Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
Sexual orientation is no more a choice than left-handedness.
Missing Boy in the N.C. Mountains Found Alive.
- Thread starter Kevin Palmer
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
TJR, I would have to disagree with you there. I believe that God created Adam and Eve as perfect humans. Because of sin, the one that Jesus died for, we are now imperfect. Because of that imperfection, we have those that are crippled by birth, those that have mental problems, those that are born retarted, and...lets say for sake of argument, those that have the "homosexual gene". They are all imperfections that have been caused by the original sin and not because God is 10% gay, 3% retarted, 1/2% conjoined twin, etc., etc., etc.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Gavin, you have a stray space at the end of your link above that is keeping it from working directly.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You hold on to your beliefs, I'll take mine. I know whereand what mine are based on. I don't "need" to read a supposedly "balaced" website called religoustolerance.org to help me out. Just the name alone tells me they are neither fair nor balanced.
It's the same reason that I don't watch movies like Farencrap 9/11 or Incontenence Truth or Bowling for Columbine. Drivel. All of it.
It's the same reason that I don't watch movies like Farencrap 9/11 or Incontenence Truth or Bowling for Columbine. Drivel. All of it.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
R Shek, being exposed to new ideas and opinions, even if slanted (I'm not going to be the judge, you should be), simply gives people more information...that's not a bad thing.
Somewhere above I used the term "blinders". Your statements come off quite a bit like that.
I don't give much merit to the drivel you mention either, but in all of it, there are nuggets of truth and points of reflection and introspection.
There are athiests that will 100% dismiss the Bible because they have the exact same opinion as you...that it is propaganda, drivel, slanted and self-serving and promoting...and you know what...they are VALID in that opinion. But it doesn't mean that there aren't NUGGETS OF TRUTH that they are missing from that book.
Don't miss the nuggets.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I have a vision of three monkeys for some reason, each with hands over different parts of their bodies....mouth, ears, eyes.
TJR
Somewhere above I used the term "blinders". Your statements come off quite a bit like that.
I don't give much merit to the drivel you mention either, but in all of it, there are nuggets of truth and points of reflection and introspection.
There are athiests that will 100% dismiss the Bible because they have the exact same opinion as you...that it is propaganda, drivel, slanted and self-serving and promoting...and you know what...they are VALID in that opinion. But it doesn't mean that there aren't NUGGETS OF TRUTH that they are missing from that book.
Don't miss the nuggets.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I have a vision of three monkeys for some reason, each with hands over different parts of their bodies....mouth, ears, eyes.
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen said:
That's a good debate.
Your POV requires that one take a literal view of Genesis, and I do not (there, I said it...take away my Christian card). For if I do, then there are things that I know as fact about this world that are contradicted by that book of the Bible. So, rather than live with blinders and further "make up" things to allow the literal interpretation of Genesis to fit what I know to be true and can prove today, I instead take most of Genesis, at least the parts of Creation and Adam and Eve as largely symbolic.
When one does that (and BTW, more and more Christians are doing that everyday) then it puts in question the reality of man's fall from grace and what it means today, and what common ideas of "original sin" even mean.
So, yes, Caymen, much of what I said about God making retarded people in his own image was "tongue in cheek", and meant to create discussion, and I see it has.
But regardless, God is all powerful, right, and God controls and creates everything. Before HE formed us in our mother's womb he knew us. So, even if not created in his image, God makes retarded and crippled people...or so the Bible says. He must create such people for a reason, because he leaves nothing to chance. Yet we are now fixing birth defects in the womb...are we "undoing God's work"...are we wrecking God's plans?
Or might it be that birth defects "just happen", and they aren't controlled by or caused by God. He simply allows it. Well, that's a lot different than the "Everything happens according to God's plan" drivel (thanks for the word R Shek) that I hear many Christians blather.
So which is it? Crippled people, retarded people, etc are just born and that's the way it is, or it's God's plan?
It seems to me regardless the answer you offend someone's belief system at best, or set up massive contradictions amongst widely held Christian dogma at worst?
I sure am Glad that God gave us in inerrant word in written form so that we would all know exactly how he works and what he expects of us so that we can get past our own issues and work together under a common vision.
TJR
That's a good debate.
Your POV requires that one take a literal view of Genesis, and I do not (there, I said it...take away my Christian card). For if I do, then there are things that I know as fact about this world that are contradicted by that book of the Bible. So, rather than live with blinders and further "make up" things to allow the literal interpretation of Genesis to fit what I know to be true and can prove today, I instead take most of Genesis, at least the parts of Creation and Adam and Eve as largely symbolic.
When one does that (and BTW, more and more Christians are doing that everyday) then it puts in question the reality of man's fall from grace and what it means today, and what common ideas of "original sin" even mean.
So, yes, Caymen, much of what I said about God making retarded people in his own image was "tongue in cheek", and meant to create discussion, and I see it has.
But regardless, God is all powerful, right, and God controls and creates everything. Before HE formed us in our mother's womb he knew us. So, even if not created in his image, God makes retarded and crippled people...or so the Bible says. He must create such people for a reason, because he leaves nothing to chance. Yet we are now fixing birth defects in the womb...are we "undoing God's work"...are we wrecking God's plans?
Or might it be that birth defects "just happen", and they aren't controlled by or caused by God. He simply allows it. Well, that's a lot different than the "Everything happens according to God's plan" drivel (thanks for the word R Shek) that I hear many Christians blather.
So which is it? Crippled people, retarded people, etc are just born and that's the way it is, or it's God's plan?
It seems to me regardless the answer you offend someone's belief system at best, or set up massive contradictions amongst widely held Christian dogma at worst?
I sure am Glad that God gave us in inerrant word in written form so that we would all know exactly how he works and what he expects of us so that we can get past our own issues and work together under a common vision.
TJR
R Shek,
Like you, I know what my beliefs are based on, but I am not also naive enough to think that the bible can not have errors.
You know, as well as I know, that there may be a possibility that part, or parts of the bible have been added or removed to support one or another church's stand on an issue.
I am also smart enough to look at both sides of an issue and think for myself.
We know birth defects happen every day. We know it is caused by imperfection that we humans suffer from. If the bible said all those born without an arm are to be banashed from society, would you support that?
Tom
Like you, I know what my beliefs are based on, but I am not also naive enough to think that the bible can not have errors.
You know, as well as I know, that there may be a possibility that part, or parts of the bible have been added or removed to support one or another church's stand on an issue.
I am also smart enough to look at both sides of an issue and think for myself.
We know birth defects happen every day. We know it is caused by imperfection that we humans suffer from. If the bible said all those born without an arm are to be banashed from society, would you support that?
Tom
Josh Langel
Well-Known Member
I agree. People forget that Kings and other such rulers CHANGED the Bible in order for it to fit the needs of their time.
Hence the term "King James VERSION" not the King James Translation, but a version authorized by King James. (Not to be confused with LeBron James that calls himself "King James")
If you read a version of the bible, are you reading the bible or just a version of it?
Tom
)If you read a version of the bible, are you reading the bible or just a version of it?
Tom
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Understand that I'm not afraid of differing viewpoints (I watch CNN on occasion for Christ's sake).
The Nuggets that are found are usually the kind that you flush away with corn in it. But that's an opinion.
But there are many things that just offend the sensability. I don't watch movies like Saw and the Grudge for the same reasons. I'm sure they are entertaining to some degree, but I'd rather my head be filled with more pleasant images than seeing someone dismembered... which I've seen pictures of real people having been killed, murdered, suicide etc. I'd rather not have that.
I'll agree that someone's trash is another's treasure. I mean someone is watching that tub or a woman Rosie spout off the most obsurd propaganda. I won't watch The View either. Does that mean that I am missing the "nuggets" there too?
Does the bible have inaccuracies? Maybe. I personally have a hard time beliving the statement that Kings changed the content to suit their needs as most of the translations from the origional Hebrew and Greek texts of antiquity are within reasonable accuracy of each other. I have several versions in my house... KJV, NIV, NLT, Amplified, Catholic, and another one or two. All are pretty much the same. Some use a more up-to-date language (where vs wherest, you vs thou, etc). The KJV, NLT and NIV are "direct" translations of the origionals, that is they are not based on one or the other. If King James wanted the bible changed to suit his needs, then that version would contain significant different content and context than the others.
Are there books missing from one version to the next? Yes, the Apocrapha is in some, and not in others. The Catholic has a few differences as well. However, the Old Testiment and the 4 Gospels are all nearly identical. Revolations, Paul's Letters, Acts, and many of the other books are all present.
Do I believe in a literal interpretation of biblical text? For the most part, yes. There is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun. Miricles happen everyday. Sin is sin and sin is defined as any act or action that separates us from God. I will not engage in tolerance to Homosexuality and adultery. I will act in love to those involved in the acts as that is what the bible teaches...
Love the sinner, Hate the sin.
There are many things in life that are clearly spelled out as sin. There are more that are not. Your spirit will lead you in many of these things. Drinking of alchol in and of itself are not sinful to me, but to others it may be as the effects of alcohol on their body is much more dramatic. Drunkiness and alcoholism is clearly sinful. Taking ANYTHING to excess where the act or activity or object takes control of your life is sinful.
If it will make you happy, I will look at your precious website when time allows. Will it change my opinion of homosexuality, "religious tolerance", and the "new age" look at christianity? Heck no. Why? My views are set based upon my biblical study. If I find something in the bible that challenges that, I will be the first in line to discuss it with my pastor, then you will be next. Don't wait up for me.
The Nuggets that are found are usually the kind that you flush away with corn in it. But that's an opinion.
But there are many things that just offend the sensability. I don't watch movies like Saw and the Grudge for the same reasons. I'm sure they are entertaining to some degree, but I'd rather my head be filled with more pleasant images than seeing someone dismembered... which I've seen pictures of real people having been killed, murdered, suicide etc. I'd rather not have that.
I'll agree that someone's trash is another's treasure. I mean someone is watching that tub or a woman Rosie spout off the most obsurd propaganda. I won't watch The View either. Does that mean that I am missing the "nuggets" there too?
Does the bible have inaccuracies? Maybe. I personally have a hard time beliving the statement that Kings changed the content to suit their needs as most of the translations from the origional Hebrew and Greek texts of antiquity are within reasonable accuracy of each other. I have several versions in my house... KJV, NIV, NLT, Amplified, Catholic, and another one or two. All are pretty much the same. Some use a more up-to-date language (where vs wherest, you vs thou, etc). The KJV, NLT and NIV are "direct" translations of the origionals, that is they are not based on one or the other. If King James wanted the bible changed to suit his needs, then that version would contain significant different content and context than the others.
Are there books missing from one version to the next? Yes, the Apocrapha is in some, and not in others. The Catholic has a few differences as well. However, the Old Testiment and the 4 Gospels are all nearly identical. Revolations, Paul's Letters, Acts, and many of the other books are all present.
Do I believe in a literal interpretation of biblical text? For the most part, yes. There is a Heaven to gain and a Hell to shun. Miricles happen everyday. Sin is sin and sin is defined as any act or action that separates us from God. I will not engage in tolerance to Homosexuality and adultery. I will act in love to those involved in the acts as that is what the bible teaches...
Love the sinner, Hate the sin.
There are many things in life that are clearly spelled out as sin. There are more that are not. Your spirit will lead you in many of these things. Drinking of alchol in and of itself are not sinful to me, but to others it may be as the effects of alcohol on their body is much more dramatic. Drunkiness and alcoholism is clearly sinful. Taking ANYTHING to excess where the act or activity or object takes control of your life is sinful.
If it will make you happy, I will look at your precious website when time allows. Will it change my opinion of homosexuality, "religious tolerance", and the "new age" look at christianity? Heck no. Why? My views are set based upon my biblical study. If I find something in the bible that challenges that, I will be the first in line to discuss it with my pastor, then you will be next. Don't wait up for me.
I could not agree with you more. Life is scary enough. For crying out loud, we have Republicans in this world. That is scarier than any horror flick. (Sorry I had to say it. Just messing with you)
At the same time, I am not naieve enough to think that if I make it illegal to make movies like that, we will have a better society.
The same goes with Gay Marriage. Since you do not like the idea of gay marriage, that does not mean making it illegal is going to stop it. Government should remain neutral and should protect and defent its citizans. Banning gay marriage is not the answer for the government.
Ban it in a church. By all means. Accept it in a church. Sure, why not, they have to teach what the bible says and then do the opposite. Not my problem.
The government has nothing to say. If there are people that want it, let them have it.
Isn't that what living in the "land of the free" is all about?
Or is it only free for those that decide what true freedom it is.
Remember, secular government will only bring temporary happiness, heavenly goverment will bring eternal happiness.
Why worry about what the secualer government does. It has nothing to do with heavenly government.
No matter what problems God asks Dubya to help him with.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
R Shek says:
I'm not trying to be happy and it's not my precious website (note your condescending tone, BTW). Nor am I trying to change your opinion. All I was trying to do was to make you aware of a very good resource that discusses feelings and attitudes on both sides of many religious debates, including homosexuality.
TJR
I'm not trying to be happy and it's not my precious website (note your condescending tone, BTW). Nor am I trying to change your opinion. All I was trying to do was to make you aware of a very good resource that discusses feelings and attitudes on both sides of many religious debates, including homosexuality.
TJR
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Since this turned into a debate about religion and potentially the change of attitudes in religion and churches, I thought I would share this.
I took the morning off from work to be part of a seminar given by a local church, open to all ministers, pastors, and lay pastors (defined any anyone in a church leadership position, regardless how small) of several local congregations.
The topic of the seminar: PORNOGRAPHY!
Yep, and surprisingly it wasn't a seminar that was simply preachy about the evils and heavy on the DO NOTS. Sure, there was some of that, but there was one message that the speaker wanted everyone to understand and that message was:
The speaker gave examples of how the Bible has told us and we have been taught that God created Man in his image then created Woman from man to be a companion. This alone has been used for centuries to further the idea that women are property and that they are here to serve and obey men. You need look no further than the common church wedding and the question by the preacher of “Who gives this women…†to see this aspect of property. Furthermore, the ideas of abstinence, purity and even adultery further man's past need to control women and to assure that once married there is no question of paternity and lineage in a society that was male dominated with family wealth passing down to the "RIGHTFUL" male heir. Lastly, the shame and stigma of masturbation among teens was also brought up. The point was mad that God wanted us, singularly and as couples to take pleasure in our bodies and in the sexual act (scripture was cited, don’t have it off the top of my head).
So, there you have it folks...Women aren't property, though men have claimed so using the Bible as a guide. Women are not to be subservient, though again, the Bible has been used as the rule that they should. Abstinence may actually serve an antiquated need to assure paternity (blood tests and DNA will do that today), and masturbation is okay in the eyes of God (though some scripture like “shall not spill your seed†seem to contradict).
I'm sure I am blowing many of your minds...and NO, my church and the conference it is in is NOT in California, but Pennsylvania.
Attitudes are changing…but the truth remains the same. It seems man’s ability to read, interpret, and act righteously given the inerrant word has been pretty poor throughout the ages.
TJR
I took the morning off from work to be part of a seminar given by a local church, open to all ministers, pastors, and lay pastors (defined any anyone in a church leadership position, regardless how small) of several local congregations.
The topic of the seminar: PORNOGRAPHY!
Yep, and surprisingly it wasn't a seminar that was simply preachy about the evils and heavy on the DO NOTS. Sure, there was some of that, but there was one message that the speaker wanted everyone to understand and that message was:
The speaker gave examples of how the Bible has told us and we have been taught that God created Man in his image then created Woman from man to be a companion. This alone has been used for centuries to further the idea that women are property and that they are here to serve and obey men. You need look no further than the common church wedding and the question by the preacher of “Who gives this women…†to see this aspect of property. Furthermore, the ideas of abstinence, purity and even adultery further man's past need to control women and to assure that once married there is no question of paternity and lineage in a society that was male dominated with family wealth passing down to the "RIGHTFUL" male heir. Lastly, the shame and stigma of masturbation among teens was also brought up. The point was mad that God wanted us, singularly and as couples to take pleasure in our bodies and in the sexual act (scripture was cited, don’t have it off the top of my head).
So, there you have it folks...Women aren't property, though men have claimed so using the Bible as a guide. Women are not to be subservient, though again, the Bible has been used as the rule that they should. Abstinence may actually serve an antiquated need to assure paternity (blood tests and DNA will do that today), and masturbation is okay in the eyes of God (though some scripture like “shall not spill your seed†seem to contradict).
I'm sure I am blowing many of your minds...and NO, my church and the conference it is in is NOT in California, but Pennsylvania.
Attitudes are changing…but the truth remains the same. It seems man’s ability to read, interpret, and act righteously given the inerrant word has been pretty poor throughout the ages.
TJR
TJR, In that quote where it says "the Church": Are they referring to the Catholic Church? Or churches in general? I do agree with that quote, BTW.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Rodger,
I meant and the speaker meant Christian churches in general.
TJR
I meant and the speaker meant Christian churches in general.
TJR
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Never said they were. My wife would beat the living bejesus out of me if I ever thought that. That's not a "woman's lib" thing either.
However, per the bible, it is Man's responcibility to control the household, the teaching of the word and provide for and protect the woman he is married to and the children they bear. I don't call that subserviant, but I do call it a biblical order. My wife and I are 100% partners in our household, however, I have the final word. That's the way it is. Now, I confer with my partner in everything, especially when it comes to decisions that affect the household.
The Catholic Church is generally responcible, with Protestant and Baptist Churches comming in second, for the attitudes towards sexual activity that we see today. It was the Catholic church that said anything besides the "missionary" position was sinful. Ok. Where did they find that? However, sex outside of marriage is clearly defined in the bible as adulterous. No "new age" interpretation can change that. Is oral sex sex per the bible? I have not seen something per se, however, since it is sexual contact with another person, I would say Yes, it is. Is groping a sexual act? I believe so, but it is not the actual act of sex and would not necessarily be considered adultery. That being said, I don't think my wife would appreciate me touching another woman. For me it's much the same way as lusting after another.
Which is why I don't do strip clubs. Besides the face that I work too hard to flitter my money away. I'd much rather take that $20 and give it to my wife and atleast get a happy ending without seeing a doctor in a few weeks to get a shot... (sorry to all the strippers reading this.... generalization)
R Shek,
That is all fine and dandy. I agree with you, a man is the head of the household. It takes a real man to take the lead in a houshold knowing that his decisions affect his home and responsibility. Knowing what he wants and what is best for his wife and children, is a tough decision to make.
With that being said, it has nothing to do with a gay man having urges to play with little boys moreso than a straight man playing with little boys.
Tom
That is all fine and dandy. I agree with you, a man is the head of the household. It takes a real man to take the lead in a houshold knowing that his decisions affect his home and responsibility. Knowing what he wants and what is best for his wife and children, is a tough decision to make.
With that being said, it has nothing to do with a gay man having urges to play with little boys moreso than a straight man playing with little boys.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
R Shek, I think you missed my point, and that was that the church has create a lot of dogma about what is and what is not permissible, sexually, as well as what gender-specific roles there should be.
Did you know that many biblical scholars actually believe that Mary Magdalene was most likely a disciple, probably one of great importance to Jesus (I won't get into the whole DaVinci Code stuff). Mary's role in the Bible, in Jesus' ministry and in the forming of the church post-resurrection was likely downplayed if not totally omitted. Why? Because it more than likely portrayed a strong, vocal, important leadership position in the early church by a female, and that's not something that the authors of the Bible didn’t want promoted for if they did, it would challenge the male dominated society and male dominated church.
Men wrote the Bible and until very recently only men have taught it. Only in the past 100 years have our attitudes changed when it comes to females, their place in our homes, in our society and in our churches. Even what you refer to as Biblical order of the man as the provider is outdated. You are entitled to your desire for that in your home, but there are many, many homes where the woman is the provider and they clearly are not living in an unholy arrangement.
Times are changing and attitudes and actions today in many areas DIRECTLY CONTRADICT biblical word and biblical teaching…and it would be arrogant to think that it is all unholy and blasphemy.
TJR
Did you know that many biblical scholars actually believe that Mary Magdalene was most likely a disciple, probably one of great importance to Jesus (I won't get into the whole DaVinci Code stuff). Mary's role in the Bible, in Jesus' ministry and in the forming of the church post-resurrection was likely downplayed if not totally omitted. Why? Because it more than likely portrayed a strong, vocal, important leadership position in the early church by a female, and that's not something that the authors of the Bible didn’t want promoted for if they did, it would challenge the male dominated society and male dominated church.
Men wrote the Bible and until very recently only men have taught it. Only in the past 100 years have our attitudes changed when it comes to females, their place in our homes, in our society and in our churches. Even what you refer to as Biblical order of the man as the provider is outdated. You are entitled to your desire for that in your home, but there are many, many homes where the woman is the provider and they clearly are not living in an unholy arrangement.
Times are changing and attitudes and actions today in many areas DIRECTLY CONTRADICT biblical word and biblical teaching…and it would be arrogant to think that it is all unholy and blasphemy.
TJR
Mark Grumpy
Well-Known Member
Apparently not 100% partners. Why are you wasting your breath with the convo' if her opinion doesn't matter. No, you didn't actually say that, but that's what "I have the final word" means.
Looks like Theresa's opinion doesn't matter either.
Following quote is from an email I received this morning:
People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them.
How true. Brainwashed.
grump
Grumpy,
You missed my point. Maybe because you read it wrong or I phrased it wrong, but here goes.
What is best for me is not always what is best for my wife. Likewise, what is best for my wife is not always best for me. Making that final decision is tough, but as the head of a household, the decisions I make MUST be the best for everyone, even if that means the decision will hurt me.
Does that make sense? I am not a tyrant, but I do know as the head of the household, I am the one held responsible for my family and I will defend my family with my life.
Tom
You missed my point. Maybe because you read it wrong or I phrased it wrong, but here goes.
What is best for me is not always what is best for my wife. Likewise, what is best for my wife is not always best for me. Making that final decision is tough, but as the head of a household, the decisions I make MUST be the best for everyone, even if that means the decision will hurt me.
Does that make sense? I am not a tyrant, but I do know as the head of the household, I am the one held responsible for my family and I will defend my family with my life.
Tom
