DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: kirbywelch92 on July 25, 2010, 10:05:49 PM
-
This is not a troll, this is not a message, this is not a chain letter. This is a simple question:
Do you as an individual believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If so, do you believe he was more than human? If not, what do you believe he accomplished?
I ask this question out of the curiosity on what the general idea about Jesus is. This question is open to everyone, Atheists, Christians, Jews, anyone. I ask that you simply answer the question above as honestly as possible.
Thanks.
-
No. It's possible, but in my mind somewhat unlikely.
-
Yes, He died for my sins, rose again on the third day of his death, and ascended to Heaven to the right hand side of God. He is the very son of God and is alive.
He was more than human in the sense that He was fully human and fully God.
-
I guess not. I've tried (been forced to go to church all my life) but it just doesn't fit...
-
Jesus was a guy who had a lot of followers. A great guy, I'm sure. He did the Sermon on the Mount or something. He was also executed. The details are warped by religion.
-
Jesus lived but is not who he says, or everyone who is of the Christian faith, says he is. He was a dude who got killed for not being able to shut up.
-
I can see this thread going very badly.
-
I can see this thread going very badly.
This aswell.
-
Jesus lived but is not who he says, or everyone who is of the Christian faith, says he is. He was a dude who got killed for not being able to shut up.
You should be banned from posting.
-
If I offended you, I am sorry. I was just posting my opinion.
Ok. Jesus lived but was not the messiah, therefore, he is not more than human.
That sounds better.
-
Jesus was a great bowler.
-
Jesus was a great bowler.
Are you saying jesus exposed himself to children?
-
Sucks that a potentially good thread already went down the drain. Good job people.
-
Sucks that a potentially good thread already went down the drain. Good job people.
No offence, but where could this thread have really gone? The christians say "yes" the non christians say "no". Some non christians start acting holier than thou and try to make the christians defend themselves, it becomes a worthless debate that leads no where in the slightest bit, bosk bans someone and then the thread gets locked.
-
I agree ^^^
-
Jesus is a pretty cool guy. Eh hunts vampires and didn't afraid of anything.
-
Did he exist? Probably. Was he anything more than human? highly doubtful. Beyond that I have no idea.
-
I fully believe he existed, but not that he was anything more than a friendly dude with some nice ideas about how we should treat eachother.
-
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who ended up being wrong about his prophecy. Since then, people have been trying to crowbar his prophecies into something that might work after all.
His teachings on ethics were excellent though.
That's my view of him really.
rumborak
-
Yes, He died for my sins, rose again on the third day of his death, and ascended to Heaven to the right hand side of God. He is the very son of God and is alive.
He was more than human in the sense that He was fully human and fully God.
-
Sucks that a potentially good thread already went down the drain. Good job people.
I expected as much, I expected worse actually. I posted this thread largely because I'm reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis and I'd like to get a few ideas for some personal study . Ad for my own answer, I'm with you Jamesman.
-
No.
-
Yes, He died for my sins, rose again on the third day of his death, and ascended to Heaven to the right hand side of God. He is the very son of God and is alive.
He was more than human in the sense that He was fully human and fully God.
This.
-
No offense, but just repeatedly quoting the Christian mantra doesn't exactly make for a great thread.
rumborak
-
His teachings on ethics were excellent though.
I don't know if I agree with the first part of your post, at least as a summation of who Jesus was, but I definitely agree with this.
He almost certainly existed, although I suspect his life, person, accomplishments, etc. have been seriously "modified" since his death, probably for reasons innumerable. Of course there is the possibility that he was the son of God, but from my perspective, it seems highly unlikely.
-J
-
he is either the world's greatest liar, the world's greatest lunatic or the son of God...I vote for the latter
PS...I think that is from CS lewis
-
Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet who ended up being wrong about his prophecy. Since then, people have been trying to crowbar his prophecies into something that might work after all.
His teachings on ethics were excellent though.
That's my view of him really.
rumborak
This.
-
Did he exist? Probably. Was he anything more than human? highly doubtful. Beyond that I have no idea.
I agree. I don't really doubt that Jesus Christ existed, but I'm questioning some of his wondrous deeds.
I also agree with rumbo on Jesus' teachings. They're pretty elementary compared to today's standards, but probably were ahead of their time 2.000 years ago.
-
Sucks that a potentially good thread already went down the drain. Good job people.
No offence, but where could this thread have really gone? The christians say "yes" the non christians say "no". Some non christians start acting holier than thou and try to make the christians defend themselves, it becomes a worthless debate that leads no where in the slightest bit, bosk bans someone and then the thread gets locked.
It could...wait for it...have intelligent discussion. Is that really beyond the scope of this forum? I know what you're saying though, and it sucks. :\No offense, but just repeatedly quoting the Christian mantra doesn't exactly make for a great thread.
rumborak
Elementary question gets a few of the same responses. So what? I'm sure we'll all find something to debate.
-
I believe Jesus Christ existed. However, since I'm a buddhist I don't believe in God (or at least not God as Christians define him) so I do not believe he was the son of God. I share my views of Christ with Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama) and many other Buddhist scholars. He believed that Christ was a human being who was enlightened, but stayed on earth to dedicate his life to the welfare of other human beings (a bodhisattva), like Buddha. In fact, Buddha and Jesus have a lot in common. They both radically changed the way people thought about religion. Many of their teachings and analogies (though certainly not all) coincide. For example, Jesus emphasized non-violence, turning the other cheek as did Buddha. Jesus also lived simply and taught through parables as did Buddha. Jesus emphasized the need to be active in the world but to also be not of the world. Buddha taught the need for non-attachment. In short, I think Jesus showed a common humanity with important figures from other religions, but found his own expression of it.
However, I'm not saying Jesus was a buddhist or a Muslim. Those who see other religions in Jesus seek to find unity, to humanize traditions. Unity however for us humans can only come from an acceptance of, even a celebration of, differences as well as similarities, something Jesus was adamant about.
Although I think Jesus his original teachings remain valuable, they have been used for personal gain and subjected to random interpretation throughout the centuries. Also, severe misconduct of Jesus's teachings by important figures in the Christian religion (I think everyone knows what I'm talking about) has put his teachings in bad light.
-
he is either the world's greatest liar, the world's greatest lunatic or the son of God...I vote for the latter
PS...I think that is from CS lewis
No, it's from Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. He has a chapter in that book called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
-
I believe Jesus Christ existed. However, since I'm a buddhist I don't believe in God (or at least not God as Christians define him) so I do not believe he was the son of God. I share my views of Christ with Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama) and many other Buddhist scholars. He believed that Christ was a human being who was enlightened, but stayed on earth to dedicate his life to the welfare of other human beings (a bodhisattva), like Buddha. In fact, Buddha and Jesus have a lot in common. They both radically changed the way people thought about religion. Many of their teachings and analogies (though certainly not all) coincide. For example, Jesus emphasized non-violence, turning the other cheek as did Buddha. Jesus also lived simply and taught through parables as did Buddha. Jesus emphasized the need to be active in the world but to also be not of the world. Buddha taught the need for non-attachment. In short, I think Jesus showed a common humanity with important figures from other religions, but found his own expression of it.
However, I'm not saying Jesus was a buddhist or a Muslim. Those who see other religions in Jesus seek to find unity, to humanize traditions. Unity however for us humans can only come from an acceptance of, even a celebration of, differences as well as similarities, something Jesus was adamant about.
Although I think Jesus his original teachings remain valuable, they have been used for personal gain and subjected to random interpretation throughout the centuries. Also, severe misconduct of Jesus's teachings by important figures in the Christian religion (I think everyone knows what I'm talking about) has put his teachings in bad light.
This is a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure the Jesus of the bible would agree with you, as he exclusively claimed to be God himself, and that the only way to heaven is through him.
-
I believe Jesus Christ existed. However, since I'm a buddhist I don't believe in God (or at least not God as Christians define him) so I do not believe he was the son of God. I share my views of Christ with Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama) and many other Buddhist scholars. He believed that Christ was a human being who was enlightened, but stayed on earth to dedicate his life to the welfare of other human beings (a bodhisattva), like Buddha. In fact, Buddha and Jesus have a lot in common. They both radically changed the way people thought about religion. Many of their teachings and analogies (though certainly not all) coincide. For example, Jesus emphasized non-violence, turning the other cheek as did Buddha. Jesus also lived simply and taught through parables as did Buddha. Jesus emphasized the need to be active in the world but to also be not of the world. Buddha taught the need for non-attachment. In short, I think Jesus showed a common humanity with important figures from other religions, but found his own expression of it.
However, I'm not saying Jesus was a buddhist or a Muslim. Those who see other religions in Jesus seek to find unity, to humanize traditions. Unity however for us humans can only come from an acceptance of, even a celebration of, differences as well as similarities, something Jesus was adamant about.
Although I think Jesus his original teachings remain valuable, they have been used for personal gain and subjected to random interpretation throughout the centuries. Also, severe misconduct of Jesus's teachings by important figures in the Christian religion (I think everyone knows what I'm talking about) has put his teachings in bad light.
This is a nice sentiment, but I'm not sure the Jesus of the bible would agree with you, as he exclusively claimed to be God himself, and that the only way to heaven is through him.
"Many of their teachings and analogies (though certainly not all) coincide". :smiley:
-
I meant about the whole unity thing. I like the sentiment myself, but it's one that's not shared by most Christians, and certainly isn't supported by the Bible, which claims exclusivity quite often.
-
Yup. He was crucified for challenging the conventions of his time, and almost everything he taught it still very relevant.
-
he is either the world's greatest liar, the world's greatest lunatic or the son of God...I vote for the latter
PS...I think that is from CS lewis
No, it's from Josh McDowell's More Than a Carpenter. He has a chapter in that book called "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?"
But originally from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. I'm almost positive.
And yes, I believe in Jesus as the Son of God.
-
I was reading some article in my Bible, and it mentioned that Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in history. I think most of us can agree with that.
-
As a non-christian I don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. A lot of his deeds are (to me), nothing more than science fiction. But as far as his message goes, I believe he lived and spoke some good words.
I don't buy into the whole "son of god" thing though
-
I agree with C.S Lewis up until the determination of being the son of god. There is a chance he did not exist and his myths were merely plagiarized from every other messianic prophecy that was floating around the middle east. If he truly did exist, only one of the following is true. His acts have been elevated to impossibility and lies, he was very deranged, he was a very evil man or he was the son of God. Since there is no reason for me to believe that he is the son of god, I have no reason to believe he existed and it is possible he did.
If he did his abilities were exaggerated and possibly his message. However if his message was in fact not exaggerated he was either very deranged or very evil, in the case of the former he would be by default be both.
What I know for sure is, his original image was that of a brown Jew. Most certainly not white. I find it incredibly funny how many dumb racist Christians would be appalled to know that lol.
-
I was reading some article in my Bible, and it mentioned that Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in history. I think most of us can agree with that.
I think this premise holds a lot more promise of debate than the OP's question (which, for the record, my answer is obviously no).
It's difficult to fully answer this. Does he have more influence than say, Augustus, Alexander, or Hitler, whose influence was direct and during the time of their lives? Considering the vast amount of prophets who've died over the years and whose teachings went nowhere, are the followers that spread his message so effectively more influential? What about people who existed before civilization could record their deeds? I'd say it's damn near impossible to get a real bearing on this question, but one would have to think that he's at least in the top 10. ;)
-
@Jonno
While the way you put that was very inflammatory, I agree that the common portrayal of Jesus (long-haired white guy) is probably quite inaccurate. If he existed, he was certainly olive-skinned in appearance, and probably did not have long hair, as Paul condemns men with long hair in one of his letters (I can't remember where).
-
Do you as an individual believe in the existence of Jesus Christ? If so, do you believe he was more than human? If not, what do you believe he accomplished?
I think James and Yesh summed up what I would say. But it is interesting the way you phrased the question. You are aware, aren't you, that Christ is the title "annointed" or "messiah" and is not his name? I merely ask because asking whether someone believes in the existence of "Jesus Christ" is an acknowledgement that he is in fact the son of God, rendering the second question superfluous.
-
Yeah and yeah.
-
I think it is likey that he existed, but not that he was the son of god.
-
His teachings on ethics were excellent though.
That's my view of him really.
rumborak
Like many great men and women of history. I lump the likes of Jesus, Ghandi, King, etc. in the same camp. Any talk of divinity looses my attention.
-
I was reading some article in my Bible, and it mentioned that Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in history. I think most of us can agree with that.
Depends. As a mere presence, sure. But as far as teachings, I'd say Paul is a lot more influential.
-
Sure, he probably lived a long time ago, but since I'm not a Christian I don't consider him the son of god, blah blah blah.
This topic is also surprisingly tame for a topic like this. I've seen topics like this go to shit within the first five posts before, so good job guys! :tup
-
I was reading some article in my Bible, and it mentioned that Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in history. I think most of us can agree with that.
I think this premise holds a lot more promise of debate than the OP's question (which, for the record, my answer is obviously no).
It's difficult to fully answer this. Does he have more influence than say, Augustus, Alexander, or Hitler, whose influence was direct and during the time of their lives? Considering the vast amount of prophets who've died over the years and whose teachings went nowhere, are the followers that spread his message so effectively more influential? What about people who existed before civilization could record their deeds? I'd say it's damn near impossible to get a real bearing on this question, but one would have to think that he's at least in the top 10. ;)
I was reading some article in my Bible, and it mentioned that Jesus Christ is the most notable and influential person in history. I think most of us can agree with that.
Depends. As a mere presence, sure. But as far as teachings, I'd say Paul is a lot more influential.
If it wasn't for Jesus, none of the later events would have happened. HIS very own influence is the reason for Paul's influence, Peter's influence, etc. I'd say, as a Christian, I am influenced by Jesus Christ more than I am influenced by Paul, who got His inspiration from Jesus.
-
I find that, if the divinity stuff was actually true, it wouldn't be so clandestine and vague. If there was a god who cared enough about humans to direct their lives and listen to their prayers, he wouldn't leave us guessing. The supposed explanations for this always reek heavily of humans trying to make work what they had invested in so much already.
rumborak
-
Vague?
He doesn't leave us guessing like you're implying. He leaves us with an option to choose our "own mad course", or to follow Him. But that means we need to pray (read: communicate) with Him, and fellowship with others, and dig into His Word. When one of those is lacking, then yes, it becomes a huge guessing game. And if your heart isn't in your walk with God, then you'll be left guessing.
I speak that from experience. I've learned that God is always right, even if I have to learn the hard way.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you pray, you're not "talking" to God, right? That is, you don't hear a responding voice that talks to you and answers questions, right? You essentially have a monologue in your mind, directed at God, no?
That's what I mean by vague. I find it peculiar that a God who cares so much about you that He will listen to your prayers at any given point in time, will however not communicate with you.
rumborak
-
Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.
Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.
-
Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.
That exact argument is what I'm talking about. It's literally reeking of humans trying to make it work somehow. "Well, since there is no evidence, it must be that God is testing us implicitly. Only the true believers are eligible."
Why is a deity, who 3000 years ago was supposedly bellowing with a mighty voice and wiping out cities in a single swoop, now in this vague state of "Can you see me? Can you hear me? Because I'm not showing myself."
rumborak
-
Well, one could make the claim (and guys like Jerry Falwell have made this exact claim) that things like Katrina and the Haiti earthquake are examples of God bellowing with a mighty voice and wiping out cities in a single swoop. In no way am I making such a ridiculous claim, I'm just saying that could be a rebuttal.
-
Whoa, no.
God speaks to your spirit. Usually not audibly (don't discount that, though, He has done it), but by giving you peace about a matter or some kind of "feeling", but feeling really isn't the right word. Maybe "intuition", although that isn't it either.
-
That peaceful feeling could be God speaking, or it could be a release of serotonin in your brain that results from the ritual act of praying.
-
@Jonno
While the way you put that was very inflammatory, I agree that the common portrayal of Jesus (long-haired white guy) is probably quite inaccurate. If he existed, he was certainly olive-skinned in appearance, and probably did not have long hair, as Paul condemns men with long hair in one of his letters (I can't remember where).
It could be construed as inflammatory, yes. There are many dumb people, the only ones that will care will be Christians.
-
I honestly doubt many modern, intelligent Christians really care what Jesus looked like.
-
Well, one could make the claim (and guys like Jerry Falwell have made this exact claim) that things like Katrina and the Haiti earthquake are examples of God bellowing with a mighty voice and wiping out cities in a single swoop. In no way am I making such a ridiculous claim, I'm just saying that could be a rebuttal.
I think that is the reality of the sudden "silencing" though. 3000 years ago earthquakes and flash floods were considered acts of God, and reasons are quickly found, e.g. perceived lasciviousness of the inhabitants of the city (always a popular reason for the most pious) or lack of belief of said inhabitants.
These days we know about the Enriquillo-Plantain Garden fault zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriquillo-Plantain_Garden_fault_zone).
rumborak
-
Whoa, no.
God speaks to your spirit. Usually not audibly (don't discount that, though, He has done it), but by giving you peace about a matter or some kind of "feeling", but feeling really isn't the right word. Maybe "intuition", although that isn't it either.
How is that not vague? I too get peace about matters I have pondered long enough.
rumborak
-
I honestly doubt many modern, intelligent Christians really care what Jesus looked like.
Oh I agree but I have come a crossed some interesting characters if you know what I mean.
-
The very existence of all the various denominations of Christianity PROVES the vagueness of christian scriptures.
-
Well, each denomination would probably claim that each other denomination doesn't quite get it right.
-
Well, each denomination would probably claim that each other denomination doesn't quite get it right.
.....proving the complete open ended possibilities of interpretations of scripture.
-
I believe that Jesus is equally God with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
I believe that he left his spot in heaven around 2000 years ago and took on the form of a poor human while still remaining God. He did so both to fulfill the mission which the Father tasked him with and to lead by example.
I believe that he preached the Gospels to people in Palestine, delivering the word that people are not forsaken and preaching about how to live a good, pious, and selfless life.
I believe that he undertook the ultimate act of selflessness and obeyed the plan laid out by the Father to be crucified and suffer for all the sins ever committed by mankind. In the process he took the punishment that everyone who ever lived deserves, and breaking the barrier that existed between those who have sinned and access to heaven.
I believe that after spending a few days destroying death, he rose again as a sign that he had delivered on his promise.
I also believe that he challenges us with living a selfless life, having paved the way for humans to do so. He demands that we sacrifice, like he did, and give up our lives so that others may live better and enjoy what has been given to them.
-
That peaceful feeling could be God speaking, or it could be a release of serotonin in your brain that results from the ritual act of praying.
Or, it could be both. God commands the spiritual and physical, he commands the entire universe. God created serotonin for whatever purpose he created for.
@Bosk
I'm afraid I have to disagree, I don't find the second question superfluous at all as my experience has proved that even many professing Christians believe in both the existence and teachings of Jesus, but don't acknowledge his role as the Messiah because of its "supernatural" nature. This thread is kind of an undeclared poll really, I'm tempted to make a sister thread on the findings.
-
Well, each denomination would probably claim that each other denomination doesn't quite get it right.
.....proving the complete open ended possibilities of interpretations of scripture.
Well, yes and no. Most denominations don't differ on an interpretation of scripture so much as a difference in traditions and how worship is to be carried out. Some denominations don't play music in church, some don't allow the existence of tattoos or piercings, a lot of these denominations stem from questions often unanswered by scripture, not from a difference in interpretation.
-
No, it goes deeper than that. Trinity vs. non-Trinity for example, is a pretty big difference. And Muslims are "Christians" too since they see Jesus as a prophet, but not divine. So, there's a wide range of interpretations if you look at it.
rumborak
-
Whoa, no.
God speaks to your spirit. Usually not audibly (don't discount that, though, He has done it), but by giving you peace about a matter or some kind of "feeling", but feeling really isn't the right word. Maybe "intuition", although that isn't it either.
How is that not vague? I too get peace about matters I have pondered long enough.
rumborak
You know the peace of knowing something is resolved or predictable. Even with all uncertainty and seemingly bad things happening, God can give you complete peace. It's a different kind, and I know it probably sounds absurd...but it's true.
-
No, it goes deeper than that. Trinity vs. non-Trinity for example, is a pretty big difference. And Muslims are "Christians" too since they see Jesus as a prophet, but not divine. So, there's a wide range of interpretations if you look at it.
rumborak
This. Many Christians *seriously* downplay the degree or importance of the countless differences in doctrine between denominations. Which is strange, because you would think that when dealing with matters such as absolute truth and eternal damnation, getting it right would be the utmost priority.
-J
-
You know the peace of knowing something is resolved or predictable. Even with all uncertainty and seemingly bad things happening, God can give you complete peace. It's a different kind, and I know it probably sounds absurd...but it's true.
That's a fallacy, of subjectivism. "No no, mine is different , even though it sounds exactly like yours. I got the REAL thing, you don't".
rumborak
-
Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.
-
Muslims are "Christians"
lol no
-
Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.
I dont think he is saying his "peace" isnt subjective. He is saying that they all are. All personal experiences are. Your "peace" and his "peace" dont even have to be different...they may very well be the same. Maybe all "inner peace" is divine regardless of personal religious beliefs, and maybe there is no god and they are all contstucts we ouselves make, or are organic/chemical in nature.
-
Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.
Well, if people actually got guided by God, wouldn't it inevitably mean they made better life decisions than non-believers? I think the track record pretty conclusively shows that that is not the case.
rumborak
-
Muslims are "Christians"
lol no
Did you actually read the second part of the sentence? Jesus is a prophet in Islam.
rumborak
-
Muslims are "Christians"
lol no
They worship the same god, but yeah that was kind of lol
As for me, I've never "felt" whatever it is many Christians claim to feel when they talk about Jesus and all. I've never felt peace or tranquility from it, but that's just me. More power to you if you do I suppose.
-
This. Many Christians *seriously* downplay the degree or importance of the countless differences in doctrine between denominations. Which is strange, because you would think that when dealing with matters such as absolute truth and eternal damnation, getting it right would be the utmost priority.
-J
I'd say that part of the reason for that is the flawed idea that Christianity is going extinct simply because western society is becoming more secularized as time goes by.
I don't have numbers or statistics or anything, but I doubt that it is as extreme as some people like Pat Robertson seem to think.
The idea is presumably that instead of getting boggled up in theological issues, people will instead embrace that they have some links and work to promote those first.
I guess it is not unlike members of the Democratic and Green parties agreeing on some stuff to get pro-environment ideas out there, but then still disagreeing on other policies.
My personal viewpoint is not to really get tied up in those theological debates to begin with simply because it ignores some of the key points of the overarching faith. I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.
-
This. Many Christians *seriously* downplay the degree or importance of the countless differences in doctrine between denominations. Which is strange, because you would think that when dealing with matters such as absolute truth and eternal damnation, getting it right would be the utmost priority.
-J
I'd say that part of the reason for that is the flawed idea that Christianity is going extinct simply because western society is becoming more secularized as time goes by.
I don't have numbers or statistics or anything, but I doubt that it is as extreme as some people like Pat Robertson seem to think.
The idea is presumably that instead of getting boggled up in theological issues, people will instead embrace that they have some links and work to promote those first.
I guess it is not unlike members of the Democratic and Green parties agreeing on some stuff to get pro-environment ideas out there, but then still disagreeing on other policies.
My personal viewpoint is not to really get tied up in those theological debates to begin with simply because it ignores some of the key points of the overarching faith. I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.
I think for the most part that is a fairly reasonable position, but it's the item I've bolded above that is the very point of contention between Christian belief sets. I understand the appeal of simply celebrating similarities instead of dwelling on differences, and normally I wouldn't dispute it. But like your political analogy, I don't think it applies in this case simply because truth is not a matter of opinion that can be compromised on. Disagreement indicates error, and the consequences of error may be dire, so I think conflict for the sake of seeking truth is (in theory) necessary. The problem is that I highly doubt that IS the reason behind most disagreements within Christianity. My money's on pride, stubbornness, inability to let go of one's upbringing, personal biases, etc.
And of course you don't want to ignore key tenets of the faith, but that doesn't preclude theological discussion. Don't you think that's an important part of "working out" your Christian faith when there are so many conflicting beliefs, particularly in light of a perpetual search for truth?
-J
-
Then so is yours. You may not know that other peace personally. Both kinds exist.
Well, if people actually got guided by God, wouldn't it inevitably mean they made better life decisions than non-believers? I think the track record pretty conclusively shows that that is not the case.
rumborak
This is where it gets really complicated.
First, yes, they would have made better life-decisions than nonbelievers. Assuming the Christian God exists, wouldn't it make sense that God gives the best direction in life?
Second, it's an arbitrary thing to decide what constitutes a good life decision apart from God. You may think Decision A is a good choice, whereas I would never choose Decision A. If God exists, then who knows, of all the possibilities, which decision is best and most fruitful for you as a Christian, and for others as well.
The track record is bad, I know. Honestly, it seems like a lot of Christians use God to meet an ends for their own sake. God wants you to love Him and live for Him above even making decisions; God desires obedience over sacrifice. Everything else should follow FROM your love for Him, not the other way around. I can't remember if it was on this forum or in real lie, where I read/heard that many Christians try to get God to help their own plans out, instead of giving their plans to God.
I guess the only other thing is that God sometimes calls His people to do radical things. However, I would believe that they should be done out of love. I know, "well God sent His people into war in the OT". Yes, but the Israelite nation was in a hot zone for war; do you expect them to just die without fighting? Of course, it's because of human's free will that they got to that point of having to war with each other. To the point, radical things should always be under the "umbrella of God's love". Considering Westboro Baptist Church as an extreme example, they DON'T do things out of love. It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred. It's sad that some churches judge people like that (not to that extreme, but to some degree).
-
It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.
Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.
-
It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.
Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.
I should have prefaced that by saying that they are Christian homosexuals who are still doing acts of homosexuality.
My bad, brah.
-
It's one thing to tell homosexuals that the act of homosexuality is wrong by lovingly pointing out the Scriptures about it; it's another thing to ridicule and dehumanize them into God's object of hatred.
Two different approaches to doing something really shitty.
I should have prefaced that by saying that they are Christian homosexuals who are still doing acts of homosexuality.
My bad, brah.
Christian Homosexual.
Is there such a thing?
Gotta say, homosexuals going to hell is one of the deal breakers with me and religion.
-
[off-topic]
A Christian is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.
A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex that they are.
So, a homosexual can become a Christian. It's the ACT of homosexuality that is sinful.
No need to derail this topic, because it'll get stupid and pointless.
[/off-topic]
-
Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.
Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.
I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things. The Bible certainly teaches neither.
-
I'd hope that regardless of whether one thinks of Jesus as God, the son of God, an adopted son of God, spirit alone, man with spirit, etc. they would still place an emphasis on what he taught and what he did.
Therein lies the exact issue and the point of the entire thread. If you do believe in Jesus' existence, than either he is exactly who he says he is, or you have to acknowledge that 75% of his teachings and acts are either the works of an insane man or were made up entirely.
Many say that logically they can't believe in this. But, if somebody was saying things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life," and didn't perform some kind of miracles to support his claim, then he would have been just as ignored as any other beggar or crazy person.
-
@Bosk
I'm afraid I have to disagree, I don't find the second question superfluous at all as my experience has proved that even many professing Christians believe in both the existence and teachings of Jesus, but don't acknowledge his role as the Messiah because of its "supernatural" nature. This thread is kind of an undeclared poll really, I'm tempted to make a sister thread on the findings.
I'm just saying that the wording of your first question unintentionally makes the second question superfluous. If you said "Do you believe in Jesus of Nazareth," that would allow for both the possibility of someone believing he existed as well as the belief that he is the messiah (and various shades in between). But putting the term "Christ" after his name, whether you intended it or not, your first question is actually asking "Do you believe in Jesus the Messiah." If the answer is yes, then by definition, the person is saying they believe he is more than human.
-
Gotta say, homosexuals going to hell is one of the deal breakers with me and religion.
I missed this edit.
Still, my post above explains what's going on with that stuff.
-
I believe that Jesus existed, and that he was raised by God after his death.
I also belief that the historical Jesus would be bewildered by many of the things that have been attributed to him, and many of the things said or done in his name.
-
Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.
Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.
I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things. The Bible certainly teaches neither.
1. You've REALLY had experiences where God actually directly spoke to you... like, he appeared in front of you or produced audible speech? In my 10 or so years as a devout Christian, I never experienced anything like that.
2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?
-
2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?
What is the point of faith anyway?
-J
-
2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?
Well ..... he did, right? The Bible is full of it.
rumborak
-
Many people would probably claim in response to that that God does reply, but in an indirect way, i.e. through feelings, intuitions, etc.
Plus, if God replied directly, then he proves his existence, which eliminates the need for faith.
I don't know any Christians who believe either of the above things. The Bible certainly teaches neither.
1. You've REALLY had experiences where God actually directly spoke to you... like, he appeared in front of you or produced audible speech? In my 10 or so years as a devout Christian, I never experienced anything like that.
2. If God did directly speak to people, then what would be the point of faith?
How are you defining faith?
-
The assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen.
In other words, you don't have a way of empirically demonstrating God's existence, but believe he exists because of personal, experiential evidence, such as that peaceful feeling you were talking about earlier. There's nothing wrong with that though, and if that improves the quality of your life, then it's a wonderful thing. However, when that conviction becomes fanatical, then things like the WBC and suicide bombers result, and that's not so wonderful.
-
Gotcha. :tup
-
Christ means Messiah. I therefore do not believe in Jesus 'Christ'.
I do believe in Jesus Ben-Joseph. I respect him, not as humanity's savior, but as one of history's many great teachers.
-
I believe in Jesus the Christ.
-
It's the ACT of homosexuality that is sinful.
This is a bigoted statement and Jesus said to love our neighbors so your statement is sinful in and of itself. Twisting and perverting scripture to suit bigotry is pretty ridiculous.
-
So the bible says that all men deserve to be punished and that's why god told jesus to die for our sins?
-
???
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9
Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.
-
What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?
-
I find it tragic that some people live by those words.
-
What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?
Is it a sin to joke about blending up babies and eating them as salsa with corn chips?
-
???
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9
Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.
Is it ever explained why homosexuality is wrong?
-
WTF @ Sneaky
-
What about joking of being a homo all the time? Is that a sin too?
Is it a sin to joke about blending up babies and eating them as salsa with corn chips?
No. Nor is it a sin to actually do it.
-
:lol
-
???
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9
Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.
The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.
The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.
The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.
The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.
The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.
So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.
-
???
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9
Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.
The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.
The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.
The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.
The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.
The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.
So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.
That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no? The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.
-
Out of the three quotes Jimmy gave, two are from the new testament. Both from paul. None from jesus. I use this as support for my claim that Pauls words are more influential than jesus words.
And by the way, I think it was you Jimmy that said that Jesus is more influential than paul because without Jesus, paul wouldn't have had anything.....well, that's why I said as a mere presence, Jesus. But it seems christians tend to base their religion a little more around what paul had to say about things.
-
That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no? The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.
I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.
Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.
-
That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no? The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.
I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.
Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.
No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.
-
That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no? The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.
I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.
Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.
No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.
I thought the same thing, so I did a search and found something that mentions it. Not to a T, though.
https://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/12636.htm
-
That was my thought, but thats mainly the stuff from Leviticus, no? The NT scriptures are the ones that would sway me, but I have the same question as Seventh Son.
I read an article once saying that during the times of the Bible, homosexuality as it is known in modern times (consenting sex between two adult persons) was extremely rare, if not completely unheard of. The "homosexuality" of the Bible is actually what the Greeks called "Pederasty", where an adult man would "mentor" a young boy, both in academia and in sexual matters. The Bible spoke against this, calling it homosexuality. So basically the Bible bans pedophilia, not the modern way we use the word homosexuality.
Knowing this, anyone who claims otherwise is a bigot. It's using Scripture to perpetuate hatred of a group simply because they are different.
No one is going to take your post seriously unless you post a source. Just warning you. It'd be sad if such an interesting is blown off.
The original article I read was in a book, but a quick Google search found this one.
https://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/pederasty.html
Seems to be written BY a Christian, so you guys can't go "lol its someone trying to show an incorrect side of Christianity"
-
Is it ever explained why homosexuality is wrong?
it isn't.
-
I think for the most part that is a fairly reasonable position, but it's the item I've bolded above that is the very point of contention between Christian belief sets. I understand the appeal of simply celebrating similarities instead of dwelling on differences, and normally I wouldn't dispute it. But like your political analogy, I don't think it applies in this case simply because truth is not a matter of opinion that can be compromised on. Disagreement indicates error, and the consequences of error may be dire, so I think conflict for the sake of seeking truth is (in theory) necessary. The problem is that I highly doubt that IS the reason behind most disagreements within Christianity. My money's on pride, stubbornness, inability to let go of one's upbringing, personal biases, etc.
And of course you don't want to ignore key tenets of the faith, but that doesn't preclude theological discussion. Don't you think that's an important part of "working out" your Christian faith when there are so many conflicting beliefs, particularly in light of a perpetual search for truth?
-J
I'm not entirely sure of what you bolded, but I'll just go based on what you've said in your post.
I do agree that the conflict mainly lies outside of the search for the truth. I think it is really a mixture of clan/tribal ways in which anyone who isn't of the same group is deemed inferior and a strong desire to get tithe money. That and as you said, some sense of stubbornness perhaps based on one's upbringing.
I'm all for the differing groups to enter into discussion/debate over their beliefs, because, to quote Socrates, "the unexamined life is not worth living". I feel as if you need to think about and "study" your own religious beliefs because then they grow with you in the process. So having some sort of forum for discussion of differing views would be a nice way to help all those involved on their search for the truth. Of course, making such a thing civil seems nearly impossible because of the fact that many people think that everyone is the devil.
As for your last question, I do think that it is important to take many things into consideration in an effort to "work out" your faith. It is part of the reason why my faith today is quite different from what it once was. As with much of my faith, however, I feel as if it is something personal to me, and not anything which I should try to cram down the throats of others, especially those who happen to share a lot of core beliefs/concepts with me.
-
In regards to the whole homosexual issue that seems to have popped up, I think that whether you think it is a sin or not is beside the issue.
Jesus said that the most important commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as you would yourself.
Therefore, whatever your stance on homosexuality, I would think you still have to love them regardless.
-
???
"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin." - Leviticus 18:22
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
"Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals," - 1 Corinthian 6:9
Quad, I am not saying I hate homosexuals. I am not a bigot. It looks like you don't know some the above Scriptures.
The bible also says that those that shave the hair around their ears (sideburns) deserve death.
The bible also says that those that don't have perfect (20/20) vision deserve death.
The bible also says that we cannot have tattoos.
The bible also says that we cannot eat pigs, let alone touch them.
The bible also says that men that have crushed testicles cannot join a church.
So many things the bible teaches that we ignore, but yet we have to follow the verses about homosexuality to a T? Seems like bigotry to me.
There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.
All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one. How can you explain away
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?
Out of the three quotes Jimmy gave, two are from the new testament. Both from paul. None from jesus. I use this as support for my claim that Pauls words are more influential than jesus words.
And by the way, I think it was you Jimmy that said that Jesus is more influential than paul because without Jesus, paul wouldn't have had anything.....well, that's why I said as a mere presence, Jesus. But it seems christians tend to base their religion a little more around what paul had to say about things.
Adami, I think your point is really invalid. The OT had prophets that spoke God's case to His people...why can't Paul do the same? In different sections of the NT, Paul states where something is from the Lord and where something is his own opinion.
Also, on the subject of influence: if it were not for Jesus, Paul wouldn't be writing any of those things. He was in the midst of a very dynamic time of church history, and God used him and his presence to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ far and wide. He drew his influence from Jesus Christ.
I do think that it is important to take many things into consideration in an effort to "work out" your faith. It is part of the reason why my faith today is quite different from what it once was. As with much of my faith, however, I feel as if it is something personal to me, and not anything which I should try to cram down the throats of others, especially those who happen to share a lot of core beliefs/concepts with me.
I agree with this to a point. It is personal with me as well. That's why I don't always post in P/R. I've been posting quite a bit in here because I felt moved to defend some Christian truths. I humbly apologize if I come across as a bigot (which, again, I am not) or trying to shove religion down your throat. Just discussing the issue at hand and answering questions. This is helping me re-examine my faith as well, to check its foundations. :tup
-
How is me saying Paul is influential invalid because you think he's a prophet? Doesn't that help my case?
-
I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.
-
Yeah he cuts my lawn :neverusethis:
In all serious, yes. I'm sure there was someone named Jesus Christ at some point in the history of the earth. Do I believe in THE Jesus Christ? No.
-
There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.
All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one.
What? Who decided which laws were which? And where does it say that this seemingly random classification system for laws only applies to certain people for certain laws and everyone for others?
How can you explain away
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?
Refer to my other post describing how the homosexuality of the Bible =/= homosexuality of today.
-
I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.
I still don't see what that has to do with him being very influential. If Paul isn't more influential than jesus for the reason that he was speaking gods word....then how is jesus influential at all? Shouldn't you just say god is the most influential?
I know it's odd to think that modern christianity has a HUGE emphasis on the teachings of paul, but you're not really doing much to disprove that.
-
There are three types of law: ceremonial, judicial, and moral. Moral laws are the ones that apply to everyone. The ceremonial and judicial were for the Israelites.
All the ones you arbitrarily picked are not the moral ones. Homosexuality is a moral one.
What? Who decided which laws were which? And where does it say that this seemingly random classification system for laws only applies to certain people for certain laws and everyone for others?
Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?
How can you explain away
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved." - Romans 1:27
then? How is burning with lust for another man not homosexuality?
Refer to my other post describing how the homosexuality of the Bible =/= homosexuality of today.
That link wasn't very helpful. I'm not saying it isn't true; it just spouts out some interpretations and definitions not backed up by any other sources. Heck, I could write a summary of some theological issue in a professional way I think is true in a few paragraphs, post it on that page, and it could look legit.
-
The original article I read was in a book, but a quick Google search found this one.
https://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/pederasty.html
Seems to be written BY a Christian, so you guys can't go "lol its someone trying to show an incorrect side of Christianity"
Lol? As we've been discussing, the "umbrella" of Christianity includes a lot of conflicting viewpoints on a lot of issues. So it's basically meaningless that the article's author happens to claim to be a Christian.
At any rate, the suggestion that all or nearly all homosexuality 2000 years ago was actually pederasty is baseless and completely ridiculous. Yes, pederasty was common in Greece in the last several centuries BC, but how one gets from there to the conclusion that the bible REALLY only condemns that specifically, I cannot fathom. I admire your attempt at reconciling tolerance for homosexuals with a Christian belief system, but given what the bible says explicitly (some of which Jamesman has pointed out), I don't think it is really possible.
And Jamesman, I don't think you come across as bigoted at all, given your beliefs. You haven't said anything offensive in this thread, even if some of us may disagree with it.
-J
-
Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?
My question still stands, who made these decisions, and who decided who they apply to?
-
I didn't say he was a prophet; I was comparing his "duties" to that of the OT prophets, i.e. speaking to the masses about God, recording some of these words down as God instructed them to.
I still don't see what that has to do with him being very influential. If Paul isn't more influential than jesus for the reason that he was speaking gods word....then how is jesus influential at all? Shouldn't you just say god is the most influential?
I know it's odd to think that modern christianity has a HUGE emphasis on the teachings of paul, but you're not really doing much to disprove that.
Well, of course I believe God is the most influential. :lol But it was Jesus who moved Paul to do the things that he did (after persecuting and killing Christians):
As I was on the road, approaching Damascus about noon, a very bright light from heaven suddenly shone down around me. I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?
Who are you, lord? I asked.
And the voice replied, I am Jesus the Nazarene, the one you are persecuting. The people with me saw the light but didnt understand the voice speaking to me. ... " - Acts 22:6-9 (the rest of the chapter shows how Paul started following Jesus' commands)
I do believe Paul's teachings are huge in the Church today. God has kept the Bible intact to this day (we Christians believe), so I believe it to be God's Word. I don't have a problem with that, by that logic. I'm not trying to disprove Paul's position; I'm just trying to show that he draws all of his influence from Jesus Christ. I hope that makes some more sense.
-
Who cares? If paul is out because Jesus influenced him, then Jesus is out too. In fact EVERYONE is out from being influential in the slightest bit cause it always roots back somehow.
-
Look at the context of the writings. Is it really that hard to see how one law can be a moral law or how one is a ceremonial law?
My question still stands, who made these decisions, and who decided who they apply to?
Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.
"But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses." - Galatians 5:8 (in b4 nugget)
"[ Christs Sacrifice Once for All ] The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship." - Hebrews 10:1
The day is coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife, says the Lord.
But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord. I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." - Jeremiah 31:31-33
Thing is, why would I have ceremonial and judicial laws written on my heart? I wouldn't. It doesn't make sense. God gave the Israelites those two kinds of laws to help them be a separate (read: distinct) and holy nation. The ceremonial to instruct on how to worship and celebrate certain days, and the judicial to help run their nation. He also gave them the moral ones, but the moral ones are intuitive to everyone ever. You just know that murdering is wrong. You know it's wrong to steal, no matter how much you justify it.
Who decides which are which? Again, the context will tell you, and it should be evident that your balls being crushed is not a moral sin. ;)
-
Who cares? If paul is out because Jesus influenced him, then Jesus is out too. In fact EVERYONE is out from being influential in the slightest bit cause it always roots back somehow.
I don't know what your first sentence is saying, and it's making the whole statement make no sense to me.
-
You have no point. You have no soul. There is a small chance you have no liver as well. I need not listen to a man with no liver.
-
I'm off to bed. Good night.
-
You have no point. You have no soul. There is a small chance you have no liver as well. I need not listen to a man with no liver.
Well-played.
I got a chuckle out of that.
-
Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.
If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.
-
Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.
If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.
As I said, two thirds of the quotes were new law, or whatever.
-
Essentially, we don't even live under the old law anymore.
If we don't live under the old law anymore than you can't use those scriptures to justify calling homosexuality a sin.
That doesn't mean that we can indulge in moral sins if homosexuality is a moral sin. Moral sins are universal and essentially eternal.
"Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, Where are your accusers? Didnt even one of them condemn you?
No, Lord, she said.
And Jesus said, Neither do I. Go and sin no more." - John 8:10-12
"Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?" - Romans 6:1-2
What kind of sin could Paul and Jesus be talking about then? There must be some kind of sin, and God has told us what these moral sins are.
-
I don't know how anyone can hold the opinion that homosexuality isn't natural, providing they know the least bit about the world we live in.
And Jamesman, you do sound like a bigot. The "Oh, I'm OK with homosexuals, as long as they don't act on their desires" is utterly unconvincing.
-
It sounds like you just don't want to hear that something may be a sin, because you don't agree with it and don't believe in God.
-
It sounds like you just don't want to hear that something may be a sin, because you don't agree with it and don't believe in God.
Well those would be two very good reasons.
I fail to see how a loving God would punish someone who was born with a different or ambiguous sexual orientation, though. Sort of like punishing redheads; the chance is about the same.
-
I admit it's weird. I don't know, I'm just going by what I believe to be the Word of God.
However, we are all born into sin. No one has not sinned. Like a homosexual is born with those desires, we're all born with something that is going to hinder us. Some people get prideful; some people get angry; some people get easily depressed. All of those things, when constantly in your life, lead to sin.
-
I find it funny how hung up most Christians get about this issue. "God loves us all and we all must obey the word! We're all equal under God! Jesus loves us! .. er wait except gay people LOL"
I see this going the same way that most of the other ridiculous issues that racist/bigoted Christians have held onto for way too long (interracial marriage/slavery/etc). Basically enough people realize how fucked up a law is, its changed, and then all the Christians go "up! we we're just reading the Bible wrong the whole time sorry guise!"
-
Let's be fair here. I don't agree with James, but I don't think in his case that it is bigotry. I think he is earnestly trying to be a good Christian. I don't think it's fair to pick on him like this. In my opinion, he's mistaken, not bigoted.
-
I admit it's weird. I don't know, I'm just going by what I believe to be the Word of God.
This statement essentially negates all your arguments prior. You admit to not having full understanding but accept the words because...well, i dont know....
Religious fanatics terrorize on the same grounds; lack of full understanding but the "belief" that the words are from God. The facts of reality are irrelevant.
This makes your case against homosexuality all the more displeasing to me.
EDIT
Answer this James: If god is the creator of all the universe and decrees that homosexuality is sinful, why then is it such a natural, albeit rare, occurrence in nature? Bees, dolphins, all primates for example partake it in. Hyprocisy? Error?
-
Whatever happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged"?
Scripture has always been used to suppress "the others", just as you are doing now.
One of the most striking features of scripture is that you become a better person when you don't use/believe in it.
rumborak
-
I think I agree with Jamesman about homosexuals. Homosexuality is pointed out as wrong in both testaments. Those other things that quad mentioned are just from the old testament, and most are made obsolete by Christ's new covenant with us.
I will say, however, that I think the churches single out homosexuality way more than need be. As I understand it, all of the sins of the flesh are equal. Acting on homosexual feelings, I'd assume, is no better or worse than drinking out eating too much. , or having a "one-night stand" with someone.
-
Yeah, but a night-out drinking or a one-night stand is what *I* would potentially do, so it can't be that bad. However homosexuality are the others, so it's really, really bad, and I need to tell them.
rumborak
-
Yes, I think some churches do single it out, and I think that is just silly. But I don't think that has anything to do with what you are talking about here. It only seems singled out here because someone happened to bring it up on an internet discussion forum. Had adultery, thievery, murder, etc. been brought up, those sins would have received the same response.
@Quad: To answer a question you posed earlier that I don't believe has been answered, the laws you cited (although you misrepresented some of them) are found in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Moses stated in those books that those laws were specifically for the old testament Jews. Whether or not you are a Christian, you may have heard the term "the new covenant." What that refers to is the teaching of Jesus and the apostles that Jesus established a different set of rules, so to speak, to do away with the temporary laws that were specifically for the Jews. Some of those teachings were specifically carried forward, as James mentioned (I'm not sure I necessarily agree with this description that "moral laws" were carried forward, and others were not, but I suppose that general principle is generally right enough for our purposes), and are thus part of the new covenant teaching as well. This is explicitly explained in the Bible, but a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this thread and what I have time for at the moment. But hopefully, this explains the general principle for you.
-
I find it funny how hung up most Christians get about this issue. "God loves us all and we all must obey the word! We're all equal under God! Jesus loves us! .. er wait except gay people LOL"
I see this going the same way that most of the other ridiculous issues that racist/bigoted Christians have held onto for way too long (interracial marriage/slavery/etc). Basically enough people realize how fucked up a law is, its changed, and then all the Christians go "up! we we're just reading the Bible wrong the whole time sorry guise!"
That is a really unfair assessment of anything I've said. Do you know how to differentiate between the acts of homosexuality and homosexuality itself? I don't get hung up on this; I am just answering a few questions about where God's Word stands on an issue. God's Word never fails.
I admit it's weird. I don't know, I'm just going by what I believe to be the Word of God.
This statement essentially negates all your arguments prior. You admit to not having full understanding but accept the words because...well, i dont know....
Religious fanatics terrorize on the same grounds; lack of full understanding but the "belief" that the words are from God. The facts of reality are irrelevant.
This makes your case against homosexuality all the more displeasing to me.
EDIT
Answer this James: If god is the creator of all the universe and decrees that homosexuality is sinful, why then is it such a natural, albeit rare, occurrence in nature? Bees, dolphins, all primates for example partake it in. Hyprocisy? Error?
OK...Like I have said, now repeatedly, I trust that the Bible is the Word of God. It's my most logical conclusion that, lo and behold, many Christians also believe. That's the deal as a Christian.
Tell me, do you have a full understanding of the issue? We are all limited in our understanding of these things. It doesn't mean a Christian says "oh well, God knows all so ner ner ner ner". No, He has given us enough in His Word to determine issues such as this. I believe only God has that full understanding.
To your edit: We are born into a sinful world, or a sinful nature. Our way of life is not as should be naturally because of the sin in our world, and corruption of the natural way of life comes and goes. NOW, I am not saying homosexuals are corrupted people. If you read in Genesis, it clearly states that God created them to be one man and one woman. The corruption is desiring someone of the same sex. Again, I am not saying anything like homosexuals are the worst kind of people, or their sin is the worst, or that God doesn't love and that we should hate them; it's that we are ALL corrupted. For me, personally, I am corrupted by some pride and some anger. I'm sure you have your own things you deal with.
"For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of Gods glorious standard." - Romans 3:23
Let's be fair here. I don't agree with James, but I don't think in his case that it is bigotry. I think he is earnestly trying to be a good Christian. I don't think it's fair to pick on him like this. In my opinion, he's mistaken, not bigoted.
Thank you. Even if we don't agree, it's good to know that, above ANY of this, it's about love, for Christ desires for us to love God and love our neighbors.
I will say, however, that I think the churches single out homosexuality way more than need be. As I understand it, all of the sins of the flesh are equal. Acting on homosexual feelings, I'd assume, is no better or worse than drinking out eating too much. , or having a "one-night stand" with someone.
I agree. This is probably the second time I've ever really talked about this issue before. All of these issues are not as important as trying to follow the two aforementioned commands.
-
Let's be fair here. I don't agree with James, but I don't think in his case that it is bigotry. I think he is earnestly trying to be a good Christian. I don't think it's fair to pick on him like this. In my opinion, he's mistaken, not bigoted.
This. The dude's defending his beliefs, not attacking anyone or declaring his hatred for a group of people.
I think I agree with Jamesman about homosexuals. Homosexuality is pointed out as wrong in both testaments. Those other things that quad mentioned are just from the old testament, and most are made obsolete by Christ's new covenant with us.
I will say, however, that I think the churches single out homosexuality way more than need be. As I understand it, all of the sins of the flesh are equal. Acting on homosexual feelings, I'd assume, is no better or worse than drinking out eating too much. , or having a "one-night stand" with someone.
This is a good post too. Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Christian scriptures. I've heard many attempts to explain it, but in the end, my understanding *why* Christians believe it's wrong isn't going to change the bottom line. Personally, I would need to understand to some degree in order to go on believing it. But I know lots of people aren't that way.
And it's absolutely demonized on a level unequal to most other sins, because it's easy to do so. I think if this weren't the case, it would be held as no more severe than most other sins of a sexual nature. Surely not more serious than something like adultery, which inherently entails other sins like dishonesty and betrayal?
Whatever happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged"?
There's also a lot of stuff about "admonishing your brother" when he does wrong. In a lot of cases, I think there's a fine line.
-J
-
I've got nothing against you Jamesman, even though I strongly disagree with what you are saying. But hell I even like you. But I'll ask this again because I don't think anyone responded to me before.
Why is homosexuality a sin? What makes it so evil? Things like murder and rape are easy to understand why they are wrong. They hurt those around us a lot. Hell I even get why addiction is sinful, it can control you like very few things can (Like spending your paycheck on booze instead of food for your kid's mouths). But why homosexuality? Who does it hurt? If two guys go at it, I don't feel hurt by it at all. So why is it wrong? And "Because the bible says so" isn't a satisfactory answer for me. I need to hear why it hurts humanity.
-
I've got nothing against you Jamesman, even though I strongly disagree with what you are saying. But hell I even like you. But I'll ask this again because I don't think anyone responded to me before.
Why is homosexuality a sin? What makes it so evil? Things like murder and rape are easy to understand why they are wrong. They hurt those around us a lot. Hell I even get why addiction is sinful, it can control you like very few things can (Like spending your paycheck on booze instead of food for your kid's mouths). But why homosexuality? Who does it hurt? If two guys go at it, I don't feel hurt by it at all. So why is it wrong? And "Because the bible says so" isn't a satisfactory answer for me. I need to hear why it hurts humanity.
I was about to pose the same question. Of all the "sins", how many of them have no apparent or legitimate reason behind them?
-
I'm not sure it matters. It goes back to the argument "Is it right because god does it? Or does god do it because it's right?"
-
Not to change the subject, but to James: do you feel bad for taking pride in what you accomplish?
-
I'm not sure it matters. It goes back to the argument "Is it right because god does it? Or does god do it because it's right?"
Okay let me rephrase it then. Explain why it's wrong to someone who isn't a Christian. Using the bible as justification doesn't do anything to me because I don't believe in it.
-
I'm not sure it matters. It goes back to the argument "Is it right because god does it? Or does god do it because it's right?"
Okay let me rephrase it then. Explain why it's wrong to someone who isn't a Christian. Using the bible as justification doesn't do anything to me because I don't believe in it.
There is nothing "wrong" with homosexuality or homosexual acts.
-
Well, I think you're looking at sin as something that has to affect humanity as a whole or even in parts to really see the wrongness in it. Sin is anything that separates us from God and goes against His will for us. It can be personal or involve others..
Why is homosexuality a sin? That's a question for God, not me. I can only offer metaphors and point to parts of the Bible to give any sort of answer. Look:
"Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib, and he brought her to the man.
At last! the man exclaimed.
This one is bone from my bone,
and flesh from my flesh!
She will be called woman,
because she was taken from man.
This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." - Genesis 2:22-24
This is before sin is known to have existed, biblically speaking. Thus, for the Christian, the natural and God-ordained way of marriage and all that is one man and one woman. It makes the other verses on homosexuality make perfect sense, doesn't it? It should; it's a strong corollary.
It doesn't hurt humanity in the way you're thinking, just like jealousy and hatred do not hurt humanity. Like you said, if two guys go at it, you don't feel anything. Well, yeah (and thank God). It's like if two people you don't know are jealous of each other's possessions, their sins in doing so don't affect you and probably not anyone else. If any of that does affect anyone else, it's only after the fact or if they're brought into the situation.
Again, though, I am not the expert and I am not God. This answer may not satisfy you because of your beliefs, but that's the discussion for you; a trade-off of what we have come to find out.
-
Jimmy, what you said is mostly fine, I only have one issue.
You claim that because god make Adam and Eve as he did, it is the model for the ideal marriage. Well....no one else was there. It's not like Adam had an oppurtunity to bang Steve, nor did Eve have a chance to eat someone elses bush of fire. Also, what race were they? They were the same race I assume, whatever it was....can't that also be used as an argument against interracial marriages?
-
I would argue that jealousy and hatred DO hurt humanity. After all, someone who is envious of what someone else has wishes that particular possession for himself and hates another for it. And hatred only leads to hurting and suffering if negatively acted upon. Homosexuality is the opposite. It is love between two individuals that just happen to share the same kind of junk down under. I fail to see why two people loving each other should be "wrong" but I guess its one of those things that's lost in translation between a believer and a non-believer. My definition of "sin" isn't related to religion, its related to how it hurts humanity, so its like we're speaking two different languages I suppose.
Jimmy, what you said is mostly fine, I only have one issue.
You claim that because god make Adam and Eve as he did, it is the model for the ideal marriage. Well....no one else was there. It's not like Adam had an oppurtunity to bang Steve, nor did Eve have a chance to eat someone elses bush of fire. Also, what race were they? They were the same race I assume, whatever it was....can't that also be used as an argument against interracial marriages?
Coming from someone who lives in the bible belt, I can safely say I've talked with people who have used that argument before.
-
As have I.
-
Not to change the subject, but to James: do you feel bad for taking pride in what you accomplish?
I sense a trap in this question because of the word "pride" (not to say that was your intention). There are different levels of pride and you can distinguish between pride, confidence, arrogance, contentedness, and such.
But let's take an example with something that is always deemed one of my best talents by others: mathematics. None of this is to boast, but to illustrate:
I am almost always the first one done with a test in a math class. I usually get one of the highest scores. I usually am the one that has to help everyone else outside of class understand what's going on in what we're learning. They all say I have a bright future ahead if I stick with doing the math thing, which is what I want to do because I love math.
Now, I can very easily become arrogant in this. I WOULD feel bad about this (every once in a while I do get a little arrogant and I try to kill it at once). However, I must KNOW that I have some level of talent in mathematics, some level of confidence that I can succeed. A life without goals such as this specific one would be such an undirected mess.
I honestly don't know what "level" of pride you're asking about, Zook, but I do not feel bad about being confident that I can do things with my God-given talents. I do feel bad when I get arrogant, cocky, and full of myself. It's a balance I must watch out for.
-
I guess you have to take the story of Adam and Eve literally in order to use it as support for homosexuality being a sin.......
-
Jimmy, what you said is mostly fine, I only have one issue.
You claim that because god make Adam and Eve as he did, it is the model for the ideal marriage. Well....no one else was there. It's not like Adam had an oppurtunity to bang Steve, nor did Eve have a chance to eat someone elses bush of fire. Also, what race were they? They were the same race I assume, whatever it was....can't that also be used as an argument against interracial marriages?
God ordained it to be one man and one woman for life. That set the basis for every other marriage to come. Race doesn't matter: a black woman and a white man are still one man and one woman (and humans, just to cut off any potential joke you may have :lol ). I don't see how that could be used to argue against interracial marriages, that seems pretty ignorant in general.
I fail to see why two people loving each other should be "wrong" but I guess its one of those things that's lost in translation between a believer and a non-believer. My definition of "sin" isn't related to religion, its related to how it hurts humanity, so its like we're speaking two different languages I suppose.
The bolded sums up why you probably cannot perceive some of these things; it's like looking through dirty glasses for you in this case. Remember, we are talking about sin as the Bible sees it, so your definition of sin is going to be different if it's not biblical.
-
I don't see where this discussion can go if one side takes the stance that the human population started with two people.
I think there's a line between faith and self-betrayal that's all too easily crossed.
rumborak
-
Hey, let's choose not to go that route. I gave the biblical basis for it, but it doesn't have to surround that one sentiment. Find one of old threads on literal Genesis stuff if anyone wants to discuss that stuff...
-
I don't see where this discussion can go if one side takes the stance that the human population started with two people.
rumborak
:neverusethis:
-
I fail to see why two people loving each other should be "wrong" but I guess its one of those things that's lost in translation between a believer and a non-believer. My definition of "sin" isn't related to religion, its related to how it hurts humanity, so its like we're speaking two different languages I suppose.
The bolded sums up why you probably cannot perceive some of these things; it's like looking through dirty glasses for you in this case. Remember, we are talking about sin as the Bible sees it, so your definition of sin is going to be different if it's not biblical.
[/quote]
I don't see why it has to be me looking through dirty glasses. Can't it just be a "The Eye of the Beholder" kind of thing?
Meh, I'm just nitpicking, whatever.
-
I don't know what you mean by 'trap', I just think you should be proud of the things you do best. I don't agree that you should give all the credit of being a math wiz to god though. It's your talent, not his. Furthermore, I think pride as a sin is stupid and just another way to keep people at bay. Same with envy, because damnit, I want an Xbox 360 too!
-
I fail to see why two people loving each other should be "wrong" but I guess its one of those things that's lost in translation between a believer and a non-believer. My definition of "sin" isn't related to religion, its related to how it hurts humanity, so its like we're speaking two different languages I suppose.
The bolded sums up why you probably cannot perceive some of these things; it's like looking through dirty glasses for you in this case. Remember, we are talking about sin as the Bible sees it, so your definition of sin is going to be different if it's not biblical.
I don't see why it has to be me looking through dirty glasses. Can't it just be a "The Eye of the Beholder" kind of thing?
Meh, I'm just nitpicking, whatever.
I think you know what I'm saying. ;)
I don't know what you mean by 'trap', I just think you should be proud of the things you do best. I don't agree that you should give all the credit of being a math wiz to god though. It's your talent, not his. Furthermore, I think pride as a sin is stupid and just another way to keep people at bay. Same with envy, because damnit, I want an Xbox 360 too!
Oh, I'm a bit proud in the sense that I feel satisfied with my accomplishments. Of course, I do give credit to God because I believe He's the reason we're all here, so, you know...
-
But of course...
-
For me, it's a little bit complicated.
The Christian-- or, at least, the "Catholic"-- explanation for prohibiting homosexuality seems similar to its explanation for prohibiting birth control. And, like all good Catholic teaching, there seems to be a healthy dose of Aristotelian thinking involved.
Here's the shortened and probably oversimplified version: Sex has a three-sided "purpose" for people, which is intimacy, pleasure and procreation. Any kind of sex that doesn't fully realize the "purpose" of sex-- like sex not open to procreation (using birth control, sex with people of the same gender, casual sex, etc) is missing the point. Or, "sinning," as the word "sin" is defined most accurately as "missing the mark."
Honestly, it's one of the aspects of Christianity I have the most trouble with. I'm straight as an arrow, so it doesn't really matter much to me on that level, but it is a hard trying to explain that position to homosexual friends. Moreover, in Jesus' time, people didn't necessarily have to think about issues like global overpopulation. Most churches agree that good sex is absolutely essential to healthy, married relationships-- and yet so not having too many children, both for the sake of the family and the earth. I really just don't understand what the problem with two responsible, committed people having "protected" sex is.
But as far as homosexuality goes, I'm also thinking that in Jesus' time there weren't many homosexuals having sex for the sake of expressing mutual love. In those days, a good portion of people in Rome and so on were bisexuals who had families but spent a lot of their time in bathhouses and dens drinking, eating, and boning other dudes. The fact is, the Bible only talks about homosexuality as it appears as a matter of lust, and, as far as I know, never talks about the natural genetic "phenomenon" of homosexuality, or homosexuals who are looking for mutual, exclusive, loving relationships with other people who share that "phenomenon."
To be honest, as much as it goes against Church teachings, and is much as it may be against Scriptural teachings, I'd say that most good straight Christians fall way short of the Christian ideal when it comes to sex, whether it be through pursuing one-night stands, using birth control, "pulling out," viewing pornography, and so on. For that small percentage of Christian homosexuals who are looking to build a relationship with other homosexuals that isn't mired in pure lust, I'd say what matters is what God puts in their hearts-- including whether they're homosexual by nature or by the same kind of desires that led those ancient Romans to screw around in the bathhouses. While there will never be a scriptural defense, scripture doesn't seem reference people who are homosexuals by some reasons other than through their own will. It just doesn't.
(I patiently await someone who actually knows their scripture to tear me in half. ;D)
-
Good post.
-J
-
I just cant get on board with a god that says two people loving each other is a sin. There should be a reason for this "rule" against homosexuality, and I find it goes against every fiber of my being to think a god would discriminate in this way. I like my god to be more enlightened than me, not less. JMO of course.
-
I just cant get on board with a god that says two people loving each other is a sin. There should be a reason for this "rule" against homosexuality, and I find it goes against every fiber of my being to think a god would discriminate in this way. I like my god to be more enlightened than me, not less. JMO of course.
Very well put.
-
I think that the OT laws against homosexuality (and lepers, and the deformed/lame, and wearing the wrong kinds of cloth) had nothing whatsoever to do with morality and everything to do with preserving group identity. In every society known to man, the interaction between society and body is important, but even moreso in cultures like the ancient Israelites, who constantly had to deal with threatened boundaries (whether from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Edomites, or whomever). They legislated heavily to preserve body identity, as a part of legislating heavily to preserve their group identity. For example, think of how a modern-day U.S. Marine would be treated by his group if he had long hair and an ear ring. He would be considered impure and sinful within the stated boundaries of that group. This does not mean that ear rings or long hair are inherently sinful or immoral.
The attacking of artificial boundaries such as these, whether perpetrated by the Roman rulers of the time or the Jewish priestly caste/Temple cult, was a very strong part of Jesus's program of the Kingdom of God. Paul's clinging to some of these boundaries regardless of his insistence that he was no longer bound by the Law shows how strong such societal programming can be. The fact that Paul thought that homosexuality was immoral (along with women speaking in church, or women cutting their hair, or men growing their hair) is as irrelevant as the fact that Lot thought it was perfectly moral to pimp out his daughters to the residents of Sodom.
IMHO
-
I was watching CNN this morning and there was to be a story on a girl who was being forced to take a 'gay sensitivity training' course. But she doesn't want to.
Oh, and she goes to a christian college.
I'll look for the story, but it seems relevant to this discussion
-
I think that the OT laws against homosexuality (and lepers, and the deformed/lame, and wearing the wrong kinds of cloth) had nothing whatsoever to do with morality and everything to do with preserving group identity. In every society known to man, the interaction between society and body is important, but even moreso in cultures like the ancient Israelites, who constantly had to deal with threatened boundaries (whether from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Edomites, or whomever). They legislated heavily to preserve body identity, as a part of legislating heavily to preserve their group identity. For example, think of how a modern-day U.S. Marine would be treated by his group if he had long hair and an ear ring. He would be considered impure and sinful within the stated boundaries of that group. This does not mean that ear rings or long hair are inherently sinful or immoral.
The attacking of artificial boundaries such as these, whether perpetrated by the Roman rulers of the time or the Jewish priestly caste/Temple cult, was a very strong part of Jesus's program of the Kingdom of God. Paul's clinging to some of these boundaries regardless of his insistence that he was no longer bound by the Law shows how strong such societal programming can be. The fact that Paul thought that homosexuality was immoral (along with women speaking in church, or women cutting their hair, or men growing their hair) is as irrelevant as the fact that Lot thought it was perfectly moral to pimp out his daughters to the residents of Sodom.
IMHO
The problem is that you really can't convince most Christians of this reasoning (sound as it may be) because they read Paul's words as the Word of God.
-
I think that the OT laws against homosexuality (and lepers, and the deformed/lame, and wearing the wrong kinds of cloth) had nothing whatsoever to do with morality and everything to do with preserving group identity. In every society known to man, the interaction between society and body is important, but even moreso in cultures like the ancient Israelites, who constantly had to deal with threatened boundaries (whether from the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Assyrians, the Edomites, or whomever). They legislated heavily to preserve body identity, as a part of legislating heavily to preserve their group identity. For example, think of how a modern-day U.S. Marine would be treated by his group if he had long hair and an ear ring. He would be considered impure and sinful within the stated boundaries of that group. This does not mean that ear rings or long hair are inherently sinful or immoral.
The attacking of artificial boundaries such as these, whether perpetrated by the Roman rulers of the time or the Jewish priestly caste/Temple cult, was a very strong part of Jesus's program of the Kingdom of God. Paul's clinging to some of these boundaries regardless of his insistence that he was no longer bound by the Law shows how strong such societal programming can be. The fact that Paul thought that homosexuality was immoral (along with women speaking in church, or women cutting their hair, or men growing their hair) is as irrelevant as the fact that Lot thought it was perfectly moral to pimp out his daughters to the residents of Sodom.
IMHO
The problem is that you really can't convince most Christians of this reasoning (sound as it may be) because they read Paul's words as the Word of God.
That's because all that many of them know about the Bible or the world which produced it is the parts of the Bible they've actually read.
-
Yes I do. But people overcomplicate (Does that word even exist?) Jesus so much. His message was quite simple:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
It may be a little hard to follow, but at least it's simpler that all the bullshit that people try to relate him with: Patriotism, as a reason to do wars, as an alibi, the fact that he was married and had sons or not, the fact that he had brothers, the fact that Mary was a Virgin, etc. People focus so much on these shallow details that forget his most simple yet most important message he gave to the world.
-
Yes I do. But people overcomplicate (Does that word even exist?) Jesus so much. His message was quite simple:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
It may be a little hard to follow, but at least it's simpler that all the bullshit that people try to relate him with: Patriotism, as a reason to do wars, as an alibi, the fact that he was married and had sons or not, the fact that he had brothers, the fact that Mary was a Virgin, etc. People focus so much on these shallow details that forget his most simple yet most important message he gave to the world.
I'm learning this more and more. We have to remember that "the world and its desires are passing away" [1 John 2:17].
Something that came back to memory at work tonight, I thought I would share it in this thread:
The only other time I've ever really talked about homosexuality with someone was with a former employee of mine, who is a lesbian Christian. She had a girlfriend at the time. Apparently someone had told her of her sinful lifestyle, and she confided to me about it. I could tell that she was kind of hurt and distraught that someone she trusted would be so cold about something so personal. I just heard her out and let her vent. I told her that God wants her love and for her to just live for Him. I did show her the verses (because the other person didn't), and I said that that's what the Word says, and it's your choice, but I still love you as a person and friend. Her eyes watered a bit and she smiled big...it's amazing how just being there for someone can make a difference.
Man, we can sit here and talk about this all day in theory; seeing it in person is really something else. I helped that girl that day and I could see in her attitude after our talk that she felt better about life because I could feel God using me to show her that love conquers all. Whatever choices she makes, it's between her and God; I love that girl as a friend (we're all good friends outside of work, in case you're wondering), and that's important to know for homosexuals, because they are just as human as anyone else. I don't understand why some Christians think it dehumanizes them.
Anyway,
-
Yes I do. But people overcomplicate (Does that word even exist?) Jesus so much. His message was quite simple:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.
It may be a little hard to follow, but at least it's simpler that all the bullshit that people try to relate him with: Patriotism, as a reason to do wars, as an alibi, the fact that he was married and had sons or not, the fact that he had brothers, the fact that Mary was a Virgin, etc. People focus so much on these shallow details that forget his most simple yet most important message he gave to the world.
I'm learning this more and more. We have to remember that "the world and its desires are passing away" [1 John 2:17].
Something that came back to memory at work tonight, I thought I would share it in this thread:
The only other time I've ever really talked about homosexuality with someone was with a former employee of mine, who is a lesbian Christian. She had a girlfriend at the time. Apparently someone had told her of her sinful lifestyle, and she confided to me about it. I could tell that she was kind of hurt and distraught that someone she trusted would be so cold about something so personal. I just heard her out and let her vent. I told her that God wants her love and for her to just live for Him. I did show her the verses (because the other person didn't), and I said that that's what the Word says, and it's your choice, but I still love you as a person and friend. Her eyes watered a bit and she smiled big...it's amazing how just being there for someone can make a difference.
Man, we can sit here and talk about this all day in theory; seeing it in person is really something else. I helped that girl that day and I could see in her attitude after our talk that she felt better about life because I could feel God using me to show her that love conquers all. Whatever choices she makes, it's between her and God; I love that girl as a friend (we're all good friends outside of work, in case you're wondering), and that's important to know for homosexuals, because they are just as human as anyone else. I don't understand why some Christians think it dehumanizes them.
Anyway,
I don't quite understand how telling someone that their sexuality and lifestyle is unholy, sinful, and against the will of God is being there for someone.
Think about it from another perspective. Imagine a Muslim had a Christian friend, and he/she was so distressed that a friend of theirs would ignore the word of God and continue to live by their idolatrous and blasphemous religion. He/she tells their friend that they're OK with them being Christian, as long as they don't act on their beliefs, but explains to them that as long as they remain defiant to the one true religion God has set out for man, they will be condemned to hell.
I doubt you would call that tolerance, let alone "being there" for a friend.
-
I just explained what happened. I barely touched upon it, if I didn't make that clear. Like, for 5 seconds. The rest of the twenty minutes I let her vent and we talked it out without any kind of "discipline" or whatever.
-
I doubt you would call that tolerance, let alone "being there" for a friend.
This, although I'm sure he was a bit nicer than you made it seem.
-
I doubt you would call that tolerance, let alone "being there" for a friend.
Well to be fair, from a Christian's point of view it may seem to be the ultimate case of "being there" for a friend. If your friend was a chain smoker, you'd probably tell him at some point that you wish he'd try to quit, because you care about him. If you truly believed your friend was going to burn for eternity due to his lifestyle, you'd at least feel the need to tell him, though it may not do any good and it may ruin your friendship. Not that I agree with this in the least, just pointing out that there ARE situations in which you might give a friend a "harsh truth" for their own good and out of a desire to help them.
-J
-
^ yeah, that. James' intentions were certainly good in that instance. He wasn't doing it to be "holier than thou" he was simply concerned for his friend's well-being.
-
...I doubt you would call that tolerance, let alone "being there" for a friend.
I don't see how tolerance even enters into the equation in the scenario you posed. It is neither tolerant nor intolerant. But as far as the "being there for a friend" part, yes, I absolutely think your scenario fits. If their sincerely held belief was that my lifestyle was leading me to eternal destruction, them pointing that out to me is the best thing they can do, even if they are ultimately mistaken in their belief. Whether their belief is right or wrong, I would absolutely welcome that, and I think it would likely result in some great discussion.
-
I wouldn't call James' scenario intolerant, although I don't agree with him but that's mostly because of the differences between our beliefs. I don't believe in eternal damnation while he does, so we look through the mirror in different ways, that's all.
But its just one of those things that separates believers and non-believers. I don't think I need to be saved, but there are those that do. I have no interests in hearing the reasons why one needs to be saved, etc. I've heard it one too many times that I could die happy if I never heard it again, but I live around the bible belt so that's not gonna happen anytime soon :)
I would love if some kind of middle-ground could be met between the two groups, but things always seem to be so black and white. Back then and now. It irritates me to no end. Oh well, not much can be done about it.
-
I think one of the issues is that there is a difference between proselytizing and preaching. Proselytizing is fine, preaching is not. And telling people they will go to hell if they act on something that God gave them, is preaching.
rumborak
-
^ yeah, that. James' intentions were certainly good in that instance. He wasn't doing it to be "holier than thou" he was simply concerned for his friend's well-being.
The thing that sickens me is that, at one point in time, I WAS like that. For the first few months when I started walking with God, I was so "religion-high" that I pushed all my friends away. Luckily, they understood what happened and I have grown out of that.
-
The point of my post wasn't to imply that Jamesman's intentions weren't good or that he was trying to be hurtful or intolerant; rather, just that if the situation were reversed I'd highly doubt Jamesman would perceive it the same way. As Jamesman pointed out in his most recent post, when people feel that they're being preached to they don't respond well.
-
Thankfully she didn't feel that way and she, from how James described it, responded pretty well. And I don't think your Muslim and Christian friend analogy applies in this case since she was also Christian, according to James. Seamed to me that he was explaining to her that, yeah, God doesn't approve of homosexuality (let's ignore that debate for the moment) but He still loves her regardless.
-
The point of my post wasn't to imply that Jamesman's intentions weren't good or that he was trying to be hurtful or intolerant; rather, just that if the situation were reversed I'd highly doubt Jamesman would perceive it the same way.
I know what you're saying; it's just that she and I are both Christians who try to walk with God. That makes your analogy not work in this case.
-
So would it be the equivalent of parents saying, "We still love you, but we're very disappointed in you"?
-
It's like saying, "We love you, but we don't agree with your choices." When parents kick out their 18 year old kids due to not following the house rules, it's not because they don't love them, but because they don't want to encourage behavior contrary to their expectations.
-
The point of my post wasn't to imply that Jamesman's intentions weren't good or that he was trying to be hurtful or intolerant; rather, just that if the situation were reversed I'd highly doubt Jamesman would perceive it the same way.
I know what you're saying; it's just that she and I are both Christians who try to walk with God. That makes your analogy not work in this case.
A Christian and a Muslim aren't both trying to walk with God?
Regardless, the analogy was just an example of one person having religious beliefs that the other did not adhere to. It could have been an argument (over a different issue, obviously) between a Jehovah's Witness and a Mormon, or a Catholic and a Protestant, or a Shia'a or a Sunni. The point was that a "We still love you, but your different choices are not tolerable by my divinity as according to my religion/sect/whatever" comes across a lot differently depending on whether you're the receiver or the distributor, regardless of what intent you may have.
-
Jesus of Nazareth has been pretty much confirmed by most of history in writing, I think... still, I ain't one to trust chinese whispers. Whether JoN existed or not is beyond me and does not concern me. The bigger problem would be whether or not Jesus Christ, son of God existed (and does exist). Personally, I do not believe that, had JoN existed, he was anything special - or at least anything divine.
I'm not a spiritual guy. I am a non-believer. I have no connection to anything supernatural nor do I wish for one. In any case, I can say I do not believe anyone, Jesus, Muhammad, anyone - has been divinely inspired. If JoN did exist, he'd have to be delusional and think he's JC, or be a conniving troll and pretend to be JC. Or he could have been a pretty cool guy that some people took too literally :P
No, I didn't read the thread. :angel:
-
The point of my post wasn't to imply that Jamesman's intentions weren't good or that he was trying to be hurtful or intolerant; rather, just that if the situation were reversed I'd highly doubt Jamesman would perceive it the same way.
I know what you're saying; it's just that she and I are both Christians who try to walk with God. That makes your analogy not work in this case.
A Christian and a Muslim aren't both trying to walk with God?
Regardless, the analogy was just an example of one person having religious beliefs that the other did not adhere to. It could have been an argument (over a different issue, obviously) between a Jehovah's Witness and a Mormon, or a Catholic and a Protestant, or a Shia'a or a Sunni. The point was that a "We still love you, but your different choices are not tolerable by my divinity as according to my religion/sect/whatever" comes across a lot differently depending on whether you're the receiver or the distributor, regardless of what intent you may have.
I'm getting the impression that you're just picking and choosing different things to read. Your analogy is wrong because Jamesman's situation was between two people who adhere themselves to the same denomination of Christianity, yours are all comparisons between different beliefs. It's Jamesman saying "the Bible, which we both share the same beliefs in, says this about your sin in question." It's not according to his "divinity" either, we have no divinity as Christians, it's according to text in the Bible that both he and she have adapted their lives to. I understand the bigotry between most Christians and the issue of homosexuality, but so far Jamesman has displayed none.
-
The point of my post wasn't to imply that Jamesman's intentions weren't good or that he was trying to be hurtful or intolerant; rather, just that if the situation were reversed I'd highly doubt Jamesman would perceive it the same way.
I know what you're saying; it's just that she and I are both Christians who try to walk with God. That makes your analogy not work in this case.
A Christian and a Muslim aren't both trying to walk with God?
Regardless, the analogy was just an example of one person having religious beliefs that the other did not adhere to. It could have been an argument (over a different issue, obviously) between a Jehovah's Witness and a Mormon, or a Catholic and a Protestant, or a Shia'a or a Sunni. The point was that a "We still love you, but your different choices are not tolerable by my divinity as according to my religion/sect/whatever" comes across a lot differently depending on whether you're the receiver or the distributor, regardless of what intent you may have.
I'm getting the impression that you're just picking and choosing different things to read. Your analogy is wrong because Jamesman's situation was between two people who adhere themselves to the same denomination of Christianity, yours are all comparisons between different beliefs. It's Jamesman saying "the Bible, which we both share the same beliefs in, says this about your sin in question." It's not according to his "divinity" either, we have no divinity as Christians, it's according to text in the Bible that both he and she have adapted their lives to. I understand the bigotry between most Christians and the issue of homosexuality, but so far Jamesman has displayed none.
Well, the reason there are different sects of Christianity is because differing interpretations of more or less the same work became so fundamentally entrenched that their views became irreconcilable. Jamesman (whom iirc is Protestant), says that homosexual acts are sinful in the eyes of God, and unsupportable from Scripture. But many churches here in Canada (not so much in the States) openly tolerate homosexuals and gay marriage, including gay clergymen and women. My analogy was simply meant to represent a similar disparity between two people's religious beliefs, similar to Jamesman's story.
By divinity I simply meant god or gods.
-
Yes I do. He was a simple Jewish guy who knew how people should act to keep this a peaceful world. He was a rebel, a real man who wasn't afraid. He died for what he believed in, it was his own people that killed him. A self-proclaimed Prophet that made sense of the world, killed instead of a murderer.
He would be cool to meet
-
I do not doubt that Jesus, the man, existed given his notation in history, what I might believe is his ability to speak to God (given every now and then Christians, Muslims, and Jews have the undoubted feeling that God spoke to them in some way, shape or form, be it metaphysical, spiritual, psychological or subconsciously) but what I question is his relationship with a supreme being.
I'll admit, I am more spiritually guided and have a lot of issues with any organized religion, especially Christianity. I dislike how, over the course of history, the Christian faith has forced the baptisms of the unwilling, specifically in ancient Roman times leading up to and including the Byzantine Era.
I believe it is possible he saw himself a martyr. I believe he had good intentions for those who wanted redemption, solace, and serenity in a heavenly abode beyond the realm of the material world. However, I do not believe he was the son of God. My apologies if any who actually read my ramblings are offended, but given the dictations of open thread posting, as well as the tongue-in-cheek nature of this thread specifically, I would say you walked right into this.
I hope I answered your question, kirbywelch92, and if not...damn.
-
^I agree with you. He probably was just a normal simple man who had enough, and wanted to change things. After his death, somehow somewhere someone probably manipulated him to be the son of god. His teachings are what people should be acting upon, yet do we see them acting.
-
His teachings are what people should be acting upon, yet do we see them acting.
I apologize for whatever you've seen Christians do contrary to His words. I feel bad every time a see that someone has beef with Christianity because of how many have abused its position to help themselves gain something. I wish I would "surrender all" to Him. I think I try, but it's never about trying, because we are never good enough to meet the standard. That's why I'm glad that Jesus said to trust Him and not have to slave over being the best or sticking to every rule. I fail Him daily (as seen even by some of the dirty jokes I sometimes make on the site) and I really want to do good; it's just that sometimes my "flesh" gets the best of me. Paul sums up what probably a good amount of Christians feel about this:
"So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I dont really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I dont do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I cant. I want to do what is good, but I dont. I dont want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. But if I do what I dont want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
I have discovered this principle of lifethat when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love Gods law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey Gods law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin." - Romans 7:14-25
-
I apologize for whatever you've seen Christians do contrary to His words. I feel bad every time a see that someone has beef with Christianity because of how many have abused its position to help themselves gain something. I wish I would "surrender all" to Him. I think I try, but it's never about trying, because we are never good enough to meet the standard. That's why I'm glad that Jesus said to trust Him and not have to slave over being the best or sticking to every rule. I fail Him daily (as seen even by some of the dirty jokes I sometimes make on the site) and I really want to do good; it's just that sometimes my "flesh" gets the best of me. Paul sums up what probably a good amount of Christians feel about this:
Sounds like a variation on "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission". I hope this kind of thing doesn't bother you to the point of losing sleep or causing paranoia. All these rules are designed to make you fail. So I say live your life! Believe in Jesus fine but just be a good person. This whole post of yours is worrisome, especially the Romans quote. There is nothing wrong with being human, nothing. This whole concept is just wrong, if God thinks there is something wrong with us... Maybe he shouldn't have this particular blue print. Basically be kind to be kind it is the right thing to do. After all one should not need to be enticed with a reward in order for them to be kind.
"So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. I dont really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I dont do it. Instead, I do what I hate. But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. I want to do what is right, but I cant. I want to do what is good, but I dont. I dont want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. But if I do what I dont want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
I have discovered this principle of lifethat when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. I love Gods law with all my heart. But there is another power within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey Gods law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin." - Romans 7:14-25
Ugh..
-
I apologize for whatever you've seen Christians do contrary to His words. I feel bad every time a see that someone has beef with Christianity because of how many have abused its position to help themselves gain something. I wish I would "surrender all" to Him. I think I try, but it's never about trying, because we are never good enough to meet the standard. That's why I'm glad that Jesus said to trust Him and not have to slave over being the best or sticking to every rule. I fail Him daily (as seen even by some of the dirty jokes I sometimes make on the site) and I really want to do good; it's just that sometimes my "flesh" gets the best of me. Paul sums up what probably a good amount of Christians feel about this:
Sounds like a variation on "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission". I hope this kind of thing doesn't bother you to the point of losing sleep or causing paranoia. All these rules are designed to make you fail. So I say live your life! Believe in Jesus fine but just be a good person. This whole post of yours is worrisome, especially the Romans quote. There is nothing wrong with being human, nothing. This whole concept is just wrong, if God thinks there is something wrong with us... Maybe he shouldn't have this particular blue print. Basically be kind to be kind it is the right thing to do. After all one should not need to be enticed with a reward in order for them to be kind.
I take it you don't know much about Christianity, then?
-
I apologize for whatever you've seen Christians do contrary to His words. I feel bad every time a see that someone has beef with Christianity because of how many have abused its position to help themselves gain something. I wish I would "surrender all" to Him. I think I try, but it's never about trying, because we are never good enough to meet the standard. That's why I'm glad that Jesus said to trust Him and not have to slave over being the best or sticking to every rule. I fail Him daily (as seen even by some of the dirty jokes I sometimes make on the site) and I really want to do good; it's just that sometimes my "flesh" gets the best of me. Paul sums up what probably a good amount of Christians feel about this:
Sounds like a variation on "It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission". I hope this kind of thing doesn't bother you to the point of losing sleep or causing paranoia. All these rules are designed to make you fail. So I say live your life! Believe in Jesus fine but just be a good person. This whole post of yours is worrisome, especially the Romans quote. There is nothing wrong with being human, nothing. This whole concept is just wrong, if God thinks there is something wrong with us... Maybe he shouldn't have this particular blue print. Basically be kind to be kind it is the right thing to do. After all one should not need to be enticed with a reward in order for them to be kind.
I take it you don't know much about Christianity, then?
Acutally I know quite a bit about Christianity, I was attempting to be as unconfrontational as possible. I am unsure what you mean though. What part of what i said gave you the thought that I didn't know much about Christianity?
-
I'll just respond to your other post.
These rules are designed to point to Jesus. Jesus said "I didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Jesus Christ was the end of the path, as far as the law goes. To be honest, you're half-right in that we fail them by nature, but it's not *really* supposed to be about the law; it's supposed to be about "loveing the Lord with all you have and your neighbor as yourself".
I very much live my life, I have my ups and downs like anyone else and I am definitely living it! I think (or would hope) that other Christians are doing the same.
There IS nothing wrong with being human. There is something wrong with being sinful and not repentant (speaking about myself here).
I am not enticed with a reward. I sobered from many kinds of random thinking when I realized the reality of death (which we can all agree on, right?) and how messed up our human nature was. I was enticed by redemption, the love of Jesus Christ. I mean, yeah, Heaven and blessings here on Earth are fine, but they are nil if you take that love out of the picture.
-
Jesus lived but is not who he says, or everyone who is of the Christian faith, says he is. He was a dude who got killed for not being able to shut up.
You should be banned from posting.
Silence those who disagree!
-
Disclaimer; I haven't read all 6 pages of this thread, just responding to the original question.
I have to agree with numbers. I'm sure someone existed that did well and helped people and thus gathered a following. I do not think he was some holy figure or the son of god though (since I don't believe in a god).
-
I'll just respond to your other post.
These rules are designed to point to Jesus.
Huh I don't know how I spaced on the existance of this post for 2 weeks.
Point to Jesus? They are contrived to repress and make you give up what could be a prosperous life. Unyielding rules that are backed by an omnipotent being that will put you into an agonizing torture for being born. There is no fail by nature there is a Sin that is imposed upon us that is no fault of our own and then we are commanded to correct it by giving up our life.
Jesus said "I didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it." Jesus Christ was the end of the path, as far as the law goes. To be honest, you're half-right in that we fail them by nature, but it's not *really* supposed to be about the law; it's supposed to be about "loveing the Lord with all you have and your neighbor as yourself".
Yep, he came to fulfill the old laws... That is all the bad shit of the Old Testament; you no the god that supposedly destroyed humanity and was the inspiration and in many cases the cause of most of the atrocities in the Bible. Jesus also talked about breaking up families, pitting them against each other. What was that famous quote about Jesus not bringing peace but bringing a sword? I think it was the book of Mathew.
Sure you can pick and choose what verses of the Bible you want to obey but are you choosing the right ones? Maybe; maybe not. In the end all you can do is place your own morality on it as a shield, to weed out all the moral contradictions.
I very much live my life, I have my ups and downs like anyone else and I am definitely living it! I think (or would hope) that other Christians are doing the same.
I sincerely hope so too.
I am not enticed with a reward. I sobered from many kinds of random thinking when I realized the reality of death (which we can all agree on, right?) and how messed up our human nature was.
I don't think we can agree on death, because yours is a very different interpretation of death than mine.
I was enticed by redemption, the love of Jesus Christ. I mean, yeah, Heaven and blessings here on Earth are fine, but they are nil if you take that love out of the picture.
Really? So if there was no heaven, afterlife or blessings; you would still be enticed by Jesus? I find that very hard to believe. Sure you will say otherwise, because you believe it's all true and to admit it would be admitting that you are doing it for a reward. If there was no afterlife your infatuation with Jesus would be completely illogical and completely useless. We are not talking about loving a person and not receiving a reward, a person is at least corporeal it would be like loving a ghost.
-
As a main element in my religion; I believe in and love Jesus as a prophet, just like Moses and Mohamed, I believe they all called for the worship of a one true God who's "Not a son, not a father and never had an equal or a partner".
Now that's who I am, but for a year or so I've been getting more and more drafted towards an agnostic mind set and it doesn't seem like merely phase for me, so the answer is slowly turning into I don't know.
-
Muslims do believe Jesus Christ but not the way Christians imagine.
-
Muslims do believe Jesus Christ but not the way Christians imagine.
Right on, I even believe it is written in the Quran discussing Jesus Christ and his ways of Christianity.
-
Muslims do believe Jesus Christ but not the way Christians imagine.
Right on, I even believe it is written in the Quran discussing Jesus Christ and his ways of Christianity.
Yes it's all written. According to Quran; Jesus Christ is the one of biggest prophet with Muhammed and Moses but again some christians put Jesus Christ in a degree of God. (The Son of God) It's a sin for muslims. God is only one and there are anything in the universe can equal God's presence.
-
Muslims do believe Jesus Christ but not the way Christians imagine.
Right on, I even believe it is written in the Quran discussing Jesus Christ and his ways of Christianity.
Yes it's all written. According to Quran; Jesus Christ is the one of biggest prophet with Muhammed and Moses but again some christians put Jesus Christ in a degree of God. (The Son of God) It's a sin for muslims. God is only one and there are anything in the universe can equal God's presence.
I agree entirely. I think it was a little too pretentious for Christians to equate a material man with that of a godly image. I find Islam to be a little more respectful in some ways because they do not create imagery of the Prophet Muhammad: which dictates, to me IMHO, a devotion to the message rather than to the person.
-
Right. Muhammed can be a prophet of Islam but he is human like us. Nothing special about that. The special thing is that God gave him a mission like God did for Jesus Christ and Moses. As a muslim there is a rule that we have to respect all the prophets. So, of course Muhammed is in a different place in our hearts and minds.
-
Right. Muhammed can be a prophet of Islam but he is human like us. Nothing special about that. The special thing is that God gave him a mission like God did for Jesus Christ and Moses. As a muslim there is a rule that we have to respect all the prophets. So, of course Muhammed is in a different place in our hearts and minds.
Indeed. I'm glad I can discuss this on a forum that understands the intricacies of Islam and Muslim attributes. I actually get frustrated when people who don't know or understand muslim beliefs and make fun of it. I took an elective class in college on Islam, and it was one of the best classes I took, hands down.
-
Right. Muhammed can be a prophet of Islam but he is human like us. Nothing special about that. The special thing is that God gave him a mission like God did for Jesus Christ and Moses. As a muslim there is a rule that we have to respect all the prophets. So, of course Muhammed is in a different place in our hearts and minds.
Indeed. I'm glad I can discuss this on a forum that understands the intricacies of Islam and Muslim attributes. I actually get frustrated when people who don't know or understand muslim beliefs and make fun of it. I took an elective class in college on Islam, and it was one of the best classes I took, hands down.
I don't blame no one for this. Considering many terrorists are muslim it's such a shame. But there is a point that everybody doesn't see. There are also christian or jewish terrorist. I think it's not about religion or something like that. It's about their personality. They just use people's religion for their fatal mission.
-
Right. Muhammed can be a prophet of Islam but he is human like us. Nothing special about that. The special thing is that God gave him a mission like God did for Jesus Christ and Moses. As a muslim there is a rule that we have to respect all the prophets. So, of course Muhammed is in a different place in our hearts and minds.
Indeed. I'm glad I can discuss this on a forum that understands the intricacies of Islam and Muslim attributes. I actually get frustrated when people who don't know or understand muslim beliefs and make fun of it. I took an elective class in college on Islam, and it was one of the best classes I took, hands down.
I don't blame no one for this. Considering many terrorists are muslim it's such a shame. But there is a point that everybody doesn't see. There are also christian or jewish terrorist. I think it's not about religion or something like that. It's about their personality. They just use people's religion for their fatal mission.
I did not know that about Christians or Jews. I always assumed because the Quran was the only religious text that focused on such matters that terrorists were drawn to it more than say the Bible or Torah. Is there an article or book that discusses this that you know of? If so, I'd love to read it.
Actually, wouldn't the Byzantine/Medieval era of Christianity be considered a global terrorist plot to convert everyone to Christian in post-Constantine transition?
-
Right. Muhammed can be a prophet of Islam but he is human like us. Nothing special about that. The special thing is that God gave him a mission like God did for Jesus Christ and Moses. As a muslim there is a rule that we have to respect all the prophets. So, of course Muhammed is in a different place in our hearts and minds.
Indeed. I'm glad I can discuss this on a forum that understands the intricacies of Islam and Muslim attributes. I actually get frustrated when people who don't know or understand muslim beliefs and make fun of it. I took an elective class in college on Islam, and it was one of the best classes I took, hands down.
I don't blame no one for this. Considering many terrorists are muslim it's such a shame. But there is a point that everybody doesn't see. There are also christian or jewish terrorist. I think it's not about religion or something like that. It's about their personality. They just use people's religion for their fatal mission.
I did not know that about Christians or Jews. I always assumed because the Quran was the only religious text that focused on such matters that terrorists were drawn to it more than say the Bible or Torah. Is there an article or book that discusses this that you know of? If so, I'd love to read it.
Actually, wouldn't the Byzantine/Medieval era of Christianity be considered a global terrorist plot to convert everyone to Christian in post-Constantine transition?
Actually I don't know so much article about that. The books or articles I read are just Turkish but maybe you can search on the net and can find something useful.
Byzantine did it but what about Pers and Ottoman porte. What they did is not terrorizm. Of course it's open to debate but considering the time, the facilities I think this is the way they should have. The old history is full of this events.
-
This is true. Thanks for opening my eyes on the different events that occurred in the Christian faith. It's good to know the truth is still alive and well despite what others (the ones in charge) want us to know. :xbones
By the way, I couldn't help but notice your references to Turkey. Are you from there? If so, what's it like this time of year?
-
Yeap, I'm Turkish and I live in Istanbul. This time is summer for Turkey and so hot. Politically we are so complex right now. :P
-
Groovy :tup I've always wanted to visit but never had the cash.
but before this becomes a thread on Turkey, I'll stop myself and let others join in on the Jesus discussion lol
-
Groovy :tup I've always wanted to visit but never had the cash.
but before this becomes a thread on Turkey, I'll stop myself and let others join in on the Jesus discussion lol
:laugh:
You always welcome to Turkey, you can be my visitor. :)
-
I wish I could contribute, but I sadly know very little about Islam. Your conversation has been quite interesting though, and I've actually learned a few things.
-
Groovy :tup I've always wanted to visit but never had the cash.
but before this becomes a thread on Turkey, I'll stop myself and let others join in on the Jesus discussion lol
:laugh:
You always welcome to Turkey, you can be my visitor. :)
Thank you kind sir, likewise if you ever come to America :biggrin:
-
Thank you kind sir, likewise if you ever come to America :biggrin:
I've been two times but the next time I'll let you know. ;D
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
It ends with Muhammed. According to Quran, Bible (Original One) and Torah.
-
This is true. I actually lookied up Surah 21: The Prophets to see if it there were any others, but I think i misinterpreted it.
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
It ends with Muhammed. According to Quran, Bible (Original One) and Torah.
How could the Bible and Torah possibly say that it ends with Muhammed? Especially when it was written almost 600 years after the new testament.
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
It ends with Muhammed. According to Quran, Bible (Original One) and Torah.
How could the Bible and Torah possibly say that it ends with Muhammed? Especially when it was written almost 600 years after the new testament.
The Bible says; a prophet named Muhammed will come and the religion named Islam is the last religion that every people has to believe. Of couse it's written in original Bible and now it's hard to find one. Likewise, Torah says the same. But how? It's a big mystery like everything happened many years ago. But in the Quran; Jesus Christ says his believers, Muhammed will come and bring the peace to the world.
Also the other mysterical thing is in the Quran that Jesus Christ wil come to the world again when the doom is about to happen and save the believers from Deccal. (Deccal will be killed by Jesus Christ) Jesus Christ is named Messiah.
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
It ends with Muhammed. According to Quran, Bible (Original One) and Torah.
How could the Bible and Torah possibly say that it ends with Muhammed? Especially when it was written almost 600 years after the new testament.
The Bible says; a prophet named Muhammed will come and the religion named Islam is the last religion that every people has to believe. Of couse it's written in original Bible and now it's hard to find one. Likewise, Torah says the same. But how? It's a big mystery like everything happened many years ago. But in the Quran; Jesus Christ says his believers, Muhammed will come and bring the peace to the world.
Also the other mysterical thing is in the Quran that Jesus Christ wil come to the world again when the doom is about to happen and save the believers from Deccal. (Deccal will be killed by Jesus Christ) Jesus Christ is named Messiah.
Are you talking about a King James Bible Version? If so, do you know the passages?
-
So has there been more prophets or did it end with Muhammed?
It ends with Muhammed. According to Quran, Bible (Original One) and Torah.
How could the Bible and Torah possibly say that it ends with Muhammed? Especially when it was written almost 600 years after the new testament.
The Bible says; a prophet named Muhammed will come and the religion named Islam is the last religion that every people has to believe. Of couse it's written in original Bible and now it's hard to find one. Likewise, Torah says the same. But how? It's a big mystery like everything happened many years ago. But in the Quran; Jesus Christ says his believers, Muhammed will come and bring the peace to the world.
Also the other mysterical thing is in the Quran that Jesus Christ wil come to the world again when the doom is about to happen and save the believers from Deccal. (Deccal will be killed by Jesus Christ) Jesus Christ is named Messiah.
Are you talking about a King James Bible Version? If so, do you know the passages?
I'm talking about the copy of firstly written in the time when Jesus Christ was alive. It keeps in the museum called Topkapı Sarayı with the Quran which is hand-writing. They are protecting so well. I do not believe any other bible because they changed so much and out of reality.
-
Hey Flawless life, not to critique your beliefs, but if you don't believe jesus is the son of god or the messiah, you shouldn't call him jesus christ, jesus is a bit more appropriate for that.
-
Hey Flawless life, not to critique your beliefs, but if you don't believe jesus is the son of god or the messiah, you shouldn't call him jesus christ, jesus is a bit more appropriate for that.
I write like that because I respect the other who named like that. And in the Quran his name is Messiah.
-
Something seems off about that, but whatever works.
-
I'm talking about the copy of firstly written in the time when Jesus Christ was alive. It keeps in the museum called Topkapı Sarayı with the Quran which is hand-writing. They are protecting so well. I do not believe any other bible because they changed so much and out of reality.
No offense, but I can not think of a single reason why such a pivotal document should be guarded and protected, given its propensity of clearly establishing Islam as the superior religion.
Well, other than the obvious reason that the protectors most likely realize it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. Meaning, they know it isn't authentic.
rumborak
-
Wait, I've known plenty of muslims and have studied Islam. But I have NEVER heard the ....theory.....that the torah declares muhammad as the last prophet or that jesus declared the same thing, but only a few muslims know this because they have the ORIGINAL hand written bible and quran in a secret museum somewhere that is so well gaurded that no one could possibly examine it.
Really?
-
Two times some people (who were they and what was their mission that we still don't know) tried to destroy and steal the Bible and Quran. So they are protected and also they have historcial value.
I am not so sure but of course some professors and historians could check the Bible and established some articles about that.
-
And do you have............proof of this?
-
And do you have............proof of this?
Proof for what? You have google and you can search for some articles and religion writings.(Most likely there is nothing you can find so trustworthy) Or the best way is coming to Turkey.
-
And do you have............proof of this?
Proof for what? You have google and you can search for some articles and religion writings.(Most likely there is nothing you can find so trustworthy) Or the best way is coming to Turkey.
You can't really come into a board filled with devout christians and devout atheists, and some agnsotics like me, and claim that you have one true bible and one true quran in Turkey, yet offer no evidence in the slightest bit other than "come to turkey". It would be like me saying that in Israel, they have a hand written note by Muhhamad saying that it was all just a joke, lol. You know?
-
I googled it, and the page stated that the Topkapi manuscript was written in late 700's/early 800's, since it's written in Kufic script.
Sounds reasonable.
rumborak
-
Considering I am not here to convince anybody, I just write what I knew. But the original Bible and hand-writing keeps in museum but how can I proove that, taking photos of them? lol. If you can search on the net you'll see. I don't know but hopefully some copy of original Bible keeps in England and Vatican in a museum.
-
You said only the Topkapi manusscript has it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Bible-savvy people in this forum can assure you that in the general copies of the Bible there is no mention of Muhammed. And the Topkapi Bible was written after Muhammed.
rumborak
-
You said only the Topkapi manusscript has it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Bible-savvy people in this forum can assure you that in the general copies of the Bible there is no mention of Muhammed. And the Topkapi Bible was written after Muhammed.
rumborak
True, but flawlesslife did mention it was in a rough draft version before the King James Bible was finalized. They prolly edited it out to forego the correlation between Chrisitanity and Islam.
I'm talking about the copy of firstly written in the time when Jesus Christ was alive. It keeps in the museum called Topkapı Sarayı with the Quran which is hand-writing. They are protecting so well. I do not believe any other bible because they changed so much and out of reality.
-
You said only the Topkapi manusscript has it. I'm pretty sure a lot of Bible-savvy people in this forum can assure you that in the general copies of the Bible there is no mention of Muhammed. And the Topkapi Bible was written after Muhammed.
rumborak
Yeah I knew that. But there are many copy of Bible. Which one is true? Matta, Markus, Luca, Yuhanna? Some historians confirmed it the Bible mentions Muhammed. I've read it in the article when I was at university. (Turkish article) According to Quran, there is one Bible.
-
As mentioned in other threads, the original bible is not known to modern man. The oldest copies we have where written around 200 CE, oh and the Bible does not mention Islam nor Muhammed at all. If it does than I am all ears... or eyes rather.
Edit: To add to this, if it was mentioned in the Bible don't you think that other Bible historians would also have mentioned this.
-
And a blind and deaf man appears.
You are talking like you've read the original bible. (I don't read it either but I've read some Turkish articles about it and it says; the Bible and Messiah mentioned.)
Ha, if you say all these because you've read a Bible that you bought from a random Church, it's Ok.
-
flawlesslife, we have manuscripts that are older than the Topkapi manusscript by hundreds of years. That is a fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, post a link to some articles that say so. This is a discussion forum. If you have something to discuss, have at it. But you cannot just say "I have proof and you are wrong if you don't believe me." Post a source for your evidence. If you can't do that, you are not welcome to post at all because you are only being argumentative. Stop it immediately.
-
flawlesslife, we have manuscripts that are older than the Topkapi manusscript by hundreds of years. That is a fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, post a link to some articles that say so. This is a discussion forum. If you have something to discuss, have at it. But you cannot just say "I have proof and you are wrong if you don't believe me." Post a source for your evidence. If you can't do that, you are not welcome to post at all because you are only being argumentative. Stop it immediately.
Bosk, beat me to it.
-
flawlesslife, we have manuscripts that are older than the Topkapi manusscript by hundreds of years. That is a fact. If you have evidence to the contrary, post a link to some articles that say so. This is a discussion forum. If you have something to discuss, have at it. But you cannot just say "I have proof and you are wrong if you don't believe me." Post a source for your evidence. If you can't do that, you are not welcome to post at all because you are only being argumentative. Stop it immediately.
:huh: I said it, I'm not here to convince anyone here. Just write what I knew. If I read something from the net I'll gladly post a link but I read articles at university. I do not say to anyone you are wrong even my documents are so limited about it. Only thing that I can say, the one of original Bible keeps at Istanbul in a museum and I saw it with my eyes and also there is many articles about the religion history you can read just by coming to Topkapı Sarayı and I believe many articles can be found on the net but which one is so trusthworthy?
And sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
:huh: I said it, I'm not here to convince anyone here. Just write what I knew.
I think you misunderstood the "discussion" part of a discussion forum. Discussions are more than just dropping in and proclaiming one's opinions in it with no rational backup. The Bible version you speak of was written long after Muhammed lived. There are many version of the Bible older than the Topkapi one, and none of them mention Muhammed. It's of course your choice to now believe the one that pleases your specific interpretation the best; but there's nothing rational about that decision, and whoever wrote down the Topkapi version thus achieved his aim.
rumborak
-
:huh: I said it, I'm not here to convince anyone here. Just write what I knew.
I think you misunderstood the "discussion" part of a discussion forum. Discussions are more than just dropping in and proclaiming one's opinions in it with no rational backup.
rumborak
Don't worry I know what discussion means. We are talking about what could happened many years ago but what we have? Nothing in hand. Just a thought in people's minds. I said, I've read some articles about this subject and I am sure if you can google deep on the net something can be found. How can I bring the article that I've read 2-3 years ago, if it would be book then I can translate and give the information. But it's just a paper. These articles can be read in Topkapı Museum. I didn't search but maybe some articles can be found on the net.
-
We have many things in hand. The Topkapi Bible is written after Muhammed, that is a fact. And, none of the earlier Bibles mention Muhammed.
Isn't it "curiously" convenient that, after Muhammed appeared on the world stage, there appears a Bible that mentions him explicitly?
Bottom line is, like many people before you, and many after you, you choose the explanation most fitting to your preexisting belief set, essentially singling out the weakest piece of evidence and proclaiming it to be the right one.
rumborak
-
We have many things in hand. The Topkapi Bible is written after Muhammed, that is a fact. None of the earlier Bibles mention Muhammed.
Isn't it "curiously" convenient that, after Muhammed appeared on the world stage, there appears a Bible that mentions him explicitly?
rumborak
What we learned is the original Bible mentions Muhammed and Christ mentinoned. If there are before and after Bibles, so hard to get the truth about that. Which one is true? I don't say, mine is true but what I say, it's so hard to say the truth, I guess. Many believes Bibles doesn't mention but some of believes Bible does.
-
I advise you to read up on what exists of the Bible, and how far the fragments reach back in time. You are basing your whole opinion here on hearsay, none of which is even remotely accurate. And any counter-argument you seem to respond to with "well, who knows the truth really?".
rumborak
-
Thanks I've read Bible, Quran and Torah. We are living our truth I guess. If we have freedom so we can say our truth. Of course it's all open to debate.
And, nothing I said is hearsay. Just because you are against my though then it is called hearsay? I don't think so. I've read. I don't say I've read the trurh one, it has its doubts. Then some historian said something on hearsay. Why don't we go the library and check this out?
-
I'm not talking about reading the Bible. I'm talking about reading about what we know about the Bible. Two very different things. The Bible as you know it was written, edited and accumulated by people with very specific motivations, and it is important to know those when trying to stake one's life on it.
We talked about this very recently in this forum: https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15191.0
rumborak
-
I see. I'll check this thread. Thanks.
-
I'll say it: it's not hearsay, it's bullshit. The Bible doesn't mention Muhammad. If there is a Biblical manuscript in Turkey that mentions Muhammad, it is a forgery.
-
Like all the Bible. Yeap.
I think respect is not about age like ignorance.
Discussion ends here for me.
-
Like all the Bible. Yeap.
I think respect is not about age like ignorance.
Discussion ends here for me.
Don't dare disrespect egypt dude.
-
Like all the Bible. Yeap.
I think respect is not about age like ignorance.
Discussion ends here for me.
Ah, the Internet classic : drop in, utter outrageous and baseless theory, then feign being offended when meeting counter-arguments, in order to evade having to actually provide solid arguments, and thus provide an exit strategy.
rumborak
-
Discussion ends here for me.
When did it start?
-
Discussion ends here for me.
When did it start?
When jesus said "Don't mind me".
-
Missed that one.
-
Ah, the Internet classic : drop in.
Oh I see another internet classic here; bigotry! Well played, Hef.
-
Ah, the Internet classic : drop in.
Oh I see another internet classic here; bigotry! Well played, Hef.
Dude, I gotta say, you're not going to last long here with the way you operate. I think we need a good muslim here, even from Turkey, one of the few countries that still doesn't completely hate my country. So please, read a bunch of threads, see the way things work around here, and try to learn. I'd hate to lose you.
-
Don't worry for me Adami. I'm OK. If the bigotry is the way I'm out of it.
-
Don't worry for me Adami. I'm OK. If the bigotry is the way I'm out of it.
Hef is a lot of things, mostly good, but not a bigot. Big? sure. Ot? Maybe, but Bigot? Nope.
-
SeRoX, you already wore out your welcome once before. It is time to say goodbye again.
-
SeRoX, you already wore out your welcome once before. It is time to say goodbye again.
Wait, what?
-
Considering he refused to elaborate on what was up back when he first started warning SeRoX with bans, I doubt he'll say much now if it's him again.
-
I don't really remember Serox, just the name.
-
He's logged in at the James LaBrie forums right now if you want to say hi to him.
-
I have no idea what's going on, so I will just say DURKA DURKA and be on my way.
-
That dude's been trolling the whole time? I thought he was just a little misunderstood with bad english.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. eh saves people and doesn't afraid of anything.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. eh saves people and doesn't afraid of anything.
Except gays.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. eh saves people and doesn't afraid of anything.
Except gays.
:whatthe:
-
SeRoX, you already wore out your welcome once before. It is time to say goodbye again.
Wow, how did you catch that? I just looked at the profiles of both, and they both have Istanbul, TURKEY as their locations.
-
SeRoX, you already wore out your welcome once before. It is time to say goodbye again.
Wow, how did you catch that? I just looked at the profiles of both, and they both have Istanbul, TURKEY as their locations.
He has 98 posts in one day... his "first" day... :|
-
Ha! I just looked at the newb thread and thought "I wonder if this guy is SeRox?"
U got snapped, brutha.
-
Damn, I feel like a noob actually discussing Islam with him. :facepalm:
-
Damn, I feel like a noob actually discussing Islam with him. :facepalm:
You and me both sister.
-
Damn, I feel like a noob actually discussing Islam with him. :facepalm:
You and me both sister.
Just making sure you know I'm a guy...
-
Ah, the Internet classic : drop in.
Oh I see another internet classic here; bigotry! Well played, Hef.
Dude, I gotta say, you're not going to last long here with the way you operate. I think we need a good muslim here, even from Turkey, one of the few countries that still doesn't completely hate my country. So please, read a bunch of threads, see the way things work around here, and try to learn. I'd hate to lose you.
wtf dude heh
-
SeRoX, you already wore out your welcome once before. It is time to say goodbye again.
Wow, how did you catch that? I just looked at the profiles of both, and they both have Istanbul, TURKEY as their locations.
SeRoX's name on LastFM is FlawlessLife.
Also, his English.
-
His arguments and discussion has an annoying way about them, I'm assuming that's why he keeps getting banned? cause its kinda vague as to why.
-
Yes, it is vague. Apparently Bosk found him annoying then there were some PMs thrown out and then a ban. As for this time, I would imagine circumventing a ban would be reason enough.
-
As far as I know, banned members are forbidden to register under a second account. So his ban under "flawlesslife" was imminent the moment he signed up here.
-
As far as I know, banned members are forbidden to register under a second account. So his ban under "flawlesslife" was imminent the moment he signed up here.
This. And when your first ban is for, among a list of things, threatening the forum administration, you're not likely to get many second chances.
So...back on topic?
-
His Topkapi theory was pretty ridiculous anyway.
rumborak
-
The original Bible predicts Scientology as the one true religion! :neverusethis:
-
There was a special on History Channel this morning (probably not the premier, it's probably a few years old) called Nostradamus Effect. It's being recorded, so I'll watch it later. It seemed very interesting from the little I watched.
-
I can't grasp how people are still interested in watching Nostradamus-related programming.
rumborak
-
well, that was fun. my copy of the Bible actually predicted the whole thing, but it was fun to watch even though I knew it was coming
-
I can't grasp how people are still interested in watching Nostradamus-related programming.
rumborak
I don't even know who/what Nostradmus is, so I'm not bored of it or uninterested in it, it's new to me.
well, that was fun. my copy of the Bible actually predicted the whole thing, but it was fun to watch even though I knew it was coming
I've never read the bible :P
-
I was big into Nostradamus. I'm out of that phase now.
-
I believe in Jesus Christ. eh saves people and doesn't afraid of anything.
Except gays.
:whatthe:
He promised me I could save 15% off my auto insurance by switching to Geico.
He's a lying bastard, that Jesus guy he is.
-
As far as I know, banned members are forbidden to register under a second account. So his ban under "flawlesslife" was imminent the moment he signed up here.
This. And when your first ban is for, among a list of things, threatening the forum administration, you're not likely to get many second chances.
So...back on topic?
Immolation?
-
As far as I know, banned members are forbidden to register under a second account. So his ban under "flawlesslife" was imminent the moment he signed up here.
This. And when your first ban is for, among a list of things, threatening the forum administration, you're not likely to get many second chances.
So...back on topic?
Immolation?
Fucking amazing band. :biggrin: