Your backwards, Bronze Age religious views are quite amusing. The fact that no one takes you seriously is also amusing.
Im sorry but neither you, any churches, any governments or any countries hold the bible as 'authoritative'. Like every other christian type you take tiny little bits of it which you like to point at and agree with If you saw the bible as authoritative you would act more like a middle easterner from 3000 years ago, which you dont.
What's it like to post on a board where even the arch-conservatives think you're a tool and a simpleton? Is that your diagnosis, Dr. Dipshit? It has little to do with heart, and more to do with brain.
Is not a tenant of the bible/torah that we should not be judgemental of others. If god exists and He doesn't like what people are doing that's His business, not ours. I'm always amazed that the most religious are often the most judgemental.
How very appropriate. So once again we have man's agenda in creating a god in his own image, a god no less capricious than Zeus the serial rapist, who says "Yeah, I created you with these desires. Sucks to be you, because if you act on them you can't be saved." And the "judge not lest ye be" crowd, in between coveting their neighbor's [different sex] spouse, nods in accord and says "Tsk, yeah, poor guy! He's not saved." Apparently their paradise never needs new decor.
Who said anything about treating them like shit? You're just trying to pick and choose what you want to believe from the Bible. Its pretty clear in regards to homosexuality.
Illustrating again both the primitive, uncivilised message conveyed in most of the bible and the willingness of modern Christians to ignore or twist what they see fit. "Christian theology" consists solely of the wordgames and affronts to logic that believers use to reconcile reality with their mythology. Pointing that out renders the conversation redundant.
there's no point in my re-phrasing what has been done well by others: It's all but unanimous among bible scholars, no matter where they stand on homosexuality, that understanding a compound work simply by looking ant what the individual parts mean is unacceptable scholarship. in the passage where Jesus asked "But what did they go out to see? A man in soft clothing?" the word malakos was used in reference to the cloth, and huge portion of the times it appears in the first century it refers to something other than a human being. The one place i mildly differ from Vines here is that I think the use of the two words together is a strong clue about what both mean. the Greeks practiced something called "pederasty" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece In short, Adult Greek men of sufficient age and social standing kept a boy of teenage years as, essentially, a concubine or gigolo. The boy, naturally assumed the passive role (which, as I've discussed elsewhere in the thread, was considered shameful) and this would have been associated directly with the accusation of being "soft." The superior men would thus be "men who bedded men" and, given that it was a common part of society, there would not really have been a derogatory term for them. which is why Paul coined one. It seems to me to be entirely logical that Paul was saying "Neither those men who keep a hired male partner, nor those who sell themselves to be one" in that phrase. Here's a page which refers to a few different explanations of the words (Scrugg's view at the bottom is the one I just referenced): http://www.lionking.org/~kovu/bible/section07.html This link lists all the various places Paul's made-up word appears: http://www.gaychristian101.com/Define-Arsenokoites.html Point of these last two links being that even if one thinks a condemnation of homosexuality is a POSSIBLE interpretation of the passage, it is very very far from being conclusive, and where there is room for this much doubt, it's bad form to make assumptions which sondemn people. Another bit of info on this - IF Paul had specifically intended to say "men who have sex with men" in the general sense, he didn't have to make up a word. There were several pre-existing words which would have made his meaning crystal clear (and if we assume an inspired Scripture, then certainly god would want the clearest possible verbage, right? among the possibilities: and there are a like number of words which specifically reference to what we call lesbianism, none of which are used in the bible in any context.
It's pretty clear you haven't ever studied the subject in any depth. it's anything but clear, no matter what side of the debate you take. you just find it comforting to think God shares your bias.
Yeah, I know. Our Creator asking that we live on His moral terms in exchange for everlasting love and life. A real bully that one is!
That's true until deviant lifestyles endanger society and children in particular. I don't beelieve we're just supposed to let evil run wild.
And yet, here you are, free as a bird. Fancy that. Your brand of faith is a great deal more evil than two people of the same sex loving one another, in that you can cause actual harm.
Well, I, for one, am glad that god is cool with lesbians, because I totally dig lesbians, too. That gives us something in common.
You want to believe that and so you will. I hope someday your eyes are opened on this topic. But it doesn't matter. It simply doesn't matter what other people's sins are...they are none of anyone else's business unless they have been directly effected by them. It is up to God to know, judge and punish sin...not anyone else. We have been told what is expected of us...to not judge others, to love them like we love ourselves and to love God with all our heart.
It's also extortion. "You live my way, and only my way, or you may find your life after this one much less pleasant." If there is a god, I would hope his message would be one of love and compassion, one of peace. That is not the message TLS's god seems to convey.
It makes no sense for a god, but it makes total sense, if you're a totalitarian asshole from the bronze age that wants to lead some dumb people around by the nose.
Good point. See, I think such people miss the whole message Jesus laid out. I don't consider him a god, but I do consider him a very intelligent man who was bright, and a good student of Hillel's teachings, and that as he became older, got tired of the legalistic bullshit that infested the heart and soul of his home and his countrymen. I liken him to the Buddha, as someone who was wise and had an insight on life that he wanted to share with others. Jesus was about clarity of the heart's direction, just as the Buddha was about clarity of the mind. Somewhere in the 2,000 years of political wrangling, governments toppling, sects splitting, rejoining, growing, receding, the message has been muffled and mired to each human end, whether social or political, and I think that all you can do is take something positive away from it.
