly why I don't support any churches. I think they are all filled with hypocrites.
However, just because I think it's a whole bunch of baloney doesn't exclude me from understanding the beliefs of someone that is highly religious, and I support their right to believe those things.
Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by a d e p t
Actually, homosexuality is "curable" (I can back this up) while at the same time I concur that the large majority of homosexuals do not have a choice in their orientation. I also agree that it is a sin. Why that should bother anyone who doesn't hold the Bible as true eludes me, but I know we can still continue a respectful and logical discourse, right?
Homosexuality is no more a problem to deal with for God than those born with a violent disposition or alcoholics - it's just another facet of the sinful nature of man today.
Sorry bud. Gotta call you on this because this is the biggest load. I know about these two and several places that say they are able to turn people around.
Being a homosexual is not the same for all homosexuals. Sexuality in general for some is a definite and for others it’s not. Many folks are born knowing that they are straight or gay and there is a vast sea of people in the middle.
Knowing that many folks do not really have a definite 100% at either end we see many a person with tendencies/predilections towards the other/same sex. I can assure you that you cannot take a real gay/lesbian person and make them hetero because they were never there in the first place. Many of them find the idea wholly offensive. You can take a bisexual person who thought they might be gay or who had some same sex sexual encounters and have them say they were cured. It’s a load because they were never gay, just curious. http://www.dcdykes.com/html/hot_topics_kinsey.html
The people I know that are gay can tell you that when they were growing up that when hitting puberty they were looking at the same sex differently and not the opposite sex. Living in a world filled with people unlike them and in an intolerant society many of them hide this from friends and family. They grow older and fill the role designed for them all the while pleasing their family instead of realizing who they are. They have children and only then realize/come to terms with/admit that they gay or lesbian. An old girlfriend who had two moms and my friend who had two dads are the perfect example of this. Those who think that homosexuals don’t have children are just damn wrong.
Also, many people assume incorrectly that being a homosexual has more to do with who you have sex with and not who you love. Homosexuality is about love and relationship, not sex. The sex is the hang-up that the rest of society has demonized them for.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Unwed mothering is a sin too?
pastoring is worse :D
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
Originally posted by Platypus
pastoring is worse :D
LOL - now that's funny! :D
I just wanted to clarify a few things here in my last contribution to this thread. It's leaning towards chaos and I don't want to rain on WC's thread. Please PM, e-mail or IM me if you'd like to continue discussing this with me, out of respect for him. I take no offense by anyone, but I see that my comments were either unclear or misunderstood.
All right, one more time:
I (me as an individual person) understand the Bible's teachings must be taken at face value and in the context of the time period ond social mores of that era. There are a multitude of ways to apply these teachings today. Some are extreme and others are kooky, but hopefully most of them will be balanced and reasonable.
Now, my statement that "I will speak, interact with and be of assistance to homosexuals, unwed mothers and pastors equally." was to demonstrate how I interpret God's command to love others. For me, as I've said before (maybe my posts are too long and people don't take the time to read them completely) the Bible's main message is Love God, love others. *All* the other teachings, laws and precepts it contains must be viewed in the light of this initial guideline. That's my take on the Bible and what it says. That statement merely showed that I did not make exceptions of persons when it came to being there for my fellow man, whatever background they have or position they hold.
Again, if you disagree with, or have never read the Bible, the sins it describes should not offend you. I am not offended by the subjugation of women implicit in the Koran. But I do take umbrage if a fellow man is unjustly treated. I feel the homosexual community is unjustly treated for personal gain and lacks the "whole" information.
As for homosexuals being "turned around", ILTU, please understand that I'm not saying that their drives are not real or that they must *all* be turned straight. The fact remains that there are over 800 documented cases of former homosexuals now living a "straight" lifestyle.
I completely agree with you that homosexuality is not primarily about sex. Dr. Joseph Nicolesci (an authority in the early development of homosexuality in children and teens) even says it is about everything else: loneliness, rejection, affirmation, intimacy, identity, relationships, parenting, self-hatred, gender confusion (including gender association with a same-sex parent - which is hard to do if dad is no longer at home by the time a child reaches puberty), and a search for belonging. Quoted: "This explains why the homosexual experience is so intense - and why there is such anger expressed against those who are perceived as disrespecting gays and lesbians or making their experience more painful".
A father of 4 and respected church member I know is gay. He struggles with this constantly and is torn between two worlds - literally. I'm fully aware that the homosexual lifestyle is not "chosen" for the most part. I've said so before. But there *is* a high correlation between feminine behaviour in boyhood and homosexuality in adults (for men). This behaviour can devellop over time when a young male cannot associate himself to his father (for whatever reasons) or his male peers.
The American Psychological Association listed homosexuality as a mental-health disorder until 1973 and only stopped doing so because of pressure from lobby groups. Dr. Robert Spitzer (who spearheaded the declassification) said in 2001 that his findings "show some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." Psychologist George Rekers also states that "there is considerable evidence that change in sexual orientation is possible - with or without psychiatric intervention." and "In a sizable number of cases ... the gender identity disorder resolves fully." He also states: "Ican offer to you that there is no such thing a a 'gay child' or a 'gay teen'. ^But) left untreated, studies show these boys have a 75% chance of becoming homosexual or bisexual."
It's not a question of my faith affecting my reasoning capacity here. These are facts, but they're not widely released because gay and lesbian associations do not want the public (or even their own constituents) to even consider that homosexuality is *not* genetically transmitted and *is* treatable for those who wish to do so for whatever reasons. I despise injustice and abuse in all its forms. This is one of them.
My opinions on homosexuality (the condition or lifestyle) stem mostly from the social impact of homosexuality and much less from my belief system. As I previously stated, I see homosexuality as an effect of our current society. If we recall history, homosexuality has always been associated with the downfall of the great civilizations. That is what worries me.
Thanks for reading my comments. I appreciate having had the opportunity to share my thoughts on this.
I trust you'll see that they're not fanatical, but well thought out and sensible. ;)
Info taken from Focus on the Family, Exodus International and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality as well as from the American Psychological Association.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Microsoft Word of God
Quote:
My opinions on homosexuality (the condition or lifestyle) stem mostly from the social impact of homosexuality and much less from my belief system. As I previously stated, I see homosexuality as an effect of our current society. If we recall history, homosexuality has always been associated with the downfall of the great civilizations. That is what worries me.
Oh yeah...
8:00 am - Awaken in fabulous silk bed
8:30 am - Workout with HOT gym instructor
9:30 am - Breakfast with the "ladies" (granola and yogurt)
10:30am - Take FiFi to the groomers
11:00am - WORLD DOMINATION
12:00pm - Lunch with the "ladies"
1:00pm - ponder the true meaning of Spandex
1:00pm - convert neighborhood children (must meet monthly quota this time!)
I do see where you're coming from and see your points of view. You have the right to them and I have the right to think otherwise. I don't think I can get into how I think otherwise - lest I get modded to the hilt.
