Annie "Bones"; Un-Wired

[Andy]

And my answer is no. It's weird, when I ask you a question you often don't answer. Why? Starting with Ann Coulter's statement above, let's look at the second statement:
"My job is not to teach one right value system.".

1) So, it is your opinion that sex ed teachers SHOULD teach morals? As I asked before, whose morals do you wish them to teach? My guess is that if someone took it upon themselves to usurp your right to teach your children morals by teaching them in school that you would be very unhappy, but here you are demanding that very thing. Why? I would have thought that having a teacher teach what they know (sex ed) and not trying to teach someone else's morals to your kids would work well for you since you then get to teach what you think is right.

2) Stating that it is not your job to do something is not the same as saying that the job SHOULD NOT be done. Ann is saying that the sex ed teachers don't believe in morals, when in fact the teachers are saying quite correctly that they are not the ones who should be trying to teach one moral code to a class of 30 kids whose parents will be mad no matter what morality they teach.

In school, I was taught that it was morally wrong to be prejudice and lynch black people.

Now, let me ask your questions back to you. Is it your opinion that humanities teachers should teach morals? Which morals do you teach? There are sectors of our world, and even our nation, which morally believe that slavery is fine. Why should we accept one view over another?

I was also taught that in other countries where women who refuse pre-arranged marriages are shot and killed, or strangled, is morally wrong.

Maybe we shouldn't be teaching that either? In fact, I was taught in school that homosexuality is ok. Why is it ok to teach one set of moral values and not another? Why are you values ok to teach, and mine or not? Who's to say? You told me yourself that you are going around speaking about homosexuality. By what authority do you claim that is fine, but if I were to go teaching kids homosexuality is wrong, that's not fine?

I'm always amazed at statements like this one. My problem is NOT with God, my problem is with the people who want to force me by law to obey THEIR interpretations of the Bible. God knows what's in my heart, I'm good with that because I have a lot of faith in the goodness of God (or whatever you wish to call the Creative Force), I firmly believe that "God" is not only better than we imagine, but better than we CAN imagine. I think the "fear God" belief which is the basis of Christianity today is nonsense.

I CORINTHIANS 6:9-10: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexual offenders, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Ok, I'll bite. What interpretation of this verse, does one come to believe G-d is not against homosexuality?

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Ah yes, what you know, but what do you know? Do you really think you know what is right for everyone else? A lot of Christians have believed that so strongly that they tortured and murdered people who had the temerity to disagree. I look at the long, long history of abuse and mistakes committed by religious people in the futile attempt to make everyone live and believe as they do and I want no part of it. The sheer arrogance of announcing to the whole world that YOU are in possession of God's Will for all people and all time, in every situation in every age, is appalling to me. Passing laws to take rights from others that you enjoy for yourself seems hypocritical and the antithesis of what Jesus taught. Why can't you wait for God to judge people? Do you make points with God if you can hurt people here that aren't living the way YOU think they should be?

Again, I can't speak for "a lot of Christians", and nor should I. They will answer to G-d for their sin, same as myself. I will only have to answer for my own sins. One sin that will not be counted against me is to deny G-d's law, because I will not do it.

To answer your question directly, no. G-d does not give points for causing others pain.

Read what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:43: "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

When he said "you have heard that it was said", whom do you think he was talking about? Likely the religious leaders of the day, right? Just as you refer some of the religious leaders of our day.

I do not obey them, anymore than I obey those telling me to ignore G-d's law. I and not following either. I follow the word of G-d.

The trial transcripts supplied by the Catholic Church which prosecuted her and burned her at the stake. No, the author of the book was not gay.

I have to admit that on further research of this topic, I am appalled by the sickening reasoning used by the Catholic church, and am glad not to be in that cultish group.

Nevertheless, as it relates to the topic, after going through the transcript of Joan of Arc's trial and final sentience to death, there is nothing of her being homosexual. The only thing listed is that she wore mens clothing to avoid being abused by the men in the prison. The idiots in the church, put Joan of Arc, in a secular prison not controlled by the church, and one that was controlled by the enemies of Joan. Her abuse, and subsequent disguise in mens clothing were unavoidable.

I wager the writer of the book, got ahold of some propaganda by her enemies, which accused her of all things as best they could. There is no real evidence that she was homosexual. I'm sorry, the evidence just isn't there. At least, I have not yet seen anything credible yet.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

In school, I was taught that it was morally wrong to be prejudice and lynch black people.

Now, let me ask your questions back to you. Is it your opinion that humanities teachers should teach morals? Which morals do you teach? There are sectors of our world, and even our nation, which morally believe that slavery is fine. Why should we accept one view over another?

I was also taught that in other countries where women who refuse pre-arranged marriages are shot and killed, or strangled, is morally wrong.

Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Unless one is taking a class in ethics, I don't think that teaching morals is the school teacher's place. You make a really big jump when you go from sex to murder, it's a good way to cloud the issue that YOU won't address: do you think the schools should teach morals (specifically about sex since that's what we're discussing) or do you want that privilege reserved for you and your church? The next question which you refused to answer is whose morals do you want to have taught? Will you be able to compromise with the parents of 30 other kids on what is taught?

Maybe we shouldn't be teaching that either? In fact, I was taught in school that homosexuality is ok. Why is it ok to teach one set of moral values and not another? Why are you values ok to teach, and mine or not? Who's to say? You told me yourself that you are going around speaking about homosexuality. By what authority do you claim that is fine, but if I were to go teaching kids homosexuality is wrong, that's not fine?

No, I never said I go around speaking about homosexuality, I don't. You looked up Joan of Arc, why don't you look up transsexualism and find out that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

I don't see any reason to castigate homosexuals, just because Hammurabi wrote it down in his Code and it was plaigarized into the Bible doesn't make it God's Word. No one has produced any rational reason to attack gay people. You don't follow all the other rules in the Bible, so why follow this one? This is another question you probably won't answer. Cherry-picking the Bible for scriptures to use against other people is hypocritical.

Ok, I'll bite. What interpretation of this verse, does one come to believe G-d is not against homosexuality?

Ok, I'll bite. What proof do you have that this scripture was penned by, inspired by, or approved of by God? There is not a single shred of proof.

Again, I can't speak for "a lot of Christians", and nor should I. They will answer to G-d for their sin, same as myself. I will only have to answer for my own sins. One sin that will not be counted against me is to deny G-d's law, because I will not do it.

To answer your question directly, no. G-d does not give points for causing others pain.

Then why do it? Why persecute gay people if you know they are going to Hell anyway? What do you get out of it?

Read what Jesus said:

When he said "you have heard that it was said", whom do you think he was talking about? Likely the religious leaders of the day, right? Just as you refer some of the religious leaders of our day.

I do not obey them, anymore than I obey those telling me to ignore G-d's law. I and not following either. I follow the word of G-d.

I have seen nothing to make me believe that the Bible is any more the Word of God than any other holy book. My own experiences in my relationship with my Creator are antithetical to the blasphemy in the Bible. The Creator never did all that sick stuff the Bible says, that was people; nomadic, desert-dwelling, patriarchal, goat-herding, tribal people.

I have to admit that on further research of this topic, I am appalled by the sickening reasoning used by the Catholic church, and am glad not to be in that cultish group.

Yeah, pretty disgusting, but also very common. Why do Christians--even yourself--allow these things to continue? Why are you here posting about gays being evil? I'm curious why I never see a self-identified Christian posting and advocating what Jesus said were the two most important commandments in the Bible. What I see are self-identified Christians posting about gays more than anything else, why? There are only 6 scriptures in the whole Bible that are used to address homosexuality, but nearly 2000 about caring for the poor, hungry, needy, and crippled, so why don't you post about that, why don't you post about how Jesus said you shouldn't get married, that you should give everything you have to the poor, that you should love others as yourself. I don't recall seeing you post anything that even sounded like loving others as you love yourself, why? Instead I see you bashing gay and transpeople even though you don't know the difference.

Am I bad tempered about this? Yes, I am, I'm tired of being beaten with the Bible, by being attacked by people who don't have a clue what's in their own holy book--let alone the history of that book. I'm tired of the beatings, rapes, and murders, I'm tired of fighting an endless herd of sheeple bleating what they'be been told without looking (as you did with Joan, thank you) to see if there is any basis for it. I think the teachings of Jesus are excellent, but I'm tired of people claiming to be Christians while spitting on Jesus' teachings every day.

Nevertheless, as it relates to the topic, after going through the transcript of Joan of Arc's trial and final sentience to death, there is nothing of her being homosexual. The only thing listed is that she wore mens clothing to avoid being abused by the men in the prison. The idiots in the church, put Joan of Arc, in a secular prison not controlled by the church, and one that was controlled by the enemies of Joan. Her abuse, and subsequent disguise in mens clothing were unavoidable.

I wager the writer of the book, got ahold of some propaganda by her enemies, which accused her of all things as best they could. There is no real evidence that she was homosexual. I'm sorry, the evidence just isn't there. At least, I have not yet seen anything credible yet.

Lack of adequate education is part of the problem, I never said anything about her being a homosexual, she was a transsexual. It's a birth defect in which one is born somewhere out in the middle between male and female (you're aware of what people used to call hermaphrodites, aren't you?). Nowadays those people are more correctly called "intersexed", being trans is a version of that in which the intersexed condition is not the visible sex organs, but the internal workings of the body and the brain.

It is due to ignorance and arrogance that transsexual people get all the same mindless abuse as gays despite the fact that transsexuality has nothing to do with sexual orientation and there is not a single word about us in the whole of the Bible. Why hate us when your God doesn't?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It merely proved the point that sex education supporters were teaching students about fisting. Does that not prove that point? The rest is unimportant to me because, the topic of this thread is Ann Coulters quote.

This proves that Ann Coulter was right. Sex education teaching, does teach fisting to students.

Since it was homosexual oriented, it's a safe bet that the fisting described was likely homosexual in nature. Again, the point to be made was simply that fisting was taught to students. That's all I intended to prove, and did so.

I gave you the links, what more reference do you want? All you had to do was click them, to see what was said. None of that is relevant to the question at hand. Were, or were not, the students being taught fisting? The answer is yes. That's all I intended to prove, which is what Anne Coulter said.

No, I don't know if Kindergartners are being taught specifically fisting. Never said they were, nor did Ann Coulter say they were. She merely said that students would be taught such things, in the name of protecting Kindergartners. This is true.

Gee.....how does this Country manage to get-thru-the-day, without "moralists" like you....and, Ted Haggard.

 

[Andy]

Why should I answer your questions when you don't answer mine? Unless one is taking a class in ethics, I don't think that teaching morals is the school teacher's place. You make a really big jump when you go from sex to murder, it's a good way to cloud the issue that YOU won't address: do you think the schools should teach morals (specifically about sex since that's what we're discussing) or do you want that privilege reserved for you and your church? The next question which you refused to answer is whose morals do you want to have taught? Will you be able to compromise with the parents of 30 other kids on what is taught?

I think they are the same. Murder is a morality issue. Slavery is a morality issue. Sexual conduct is a morality issue. If proper morals are not taught in schools, than it should not be for any of these either. If you agree with this, then we are agreed. If not, then I have a problem with that, yes.

No, I never said I go around speaking about homosexuality, I don't. You looked up Joan of Arc, why don't you look up transsexualism and find out that it has nothing to do with sexual orientation?

I see. So one trying to change their sex, has nothing to do with their orientation. I suppose I can see that view.

I don't see any reason to castigate homosexuals, just because Hammurabi wrote it down in his Code and it was plaigarized into the Bible doesn't make it God's Word. No one has produced any rational reason to attack gay people. You don't follow all the other rules in the Bible, so why follow this one? This is another question you probably won't answer. Cherry-picking the Bible for scriptures to use against other people is hypocritical.

I follow the rules which the Bible says I'm supposed to follow. I do not follow the rules that I was never meant to follow. By simply reading the Bible, you can find out what G-d expects of us.

There is no evidence that Hebrew law was plagiarized from Hammurabi's code. Undoubtedly there are similarities, as one would expect given their common semitic heritage. However to claim one copied the other is a joke no respected research has come to.

Ok, I'll bite. What proof do you have that this scripture was penned by, inspired by, or approved of by God? There is not a single shred of proof.

In Jeremiah 32:36-37, G-d said the Jews would return to their home. 60 years later, they did.

In Micah 3:11-12, G-d said Zion, a central part of Jerusalem, would be plowed like a field. Written around 700 BC, the Romans in 135 AD, conquered Jerusalem, and used an actual plow in the area known as Zion.

In Deuteronomy 29:23, G-d said that if Israel turned against him, that Israel would become a desolate wasteland. Mark Twain wrote of it being exactly so.

I have dozens more. To me these and the hundreds of others like it, show the credibility and reliability of the scriptures. They have, and are, coming out exactly as stated they would.

Then why do it? Why persecute gay people if you know they are going to Hell anyway? What do you get out of it?

Since I do not persecute gay people, I can not answer this question.

I have seen nothing to make me believe that the Bible is any more the Word of God than any other holy book. My own experiences in my relationship with my Creator are antithetical to the blasphemy in the Bible. The Creator never did all that sick stuff the Bible says, that was people; nomadic, desert-dwelling, patriarchal, goat-herding, tribal people.

When you read exodus, just remember each part of that story can be found. They discovered where the golden calf likely was, Egyptian paintings on the rock in Saudi Arabia where there were no cattle, the springs of bitter water, the 12 springs with palm trees, and spear heads and sharp rocks of Egyptian style, as well as a mountain with a blackened top. Even some of the locations in Saudi Arabia, have names of where Moses led his people, even to this day.

Of course all this evidence means G-d must have brought 2 million people through the sea, away from their Egyptian slave masters, and provided food for 2 million people through the wastelands of Saudi Arabia, let alone water.

Yeah, pretty disgusting, but also very common. Why do Christians--even yourself--allow these things to continue? Why are you here posting about gays being evil? I'm curious why I never see a self-identified Christian posting and advocating what Jesus said were the two most important commandments in the Bible. What I see are self-identified Christians posting about gays more than anything else, why? There are only 6 scriptures in the whole Bible that are used to address homosexuality, but nearly 2000 about caring for the poor, hungry, needy, and crippled, so why don't you post about that, why don't you post about how Jesus said you shouldn't get married, that you should give everything you have to the poor, that you should love others as yourself. I don't recall seeing you post anything that even sounded like loving others as you love yourself, why? Instead I see you bashing gay and transpeople even though you don't know the difference.

It is not up to me to correct the mistakes of other people. Even if I were to take that on as somehow being my duty, what would you have me do? G-d is the judge, not me.

There is little point to posting about the poor, hungry, needy, and crippled. I am not a democrat that talks about things, and does little. I help people myself. Moreover, I am not going to arrogantly bug everyone else to do what I have done. That is between them and G-d, as much as what I do is between me and G-d.

Jesus did not say you shouldn't get married. Nor did he say you should give everything to the poor. Where did I bash gays? I might have stated the scientific facts about the homosexual life, or have said I'm against violations of G-d's law, but that is not bashing gays. It is because I care about gays, that I wish them to escape that life style.

Am I bad tempered about this? Yes, I am, I'm tired of being beaten with the Bible, by being attacked by people who don't have a clue what's in their own holy book--let alone the history of that book. I'm tired of the beatings, rapes, and murders, I'm tired of fighting an endless herd of sheeple bleating what they'be been told without looking (as you did with Joan, thank you) to see if there is any basis for it. I think the teachings of Jesus are excellent, but I'm tired of people claiming to be Christians while spitting on Jesus' teachings every day.

Yes I can see that. You have not shown me you know what is in the holy book. When you say things like "Jesus said to not get married", then you are not really understanding what was said.

Lack of adequate education is part of the problem, I never said anything about her being a homosexual, she was a transsexual. It's a birth defect in which one is born somewhere out in the middle between male and female (you're aware of what people used to call hermaphrodites, aren't you?). Nowadays those people are more correctly called "intersexed", being trans is a version of that in which the intersexed condition is not the visible sex organs, but the internal workings of the body and the brain.

That still isn't what the transcript of her condemnation said.

It is due to ignorance and arrogance that transsexual people get all the same mindless abuse as gays despite the fact that transsexuality has nothing to do with sexual orientation and there is not a single word about us in the whole of the Bible. Why hate us when your God doesn't?

Again, you are assigning me a view I do not have. I do not hate the person. G-d does not hate the person. I hate the sin. G-d hates the sin.

The whole point of Christ coming to die, was that he loved all of us enough to take the penalty for sin on himself, so that we could be forgiven if we repent. Even now, if anyone repents, they will forgiven of all. But there must be repentance. Meaning the turning away from sin. None can repent and remain in sin. It's up to each individual to make that choice. That includes you.

 

[Andy]

Gee.....how does this Country manage to get-thru-the-day, without "moralists" like you....and, Ted Haggard. ​

Take a look at the newspapers. The country isn't getting through the day nearly as well as it used to.

AIDs, STDs, Murder, fatherless children, crime, proverty, drugs, alcohol abuse.

Most of the problems are nation has, could be nearly solved, if not greatly reduced, by simple morals.​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Most of the problems are nation has, could be nearly solved, if not greatly reduced, by simple morals.

Maybe it'd (also) help, if you were a little-less obsessed with Gay-sex. (0r, go-ahead and get it outta-your-system.)​

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't have time to respond to much of your post this morning, Andy, but I did want to give you some scripture to think on:

I Corinthians 7-9 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Please note that Jesus said he didn't want them to get married, but would allow it as a concession.

Luke 12:33 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

You are not the only person who has read the Bible.

And you are absolutely correct in that the Catholic Church did not have any scientific information to use against Joan of Arc, like you they only knew what they could see. Please note that they did not accuse her of being a homosexual either. But they still burned her at the stake.

 

[Andy]

I don't have time to respond to much of your post this morning, Andy, but I did want to give you some scripture to think on:

I Corinthians 7-9 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

Please note that Jesus said he didn't want them to get married, but would allow it as a concession.

First, this is Paul speaking, not Jesus. Yes all scripture is inspired, so I understand this is the word of G-d.

Second, Paul said he wished they were like him, not that they should be like him. There is a difference. What was Paul like? He had given up a normal married life, to have a family, in exchange for serving G-d his entire life. Not all men are called to do that.

Third, when in verse 6 he says it's a concession, not a command to be married, there is context that is important. In Jewish law, to be a good Jew, you had to be married. Paul was making it clear, that being married was not required by G-d. This is also why in verse 2 he says "it is good for a man not to touch a woman". Because the religious leaders of their day claimed it was bad. You were a sinful Jew to not be married.

What he is not saying is that being married is bad. If that's what was taught, all christianity would have died out in the first generation. Remember the Shakers? They, for the most part, don't exist because of their view sex (a G-d created action) was bad. How would Adam and Eve "go, be fruitful and multiply" if marriage was bad?

Fourth, it directly states that to avoid sexual immorality, one should be married, that each man should have his own *wife*, and each woman should have her own *husband*. Seems pretty clear to me. Yes?

Luke 12:33 33 Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

First, it doesn't say sell *all* your possessions. If you did that, you'd be the one needing help.
Second, it doesn't say give all to the poor. Or you'd be the poor that needed given too.

If we somehow morphed this command into an absolute that you have come up with, then Christians would be the most comical people that ever existed.

I'd give all my stuff to Bob. Then I'd be poor, and he'd have possessions. So he'd give all the stuff to me. Then he'd be poor, and I'd have possessions. And we'd spend the rest of our lives trade stuff back and fourth like some Bugs Bunny cartoon.

Obviously that's not what it meant. And given that in other areas of scripture, Abraham had possessions, Ananias had possessions, some of the other disciples were wealthy, and on and on, clearly if that is what Jesus meant, they would all be in violation. In fact, anyone what wasn't begging on the street, would be in violation of this command.

For example, if I sold my car and gave away the money, how would I get to work? Further, how would I have helped my friend to get to work when her car broke down? By doing this I would put myself in the poor house, and at the same time not be able to help those poorer than me. G-d would not approve of that. In fact, to neglect ones own affairs, is to be considered worse than an unbeliever.

No what was meant, if you read the context, was where is your treasure at? Don't have your treasures here where the car will eventually break down, the Jewelry will be stolen, the house will fall apart. Keep your treasures in Heaven where they will last for eternity.

How? Every person that is turned to G-d, will be my brother and sister in Heaven for all eternity. That's a treasure that will never rust, break down, fall apart, or be stolen.

And you are absolutely correct in that the Catholic Church did not have any scientific information to use against Joan of Arc, like you they only knew what they could see. Please note that they did not accuse her of being a homosexual either. But they still burned her at the stake.

So, you are assuming Joan of Arc was something that they just didn't have any scientific knowledge of, but that's obviously what she was, and they just didn't say it.

Of course since they didn't have any scientific knowledge of it, there's no evidence given for it, and thus there is nothing you can use to prove it, but you are still convinced it must be so?

Sounds like a series of logical leaps that are unsupportable. Nevertheless, since I can't actually prove it wrong, the fact you can't prove it right doesn't matter. You'll still believe it. Amazing.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

First, this is Paul speaking, not Jesus. Yes all scripture is inspired, so I understand this is the word of G-d.

Yes, but Paul was speaking in Jesus' stead and with the authority of Jesus and the full weight of inspiration of God, therefore God wishes men not to marry or have sex with women.

Second, Paul said he wished they were like him, not that they should be like him. There is a difference. What was Paul like? He had given up a normal married life, to have a family, in exchange for serving G-d his entire life. Not all men are called to do that.

If God wishes something shouldn't you do it?

Third, when in verse 6 he says it's a concession, not a command to be married, there is context that is important. In Jewish law, to be a good Jew, you had to be married. Paul was making it clear, that being married was not required by G-d. This is also why in verse 2 he says "it is good for a man not to touch a woman". Because the religious leaders of their day claimed it was bad. You were a sinful Jew to not be married.

Funny how some of the Bible has to be seen in a historical context to be understood, but when you want to attack someone, then the literal word is good enough. Convenient, isn't it?

What he is not saying is that being married is bad. If that's what was taught, all christianity would have died out in the first generation. Remember the Shakers? They, for the most part, don't exist because of their view sex (a G-d created action) was bad. How would Adam and Eve "go, be fruitful and multiply" if marriage was bad?

I never used the word "bad", all I did was tell you what the infallible inspired word of God says, and God says He wishes you not to marry.

Fourth, it directly states that to avoid sexual immorality, one should be married, that each man should have his own *wife*, and each woman should have her own *husband*. Seems pretty clear to me. Yes?

What seems clear is that God wishes you not to marry, but if it is marriage or "sexual immorality" then He will make the concession to let you marry. Nice how you schmooze the Word of God to let you do what you want even when God says He doesn't wish you to do so. And you're beating on gays?

First, it doesn't say sell *all* your possessions. If you did that, you'd be the one needing help.
Second, it doesn't say give all to the poor. Or you'd be the poor that needed given too.

If we somehow morphed this command into an absolute that you have come up with, then Christians would be the most comical people that ever existed.

St. Francis and Friars Minor, they kept nothing but their robe from one day to the next and did God's work with the expectation that God would provide. Christians won't do the really difficult things that God and Jesus wish of them, instead they make excuses why the Commandments in the Bible only apply to others, but for themselves they have the right to pick and choose what to obey:
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19
Seems pretty clear. How DO you decide which of the Biblical laws you will follow?

I'd give all my stuff to Bob. Then I'd be poor, and he'd have possessions. So he'd give all the stuff to me. Then he'd be poor, and I'd have possessions. And we'd spend the rest of our lives trade stuff back and fourth like some Bugs Bunny cartoon.

I suspect that giving to the poor didn't mean giving everything to someone who would give it back, that suggests an ulterior motive for your giving. However, if you gave away your things and trusted God to care for you, then you would be doing not only what Jesus commanded but also be teaching by example what real Christianity is all about. (See quote from Matt 5 above.)

Obviously that's not what it meant. And given that in other areas of scripture, Abraham had possessions, Ananias had possessions, some of the other disciples were wealthy, and on and on, clearly if that is what Jesus meant, they would all be in violation. In fact, anyone what wasn't begging on the street, would be in violation of this command.

Abraham wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew.

Whoa, it doesn't say anything about begging, just because you have nothing doesn't mean that you have to beg. You could do as real Christians have done before you (the Friars Minor) worked every day doing God's work, helping others, giving succor, and they trusted that God would provide for them. I didn't say it was easy, but if you are going to follow Jesus it's what is required. Remember what Jesus told the rich man? Sell all your belongings, give the money to the poor, and follow Me. Obviously you are uncomfortable with this close examination of what is actually required if you are going to follow in Jesus' footsteps because you are using paragraph after paragraph deriding the things that are the Inspired Words of God.

For example, if I sold my car and gave away the money, how would I get to work? Further, how would I have helped my friend to get to work when her car broke down? By doing this I would put myself in the poor house, and at the same time not be able to help those poorer than me. G-d would not approve of that. In fact, to neglect ones own affairs, is to be considered worse than an unbeliever.

It's always easy to find reasons why you can take the smooth road, it's much more difficult to actually follow Jesus' commandments. It's easy for you to say that you are trying help gay people out of their sinful "lifestyle" but your denial of Jesus commandments suggests that you have a beam in your eye that you should remove before castigating others for their perceived failures.

No what was meant, if you read the context, was where is your treasure at? Don't have your treasures here where the car will eventually break down, the Jewelry will be stolen, the house will fall apart. Keep your treasures in Heaven where they will last for eternity.

How? Every person that is turned to G-d, will be my brother and sister in Heaven for all eternity. That's a treasure that will never rust, break down, fall apart, or be stolen.

I understand your reluctance to do these really difficult things, I'd just like you stop beating us with your religous beliefs until you are truly doing what God wishes.

So, you are assuming Joan of Arc was something that they just didn't have any scientific knowledge of, but that's obviously what she was, and they just didn't say it.

Of course since they didn't have any scientific knowledge of it, there's no evidence given for it, and thus there is nothing you can use to prove it, but you are still convinced it must be so?

Sounds like a series of logical leaps that are unsupportable. Nevertheless, since I can't actually prove it wrong, the fact you can't prove it right doesn't matter. You'll still believe it. Amazing.

She has the classical symptoms of a transsexual, many of us would rather die than be forced to live a lie. Who else do you know who would rather be burned at the stake than live as the other gender? You need to remember that the state of the art in Christian medicine at this point was beating mentally ill people to drive out the demons, they were not likely to recognize transsexuality.

It's an interesting point though, when God wrote the Bible He obviously knew about transsexuals, but He didn't put any prohibition in about gender identity disorder--so why are you here giving me grief about it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I think they are the same. Murder is a morality issue. Slavery is a morality issue. Sexual conduct is a morality issue. If proper morals are not taught in schools, than it should not be for any of these either. If you agree with this, then we are agreed. If not, then I have a problem with that, yes.

So you have continued to refuse to answer the question about whose morality will be taught in school.

If you are going to put all things in the same moral basket, then Matt 5:17-19 should give you pause. There are many rules in the Bible and ALL of them are just as important so you MUST follow all of them.
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house.
Leviticus 19:27 27 Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.
Leviticus 19:26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.
Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
Exodus 21:7-11 When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment.

These laws and many others are required of you. You don't do these things but you have judged gay people and feel the need to "help" them. That's called hypocrisy.

I follow the rules which the Bible says I'm supposed to follow. I do not follow the rules that I was never meant to follow. By simply reading the Bible, you can find out what G-d expects of us.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19 So basically, you are arguing with God, you get to decide which of the rules apply to you. Neat, handy, I'm sure this gives you more time to "help" gay people.

There is no evidence that Hebrew law was plagiarized from Hammurabi's code. Undoubtedly there are similarities, as one would expect given their common semitic heritage. However to claim one copied the other is a joke no respected research has come to.

You have not read enough of your own religion's history.

In Jeremiah 32:36-37, G-d said the Jews would return to their home. 60 years later, they did.

In Micah 3:11-12, G-d said Zion, a central part of Jerusalem, would be plowed like a field. Written around 700 BC, the Romans in 135 AD, conquered Jerusalem, and used an actual plow in the area known as Zion.

In Deuteronomy 29:23, G-d said that if Israel turned against him, that Israel would become a desolate wasteland. Mark Twain wrote of it being exactly so.

I have dozens more. To me these and the hundreds of others like it, show the credibility and reliability of the scriptures. They have, and are, coming out exactly as stated they would.

Here is a site with 408 contradictions taken from the Bible and listed with scriptural references. God wasn't very accurate.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Since I do not persecute gay people, I can not answer this question.

It should give you cause to stop and think that what you call "help" is viewed as "persecution" by the people you are helping.

When you read exodus, just remember each part of that story can be found. They discovered where the golden calf likely was, Egyptian paintings on the rock in Saudi Arabia where there were no cattle, the springs of bitter water, the 12 springs with palm trees, and spear heads and sharp rocks of Egyptian style, as well as a mountain with a blackened top. Even some of the locations in Saudi Arabia, have names of where Moses led his people, even to this day.

Of course all this evidence means G-d must have brought 2 million people through the sea, away from their Egyptian slave masters, and provided food for 2 million people through the wastelands of Saudi Arabia, let alone water.

The story is fiction, what's your point?

I see. So one trying to change their sex, has nothing to do with their orientation. I suppose I can see that view.

Ignorance can speak volumes in two sentences. Sexual orientation is about WHO you like to have sex with, gender identity is about WHO you feel like inside of your own head. Sex is between your legs, Gender is between your ears. I have encouraged you to read up a bit on this subject, but instead you continue to post denigrating things without knowledge: THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF "BASHING". You are lashing out at me even though you don't know a shred about the subject. What is Christian about the things you've said to me about transsexuals? All you have done is flip excrement at us. Why?

It is not up to me to correct the mistakes of other people. Even if I were to take that on as somehow being my duty, what would you have me do? G-d is the judge, not me.

The why are you "helping" gay people who do not want the persecution?

There is little point to posting about the poor, hungry, needy, and crippled. I am not a democrat that talks about things, and does little. I help people myself. Moreover, I am not going to arrogantly bug everyone else to do what I have done. That is between them and G-d, as much as what I do is between me and G-d.

Well, I'm sure glad that you are not judgmental what with condemning all democrats like you just did. Do you know all democrats?

Jesus did not say you shouldn't get married. Nor did he say you should give everything to the poor.

Actually, the Bible does say that, and as the Inspired Word of God that means the Jesus/God said those very things.

Where did I bash gays?

What are you doing on this thread but bashing gays with YOUR religious beliefs--which include the deaths of all gay people. Hello, being killed is considered "bashing".

I might have stated the scientific facts about the homosexual life, or have said I'm against violations of G-d's law, but that is not bashing gays.

I have yet to see any "scientific facts" about the homosexual life that are germane. What and why are you posting here and on the other threads about gay people when you believe that they have all been condemned to death as it says in the Bible?

It is because I care about gays, that I wish them to escape that life style.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help you. Give us equal rights, stop the Christian pogrom of hatred and persecution, speak up for our right to live by our lights as long as we hurt no one, love us as you love yourself. You have not written a single compassionate or merciful thing yet. Why?

Again, you are assigning me a view I do not have. I do not hate the person. G-d does not hate the person. I hate the sin. G-d hates the sin.

You cannot "hate" without judgment, yours is not to judge, you are to love others as yourself, you are supposed to set an example by obeying God's laws.

The whole point of Christ coming to die, was that he loved all of us enough to take the penalty for sin on himself, so that we could be forgiven if we repent. Even now, if anyone repents, they will forgiven of all. But there must be repentance. Meaning the turning away from sin. None can repent and remain in sin. It's up to each individual to make that choice. That includes you.

Utter twaddle. The whole idea that the Creator of the Universe would demand blood payment from an innocent to assuage the sins of His children makes a mockery of the concepts of love, mercy, justice, and compassion.

You have chosen to believe the Bible for whatever reasons you have, but we should be very clear that none of the Scriptural stories are new, there is no historical evidence that a man named Jesus did the stuff in the Bible, nor even that He existed. When Constantine brought together the Council of Nicaea they VOTED upon which books would be included in the Bible. You really ought to read a lot more Christian history before you come on the thread and make pronouncements.

 

[Andy]

Yes, but Paul was speaking in Jesus' stead and with the authority of Jesus and the full weight of inspiration of God, therefore God wishes men not to marry or have sex with women.

That is not what he said. You are reading into the text what is not there.

If God wishes something shouldn't you do it?

If called to do that I will. I am single, and never been with a women. If I am called to serve unmarried for life, I will do so.

Funny how some of the Bible has to be seen in a historical context to be understood, but when you want to attack someone, then the literal word is good enough. Convenient, isn't it?

I literally believe that is good for a man to not touch a women. It's also good to be married. You are reading into the text what isn't there. Convenient, isn't it?

I never used the word "bad", all I did was tell you what the infallible inspired word of God says, and God says He wishes you not to marry.

Paul said that he wishes all of us were called to serve the way he has. But G-d has not called all to serve like him. You are still reading into the text what is not there.

What seems clear is that God wishes you not to marry, but if it is marriage or "sexual immorality" then He will make the concession to let you marry. Nice how you schmooze the Word of God to let you do what you want even when God says He doesn't wish you to do so. And you're beating on gays?

Even if you made the claim that he did want us single, that still wouldn't make marriage a sin, nor would we be "schmoozing" anything by marrying. Sexual immorality on the other hand is a sin, and the scripture is very clear about that.

St. Francis and Friars Minor, they kept nothing but their robe from one day to the next and did God's work with the expectation that God would provide. Christians won't do the really difficult things that God and Jesus wish of them, instead they make excuses why the Commandments in the Bible only apply to others, but for themselves they have the right to pick and choose what to obey:

I've know some to do the same. To those G-d has called to fill that role, they do. Not all have been called to that. But that still doesn't make the verse say what you claim.

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets... Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great..." Mat. 5:17-19
Seems pretty clear. How DO you decide which of the Biblical laws you will follow?

By what applies to me.

I suspect that giving to the poor didn't mean giving everything to someone who would give it back, that suggests an ulterior motive for your giving. However, if you gave away your things and trusted God to care for you, then you would be doing not only what Jesus commanded but also be teaching by example what real Christianity is all about. (See quote from Matt 5 above.)

If I gave everything I have a poor person. Obviously that person would not be poor. Correct? And since I have nothing I would then be poor, correct?

Thus, since that person would also have to follow the rule to sell everything and give to the poor, and I would then be poor, he'd have to give everything back to me.

I would not matter if I thought the person would give it back or not. By virtue of the twisted version of the text your doing, he would be obligated to give the stuff back, and I would then be obligated to return it, in a never ended cycle.

Abraham wasn't a Christian, he was a Jew.

Same G-d. Abraham may not have had the title "christian", but it was the same Jesus he was worshiping.

You could do as real Christians have done before you (the Friars Minor) worked every day doing God's work, helping others, giving succor, and they trusted that God would provide for them. I didn't say it was easy, but if you are going to follow Jesus it's what is required. Remember what Jesus told the rich man? Sell all your belongings, give the money to the poor, and follow Me. Obviously you are uncomfortable with this close examination of what is actually required if you are going to follow in Jesus' footsteps because you are using paragraph after paragraph deriding the things that are the Inspired Words of God.

Uncomfortable? I'm completely comfortable. I have had this conversation with dozens of people over a dozen years. I have spoken to Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and even cultists. You have yet to speak even one word that I have not heard many times before, and responded to in like manor.

Well, let me correct that. I have no heard the stuff about Catholics because I am not Catholic, and do not have any love for the Catholic church.

Back to the topic. One problem, that makes our two views different, is that always allow the Bible to define itself. In other words, when a question comes up as to the meaning of the Bible, I do not simply invent my own answer, but rather look at the rest of the Bible to find the meaning.

When a section says it's good to be single, does that mean G-d wants everyone to be single? Well obviously not because he created us to be married, and even commands to be fruitful and multiply. The two sections do not contradict, they compliment.

In this case, G-d says we should lay up treasures in Heaven, and this is part of that. Some people are led to live in this way or that. I personally don't have much of anything. My 82 Buick wouldn't like get enough for a value meal at Wendy's. Instead I help the poor by letting them stay in my spare bedroom till they get back on their feet, or by buying gift cards to grocery stores. I personally have great pleasure in doing the Lord's work.

It's always easy to find reasons why you can take the smooth road, it's much more difficult to actually follow Jesus' commandments. It's easy for you to say that you are trying help gay people out of their sinful "lifestyle" but your denial of Jesus commandments suggests that you have a beam in your eye that you should remove before castigating others for their perceived failures.

I haven't denied any of them. I have denied your twisted versions of them.

For example: In Acts 5:4, Peter is speaking Ananias saying "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?"

Of course the answer is yes. So clearly it was not required by G-d to get rid of the land, nor give the money.

When one reads scripture, you must understand the text, from other text. Not make up that this must mean whatever, even though what you make it out to be, would violate other scripture.

I understand your reluctance to do these really difficult things, I'd just like you stop beating us with your religous beliefs until you are truly doing what God wishes.

I am doing what G-d wishes, including standing for his law. I may not be doing what you believe he wishes, but I am doing what the word claims he wishes.

She has the classical symptoms of a transsexual, many of us would rather die than be forced to live a lie. Who else do you know who would rather be burned at the stake than live as the other gender? You need to remember that the state of the art in Christian medicine at this point was beating mentally ill people to drive out the demons, they were not likely to recognize transsexuality.

So we're to go based on the assumptions of classical symptoms in a time when more information could not be gathered. Sounds like more logical leaps. I also don't see that she wore the clothes of men prior to being abused in prison, as she herself claimed in the transcript.

It's an interesting point though, when God wrote the Bible He obviously knew about transsexuals, but He didn't put any prohibition in about gender identity disorder--so why are you here giving me grief about it?

Where did I give you grief about it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That is not what he said. You are reading into the text what is not there.

Hello? I quoted exactly what was there, Paul spoke for God and Jesus with full authority since YOU said the Word of God in the Bible was Inspired. Are you backing off now and saying that Paul didn't speak for God's wishes, this is a misstatement by Paul?

I literally believe that is good for a man to not touch a women. It's also good to be married. You are reading into the text what isn't there. Convenient, isn't it?

What am I reading into the text that is not there? If you believe that is literally true that it is good for a man not to touch women, then what am I reading into the Scripture? It says what it says, or it's wrong. Isn't it?

Paul said that he wishes all of us were called to serve the way he has. But G-d has not called all to serve like him. You are still reading into the text what is not there.

But that is not what it says. This is why there are more than 3000 sects of Christians, nobody interprets the Bible the same way. Some Christians don't interpret the Bible to mean that committed gay couples are breaking God's law, BUT EVERYONE OF YOU IS CLAIMING TO HAVE GOD'S TRUTH. If that's true then maybe God is lying to somebody.

Even if you made the claim that he did want us single, that still wouldn't make marriage a sin, nor would we be "schmoozing" anything by marrying. Sexual immorality on the other hand is a sin, and the scripture is very clear about that.

You are not doing as God has stated He wishes you to do and you have made excuses for this.

I've know some to do the same. To those G-d has called to fill that role, they do. Not all have been called to that. But that still doesn't make the verse say what you claim.

Interpretation is the only way to make heads or tails out of the Bible unless you believe it is the literal, true Words of God, kept pure all down through the ages (like my little brother). You interpret it to your advantage and the disadvantage of those you don't like.

By what applies to me.

You must have method of deciding which applies and which don't, what is it? Why is your decision of what's applicable more correct than James Dobson's or anyone else?

If I gave everything I have a poor person. Obviously that person would not be poor. Correct? And since I have nothing I would then be poor, correct?

I don't know, how much do you have? No, you would have treasue in Heaven, you would be wealthy beyond measure, would you not? Secure in God's love you might be last on Earth, but you would be first in Heaven.

Thus, since that person would also have to follow the rule to sell everything and give to the poor, and I would then be poor, he'd have to give everything back to me.

No, he would give you a trifle, and give the rest to others so that none would be wealthy and none would be penniless.

I would not matter if I thought the person would give it back or not. By virtue of the twisted version of the text your doing, he would be obligated to give the stuff back, and I would then be obligated to return it, in a never ended cycle.

Why would you give all to one person? Can you not share what you have with many? Why not? Many suffer for lack, why burden one person with the earthly dross you have shed? Spread it around, make many people a little better off instead of making one person rich. This is not difficult, Andy, to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.

Uncomfortable? I'm completely comfortable. I have had this conversation with dozens of people over a dozen years. I have spoken to Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and even cultists. You have yet to speak even one word that I have not heard many times before, and responded to in like manor.

Yeah, me too, and every other Christian has made the same self-serving responses.

Well, let me correct that. I have no heard the stuff about Catholics because I am not Catholic, and do not have any love for the Catholic church.

The Friars Minor weren't Catholics, this was before the Protestant division when the Church was all there was to Christianity.

Back to the topic. One problem, that makes our two views different, is that always allow the Bible to define itself. In other words, when a question comes up as to the meaning of the Bible, I do not simply invent my own answer, but rather look at the rest of the Bible to find the meaning.

Your two sentences are contradictory, either I let the Bible define itself or I "invent" the answer. You are the one stating that you have to take parts of the Bible in historical context and other parts have to be interpreted, but you are very vague on the process by which YOU decide which of the rules apply to you and how you decide how to "interpret" the words that YOU say are Inspired by God. Looks like a rubber yardstick.

When a section says it's good to be single, does that mean G-d wants everyone to be single? Well obviously not because he created us to be married, and even commands to be fruitful and multiply. The two sections do not contradict, they compliment.

No, He just wants His faithful to be single, you know and I know that most people are not truly faithful, but if you are going to "help" gay people perhaps you should be a genuinely faithful person first.

In this case, G-d says we should lay up treasures in Heaven, and this is part of that. Some people are led to live in this way or that. I personally don't have much of anything. My 82 Buick wouldn't like get enough for a value meal at Wendy's. Instead I help the poor by letting them stay in my spare bedroom till they get back on their feet, or by buying gift cards to grocery stores. I personally have great pleasure in doing the Lord's work.

Good for you. Why ruin a good record by bashing gays?

I haven't denied any of them. I have denied your twisted versions of them. For example: In Acts 5:4, Peter is speaking Ananias saying "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control?" Of course the answer is yes. So clearly it was not required by G-d to get rid of the land, nor give the money.

When one reads scripture, you must understand the text, from other text. Not make up that this must mean whatever, even though what you make it out to be, would violate other scripture.

Scripture is contradictory, how can one turn the other cheek and still claim an eye for an eye? What it all comes down to is that you decide what you ar going to do in accordance with your own understanding, why can't you let others who are harming no one have that same privilege? Why do you have to "help" them? Do you really think that you are gifted with God's wisdom in such a fashion as to be able to look at the lives of others and judge them to be living wrongly?

I am doing what G-d wishes, including standing for his law. I may not be doing what you believe he wishes, but I am doing what the word claims he wishes.

You are doing what you think He wishes you to do. Why can't you let others have the same freedom to do what they think is right? Why do you think that you have the right to tell others how to live?

So we're to go based on the assumptions of classical symptoms in a time when more information could not be gathered. Sounds like more logical leaps. I also don't see that she wore the clothes of men prior to being abused in prison, as she herself claimed in the transcript.

She wore men's clothing all the time she was leading the armies and saving France, she spent most of her life living like a man. You're right, I can't go back and gather more information, but according to the people who burned her at the stake she was behaving like a classical FtM transperson.

Where did I give you grief about it?

You have given me no end of grief about being trans, you deny that the condition exists, you tell me about who and what I am, you deny the medical science without even looking at it, you have insisted that being trans is the same as being gay, you have in essence called me a liar in almost every one of your posts. And I am still waiting to see you post one single compassionate or merciful thought.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

If called to do that I will. I am single, and never been with a women. If I am called to serve unmarried for life, I will do so.

I guess that pretty-much explains your obsession with Gay-sex. ​

 

[Andy]

Hello? I quoted exactly what was there, Paul spoke for God and Jesus with full authority since YOU said the Word of God in the Bible was Inspired. Are you backing off now and saying that Paul didn't speak for God's wishes, this is a misstatement by Paul?

No. He spoke his wishes. But if Paul thought G-d's plan was for everyone to be single, he would have said, everyone should remain single. He didn't say that did he? Did he say everyone should remain single? Did he say everyone shouldn't get married? Did he say marriage is a sin? Answer that question, and you will have the answer to your own.

What am I reading into the text that is not there? If you believe that is literally true that it is good for a man not to touch women, then what am I reading into the Scripture? It says what it says, or it's wrong. Isn't it.

Does it say that it is not good for a man to touch a women? No it does not. So I accept what the text says, just as it is said.

But that is not what it says. This is why there are more than 3000 sects of Christians, nobody interprets the Bible the same way. Some Christians don't interpret the Bible to mean that committed gay couples are breaking God's law, BUT EVERYONE OF YOU IS CLAIMING TO HAVE GOD'S TRUTH. If that's true then maybe God is lying to somebody.

Because the devil knows that the best way to defeat an enemy is to divide and conquer. And maybe the reason so many believe different things is because they read into the text what is not said, and try and apply it to everyone else.

You are not doing as God has stated He wishes you to do and you have made excuses for this.

No, I am. Thank you though for your critique.

Interpretation is the only way to make heads or tails out of the Bible unless you believe it is the literal, true Words of God, kept pure all down through the ages (like my little brother). You interpret it to your advantage and the disadvantage of those you don't like.

It is literal Word of God, and should be interpreted, only with itself. The word has been kept pure through thousands of ages. The only errors are in the translation, which is why I, and most good pastors, study the Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. I have yet to find any significant errors worth reporting to date.

I'm with your brother. If he knows the one true G-d personally, then he is my brother, whom I'll be with in Heaven for eternity.

You must have method of deciding which applies and which don't, what is it? Why is your decision of what's applicable more correct than James Dobson's or anyone else?

First, I always remember that the days of the apostles are over. There is only one that speaks for G-d now, and that's his word. Dobson may saying something fine, but ultimately, if it doesn't match up with the Bible, he's out. Same for any other preacher.

Second, since I know I'm under the new testament, the old testament is more of an example to me, than a literal do this. It's example of people making good and bad choices, and what happened to them after each. In the new testament, there are things which were demanded of specific people at specific times.

I realize that if I am called to do something, then I must do as I am called. Wether it is to give up my job and do missionary work, or to help someone stuck on the side of the highway, or whatever it is that G-d may call me to do.

For examples, it says husbands, and then lists a bunch of commands. I am not a husband. Obviously those commands are not for me. Or when it says 'all you', and says things like 'let not sexual immorality be named among you'. All you, seems to indicate everyone. That would then include me.

I don't know, how much do you have? No, you would have treasue in Heaven, you would be wealthy beyond measure, would you not? Secure in God's love you might be last on Earth, but you would be first in Heaven.

Ah, see? Your answer betrays you. If poor is determined by how much do I have, then clearly I might be poor even now, and thus I am abiding by this law that you have been beating me with for 6 posts now!

No, he would give you a trifle, and give the rest to others so that none would be wealthy and none would be penniless.

What if we're all poor already? I'm not wealthy or penniless as is. So maybe I'm following all these rules your complaining about?

Why would you give all to one person? Can you not share what you have with many? Why not? Many suffer for lack, why burden one person with the earthly dross you have shed? Spread it around, make many people a little better off instead of making one person rich. This is not difficult, Andy, to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.

LOL! Socialism! You people never give up! It's failed every time it's tried, yet here you are promoting it again. 3rd world USSA. I can see it now.

Yeah, me too, and every other Christian has made the same self-serving responses.

Proud to be among the family of G-d. You should get to know him too.

Your two sentences are contradictory, either I let the Bible define itself or I "invent" the answer. You are the one stating that you have to take parts of the Bible in historical context and other parts have to be interpreted, but you are very vague on the process by which YOU decide which of the rules apply to you and how you decide how to "interpret" the words that YOU say are Inspired by God. Looks like a rubber yardstick.

When you interpret, you don't just take a verse and make up a meaning to it. You compare it to other sections, and determine how it fits. For example, if there was a verse that talked about selling your stuff and giving money away, you don't just conclude that this must apply to everyone everywhere for everything. You compare it to other verses in the Bible.

For example, in Acts 4:36 there was a man named Barnabas, who had some land, and sold it. He then gave the land to the church, and the church helped the poor with it. (both my parents church, and my own, have special funds specifically for this purpose in accordance with this and other scriptures)

Now, did Barnabas have other lands? Sure. Did he have other wealth? No doubt. But did he sell some and give to the poor? Yup. So did he follow this scripture? Absolutely.

So we are interpreting the other scripture, with this scripture. That is the way it's meant to work. We are not just pulling some words out of context and slapping whatever meaning we have on it.

Good for you. Why ruin a good record by bashing gays?

I'm not. Thanks.

Scripture is contradictory, how can one turn the other cheek and still claim an eye for an eye? What it all comes down to is that you decide what you ar going to do in accordance with your own understanding, why can't you let others who are harming no one have that same privilege? Why do you have to "help" them? Do you really think that you are gifted with God's wisdom in such a fashion as to be able to look at the lives of others and judge them to be living wrongly?

It's not mine to judge. G-d says it's wrong. Not me. When people die, I might be called as a witness on judgement day, but I will not be the judge, nor will my opinion be asked. The one judge will only ask if I told them what his word said, and I will answer 'yes'. After that, I will be dismissed, and they alone will face the verdict.

You are doing what you think He wishes you to do. Why can't you let others have the same freedom to do what they think is right? Why do you think that you have the right to tell others how to live?

What if G-d's wish for me, is to uphold his laws? I have no intention of telling others how to live, but as it relates to G-d's law, I must uphold it. That will never change.

You have given me no end of grief about being trans, you deny that the condition exists, you tell me about who and what I am, you deny the medical science without even looking at it, you have insisted that being trans is the same as being gay, you have in essence called me a liar in almost every one of your posts. And I am still waiting to see you post one single compassionate or merciful thought.

Wow. Well, I don't think I have an answer for this. I don't remember giving you grief, and if I have, I apologize. I don't remember denying anything, but then, this whole thread was supposed to be about Ann coulter, and had nothing to do with you or your views.

A lie is the purposeful attempt to deceive. I do not believe you have tried this. I think you are so one sided in your understand and world view, that you believe unsupportable things.

As for being merciful, I'll say it again, G-d does forgive, and he will forgive you for everything if you repent. Repent and turn away from your sin, and the hope and assurance of Heaven can be yours.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. He spoke his wishes. But if Paul thought G-d's plan was for everyone to be single, he would have said, everyone should remain single. He didn't say that did he? Did he say everyone should remain single? Did he say everyone shouldn't get married? Did he say marriage is a sin? Answer that question, and you will have the answer to your own.

God wishes it, but that's not good enough for you despite the fact that what is in the Bible is God's Word kept pure down through the ages? Okay, pretty handy too.

Does it say that it is not good for a man to touch a women? No it does not. So I accept what the text says, just as it is said.

You said that, not the Bible. In your last post:

I literally believe that is good for a man to not touch a women.

Because the devil knows that the best way to defeat an enemy is to divide and conquer. And maybe the reason so many believe different things is because they read into the text what is not said, and try and apply it to everyone else.

Always easy to blame someone else--"the Devil made me do it", right? At least I have the integrity to take responsibility for my own actions.

No, I am. Thank you though for your critique.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

It is literal Word of God, and should be interpreted, only with itself. The word has been kept pure through thousands of ages. The only errors are in the translation, which is why I, and most good pastors, study the Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic. I have yet to find any significant errors worth reporting to date.

And the site I posted with only 408 contradictions are not significant. Okay, pretty handy. Here's another question you won't choose to answer: if it's the literal Word of God kept pure down through the ages, then which version is the correct one? King James (but he was a homosexual!), the Joseph Smith Inspired Bible? The Reader's Digest Condensed Bible (they only left out the unimportant parts), the Unisex Bible, the Red-Letter Bible? The Codex Sinaiticus? What about the Catholic Bible? What about all the books that were voted out of the Bible by the Council of Nicea?

I'm with your brother. If he knows the one true G-d personally, then he is my brother, whom I'll be with in Heaven for eternity.

Oh, it gets better than that, both of my brothers have found Jesus (I never lost Him) and they each believe that the other is wrong, but along comes me with a birth defect that unites them in a chorus of condemnation. I hope you guys can get together in Heaven and go bowling.

First, I always remember that the days of the apostles are over. There is only one that speaks for G-d now, and that's his word. Dobson may saying something fine, but ultimately, if it doesn't match up with the Bible, he's out. Same for any other preacher.

Second, since I know I'm under the new testament, the old testament is more of an example to me, than a literal do this. It's example of people making good and bad choices, and what happened to them after each. In the new testament, there are things which were demanded of specific people at specific times.

There are a bunch of your "brothers" (including one of mine) that say you are wrong in this.

I realize that if I am called to do something, then I must do as I am called. Wether it is to give up my job and do missionary work, or to help someone stuck on the side of the highway, or whatever it is that G-d may call me to do.

For examples, it says husbands, and then lists a bunch of commands. I am not a husband. Obviously those commands are not for me. Or when it says 'all you', and says things like 'let not sexual immorality be named among you'. All you, seems to indicate everyone. That would then include me.

God wishes you to remain celibate and use all your energy--like Paul--in worshipping Him.

Ah, see? Your answer betrays you. If poor is determined by how much do I have, then clearly I might be poor even now, and thus I am abiding by this law that you have been beating me with for 6 posts now!

Hey, you are the one who was going to give all his stuff to one person and make them rich so that they had to give it all back.

What if we're all poor already? I'm not wealthy or penniless as is. So maybe I'm following all these rules your complaining about?

Complaining? No, no, I'm "helping" you because you don't understand the Bible and you obviously are backslidden.

LOL! Socialism! You people never give up! It's failed every time it's tried, yet here you are promoting it again. 3rd world USSA. I can see it now.

Jesus was a socialist, it's right there in the Bible about wealth distribution and rich people, camels, and eyes of needles.

Proud to be among the family of G-d. You should get to know him too.

Your bland assumption that I do not--based solely on the fact that I disagree with you seems really arrogant.

When you interpret, you don't just take a verse and make up a meaning to it. You compare it to other sections, and determine how it fits. For example, if there was a verse that talked about selling your stuff and giving money away, you don't just conclude that this must apply to everyone everywhere for everything. You compare it to other verses in the Bible.

And the Bible is such a large work, by so many people, with so many versions, that with care on can justify almost anything with it: slavery, subjuagtion of women, genocide, murder, rape, kidnapping, and hatred.

I'm not. Thanks.

Funny thing is that I'm on the receiving end and I feel like it's bashing. You know that the people who ran the Inquisition believed that they too were doing God's work, so did the Crusaders, so does the KKK today, and you're right and all the other's are wrong?

It's not mine to judge. G-d says it's wrong. Not me. When people die, I might be called as a witness on judgement day, but I will not be the judge, nor will my opinion be asked. The one judge will only ask if I told them what his word said, and I will answer 'yes'. After that, I will be dismissed, and they alone will face the verdict.

A book says it's wrong, there has yet to be a proven connection between God and ANY religion. You have no proof, the Muslims have no proof--Hell, there's not even any proof that a man named Jesus ever did all the things in the Bible.

What if G-d's wish for me, is to uphold his laws? I have no intention of telling others how to live, but as it relates to G-d's law, I must uphold it. That will never change.

You get to uphold what you see as God's laws in your life, but when you use force to make other people uphold what you think God's laws are, then you have to be judging them and finding them wanting.

Wow. Well, I don't think I have an answer for this. I don't remember giving you grief, and if I have, I apologize.

I have asked you repeatedly without response why you are posting on threads about gay and transpeople since you feel them to be evil or somesuch? You aren't here to offer compassion and mercy, you haven't said a compassionate or merciful thing yet. Why are you here if not to give us grief?

A lie is the purposeful attempt to deceive. I do not believe you have tried this. I think you are so one sided in your understand and world view, that you believe unsupportable things.

How could my view of my life not be one-sided? Beyond decrying the huge amount of grief and misery visited on us by Christians I have said nothing about how anyone else should live their life--but you can't do that for some reason. Why? God gave us our lives, can't you wait for Him to judge us before you bash us with your "help"?

As for being merciful, I'll say it again, G-d does forgive, and he will forgive you for everything if you repent. Repent and turn away from your sin, and the hope and assurance of Heaven can be yours.

God can see into my heart and He knows what lies there, that's good enough for me. Too bad it's not good enough for you.