So I pulled this out of the pie fight on the other thread. The blue is Jen-o and the red is my response.
it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?
i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...
why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...
Leviticus 18: 1-5
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord you God.
After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.
Ye shall do My judgments, and keep Mine ordinaces, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.
Now what you said about the following scriptures being a list of 'abominations' is not correct, (I think you used that word correct me if I'm wrong) the word 'abomination' does not apply to all of them as God distigueshes between them where they are written. But the fact that they are a list is to me obvious so in that part you are correct. But they must be seen in the context of idolatry. God does not remind them that He is their God on a whim. He tells them three times just in these verses. The number three denotes what....right...completeness.
Furthermore in verse 21 God comes right out and names Molech (king of gods) and reminds them again that He is their God. And finally at the end of the chapter he says it yet again.
He also does not use the word "neither" on a whim...it is a word that connects two different things. This clearly shows that he is not referring to only the ordinances that you spoke of although they are part of it. To gain a full understanding it is clear that God EXPECTS the reader to know what the "doings of the land of Egypt...and...the doings of the land of Canaan" were.
So I do not fully disagree with your conclusion, I only think that there is more to it than what you are seeing. Is that x, y and z enough?
I received no response as of yet to this post, but am patienly waiting to see if this is what Jen-o wanted or not.
On this thread I made this statement:
So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.
To which Rhino replied:
OK ... this would make your opinion clearer ... IF you are talking about the Bible... is that the hateful doctrine you are referring to? If it is, then it seems you would have no reason to bother trying to interpret what the Bible really means ... you are just saying the Bible, at least as we have it, is hateful and flawed.
Is that right?
And I replied:
And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.
Perhaps my reply here is not clear enough as Rhino is still saying that I have said that the Bible is a flawed and hateful document. So just to set the record straight...I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the book itself has had many "hands" in it since it first began long before some of it was even written down, to me this means that it is flawed. If you have a better word then please use it. I clearly never said that the Bible was hateful, I said (basically) how can an organization promote a hateful doctrine. If you equate the Bible with an organization than fine, but I do not. As Bramble continues to say doctrine that is harmful or not helpful does not seem Godly to me and should not be equated with God or His word and I agree.
And finally, Rhino if I somehow inadvertantly or by your perception have wronged you than I apologize. But if 'the shoe fit' with one of my more downgrading comments then that sir is on you as I directed none of my comments to anyone in particular, just as I said in the homosexual marriage thread. Jen-o decided to take my opinion personally for which I asked her why and she could give me no answer that I found to be adaquit. But you have indicated that you wish it to be done so it is. Done.
With that being said....can we go back to the orginal topic of this thread...please?
With that being said....can we go back to the orginal topic of this thread...please?
Sure ... I think jen-o aptly replied in another thread. Along with the homosexual stuff were other things that are not acceptable. Then there is Romans that is clear ... and WW offered something else, since the clear verses are not allowed for some reason. (I know that sounds like piffle, but clear verses really do help)
I'd prefer jen-o or WW or others handle this if it is really doctrinal ... but it really is not as I see it. I don't see what other hateful documents you are referring to. You said the victors write the history. What history are you referring to? It sure seemed like you meant the Bible.
I hope you sell a million books eyes ... but I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you want to really stand up in this doctrinal forum.
If that can be settled, the next step would be to decide if homosexals should be rounded up and put in prison ... well, really, the question gets down to something more like .. how to deal with marriage ... accepting that the Bible does NOT bless it.
But I'll let you guys calmly discuss the doctrinal issue ... that would be refreshing.
Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French, from Latin doctrina, from doctor
Date:
14th century
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a: something that is taught b: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c: a principle of law established through past decisions d: a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e: a military principle or set of strategies
A bad or evil doctrine can be developed from a perfectly good document. In turn, that twisted doctrine can (but doesn't necessarily) influence how that document develops over time.
I think Eyes is saying that the "document" that we call the Bible isn't necessarily the same document it was at it's inception. Furthermore, I think she's also saying that erroneous doctrine has played in both wrong interpretation and twisting of the original document.
I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong.
On another note...
It always amazes me how a belief system based on "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" deteriorates into name-calling and mudslinging under the guise of "standing for Gawd/ the Truth/"or whatever self-righteous drivel meets one's fancy. Frankly, this smacks of ego and insensitivity.
So what? Here we sit - some of us 30 years after walking from an abusive cult and there are some that have become precisely what they claim to hate. Some deliverance - huh? I'd say THAT shows how evil and insidious a doctrine can be - except around here we tend to call it "Waybrain."
And for the record, I'm NOT pointing fingers at anyone. If you say I've accused you- you're either mistaken or lying. Period. I haven't named even one name or even thought about any one poster while typing this. I guess I'm disgusted with the whole mess. So if the shoe/dress/closet/suit/flippers - whatever - fit then so be it. That's on you, not me.
I've been guilty of being overly aggressive myself and I've had to take a large step back and realize that sometimes the only way to win is to walk.
I think this is still the doctrinal section, where doctrine is still not being discussed.
i don't know what "hateful doctrine" was referred to .. it sure seemed like the Bible, and I asked.
I have already conveyed this ... if only what we have is hateful .. but there are no other "documents" that show otherwise ... is this really a doctrinal question ... or is there some whole new revelation we are just now hearing of, that MUST be right because ... well ... just because?
cman .. I appreciate that you give much thought to something .. but I don't understand what ... and I mean that in a nice way, really. may even really agree with you .. but in this case, I disagree with what seems to be an attempt to change a belief by dishonestly using the doctrine, while at the same time denouncing the doctrine we have as not the REAL doctrine.
None of it sounds sincere even .. let alone "right".
I'll write a book to explain it all one day ... :o
Peel an onion, Rhino. That is a large part of what Cman is saying.
There are many many many layers to the Bible. You see one layer, Clay another, Sir yet another still. . .
Sometimes we can share what we see and add a layer to someone else's vision, though their new perspective will not be exactly the same as the perspective of the one who shared. Sometimes we can share a layer and the person we share with won't understand it. Later, someone else will say the same thing in a different way, and the person will understand.
So. rhino, what does doctrine say about how to treat homosexuals, or sinners, or whatever label you care to use?
Here is a bit of my take, Rhino, for what it's worth.
I am Jewish, though quite obviously not orthodox. I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuality. I also know the literal, orthodox view does not sit right in my heart.
In SirG's posts I see Kaballah, that works for me. I don't know the ins and outs of SirG's studies or the path that led him to his current beliefs, but Kaballah sits well in my heart. In Eyes posts I see questions, logic, and argumentative reasoning. That too is Jewish and it sits well in my heart. Yet neither of them are Jewish and neither of them have followed the same field of studies, the same path.
Clay uses shades of both and adds his own unique perspective.
I struggle with the more literal views that you seem to have and Jeno does have. It tends to raise my hackles. Maybe that's not fair, but I am being honest about how I see it. That doesn't mean that the two of you don't have valid layers to add to this onion, though.
Peel an onion, Rhino. That is a large part of what Cman is saying.
There are many many many layers to the Bible. You see one layer, Clay another, Sir yet another still. . .
Sometimes we can share what we see and add a layer to someone else's vision, though their new perspective will not be exactly the same as the perspective of the one who shared. Sometimes we can share a layer and the person we share with won't understand it. Later, someone else will say the same thing in a different way, and the person will understand.
No one has shown a layer of the Bible that accepts the homosexual act ...
and cman can speak for himself ...
and who is this "we"?
Your version is that the Bible means nothing .. it is all nuance, layers, nothingness ... which seems total BS .. right back to where we started. We are in doctrinal .. if you want to expound on your doctrinal layer, go right ahead ... not some children's story about onions.
Despite the accusation of close mindedness ... I was looking for something real .. instead I get bad interpretation and something that should be written in the onion.
Still waiting for that "doctrinal" discussion. Ha ... but thanks for talking down to me .. that's the ticket.
AS FAR AS I HAVE SEEN, THIS POST HAS GOTTEN WAY WAY OUT OF HAND. IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER. THAT'S JUST FINE AND GOOD, SINCE THE SIMPLE ANSWERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, MOSTLY ON PAGE ONE.
MUCH OF THE REST OF THIS IS ONLY HERESAY, WHEN AT FIRST THE ENTIRE TOPIC WAS MERELY TO SEE WHAT THE BIBLE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. THAT MUCH HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS CLEARLY AND LOGICALLY AS WAS NECESSARY.
MY ADVICE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO CONTINUE THIS BY ADDING MORE AND MORE TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED IS SIMPLE:
I FIND THAT THERE IS NO REST HERE. AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THOSE WHO KNOW THE ANSWERS ARE CONTINUING VERY HARD TO CONVINCE OTHERS WHO REALLY DONT CARE TO KNOW IN THE FIRST PLACE. THOSE OTHERS ARE ONLY USING THIS POST AS A JUMPING BOARD TO THROW IN THEIR 2-CENTS WORTH, AND ARE FAST TURNING THIS ENTIRE POST INTO AN ARGUMENT WHICH NOBODY WILL WIN! IT IS A BLATANT WASTE OF TIME FROM HERE ON! IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS THE TRUTH -- THEN READ FOR YOURSELVES:
IF YOU ARE WISE, THEN YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL POST FAR BEFORE THIS THREAD. DON'T WASTE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME HERE, WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF BETTER PLACES TO READ AND CONSIDER GOOD OLD HONEST DOCTRINAL PRESENTATIONS FOR THOSE WHO WANT ANSWERS FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES!
STOP FUELING THIS RAGING FIRE AND IT WILL EITHER DIE OUT OF ITS OWN ACCORD, OR ELSE MERELY BECOME 100% FILLED WITH THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR NOTHING ELSE BUT TO ARGUE, OR TO PRESENT THEIR OWN UN-BIBLICALLY-SUBSTANTIATED VIEWS. AND JUST WHO IN THE DOCTRINAL FORUM CARES FOR ANY OF THAT? THE INTRUDERS NEVER BELONGED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
AND IF THE STRIFE CEASES NOT, THEN WHO CARES? THE WISE AT HEART HAVE ALL ALREADY REMOVED THEMSELVES. THE REMAINING FOOLS CAN JUST FIGHT AMONG THEMSELVES!
AND ONE LAST THING: I WOULD NOT WANT TO WASTE EVEN ENOUGH TIME TO MERELY READ THE TITLE OF THAT BOOK -- LET LET ALONE ITS CONTENTS!
Here is a bit of my take, Rhino, for what it's worth.
OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks.
I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief.
It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ...
it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that.
Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule?
Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.
Sheesh Rhino, you are a tough cookie and you make it difficult to have a civil conversation sometimes.
No one has shown a layer of the Bible that accepts the homosexual act ...
First, in these forums, doctrine isn't limited to the Bible. Second, if all you are looking for is chapter and verse, with no indepth view at the bigger context, the history, etc. etc., well it seems you are perfectly capable of picking up your Bible and reading it for yourself. I'd bet you've even done that quite a few times.
and cman can speak for himself ...
Yes, Cman can speak for himself. But, you appeared to be having difficulty understanding what he was saying and I was simply trying to help.
and who is this "we"?
We is whoever choses to share in an exchange of ideas, thoughts, perspectives, etc.
Your version is that the Bible means nothing .. it is all nuance, layers, nothingness ... which seems total BS .. right back to where we started. We are in doctrinal .. if you want to expound on your doctrinal layer, go right ahead ... not some children's story about onions.
My version of the Bible may mean nothing to you, may seem like b.s. to you, but it does mean something to me. Shrug, oh well, you're entitled. I tend to feel similarly toward a literal, black and white view of the Bible.
Despite the accusation of close mindedness ... I was looking for something real .. instead I get bad interpretation and something that should be written in the onion.
I'm not sure I accused you of being close minded, but again, if teh shoe fits . . .
Still waiting for that "doctrinal" discussion. Ha ... but thanks for talking down to me .. that's the ticket.
I wasn't talking down to you, at least that was certainly not my intent or heart. As for the doctrinal discussion, it is taking place all around you, but for whatever reason, you aren't aware of it.
First, in these forums, doctrine isn't limited to the Bible. Second, if all you are looking for is chapter and verse, with no indepth view at the bigger context, the history, etc. etc., well it seems you are perfectly capable of picking up your Bible and reading it for yourself. I'd bet you've even done that quite a few times.
we can all read and discuss ... if doctrinal is not limited to the Bible .. what doctrine is referred to?
where has bigger context been discussed ... or you mean the context of modern political correctness?
what history?
you seem to have quit speaking as if it is only your opinion, and have not discussed anything doctrinal ... but are in "the teacher" mode.
No thanks ... nothing has impressed me to want to attend your class.
OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks.
You're welcome Rhino, I'm glad I was able to say something that made sense to you. I am not being sarcastic, I mean that. But, I have been speaking for myself the entire time. I was never speaking for Cman, I was simply trying to re-state what he said in another way, in the hopes that it would help you understand, because you didn't seem to.
I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief.
Some beliefs do strike me as hateful. I'm sorry, I am quite certain that is offensive, but it is honest. Would it be better if I lied?
It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ...
Okay, lets go with that. Do you tell someone with a limp that because they limp they are not allowed to walk? Do you reject them because they are no longer normal? Obviously not. So say you are right, say homosexuality is not "normal," do we then simply reject them? Disown them from the humanity and civilization? stone them? what?
Alternatively, we could love them and accept them, despite their "abnormality", no? A mentally handicapped person is also not "normal" and there was a time when such people were institutionalized or worse. Now, those that are able to, can find jobs and live relatively independently. Others can live in group homes or with family members and lead as normal a life as possible, given their disability.
it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that.
I don't know that the life style is promoted. I think what is being promoted is the concept that homosexuals are human beings and want to be treated with dignity and equality.
As far as it being genetic verses "environmental", perhaps it is both. Perhaps for some, bad experiences with the opposite gender cause them to chose to be homosexual, perhaps for others they are simply born that way. Perhaps others still are born with a pre-disposition in that direction, but only those who experience certain things actually become homosexual. When I brought my oldest son home from the hospital after he was born, one of the first things that I noticed was that he slept in the exact same position his father slept in. That wasn't learned, it just was. I see traits from me in the boys as well, that I think are genetic and not learned.
Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule?
I don't know, Rhino, I struggle with those questions too. I was raised that you only had sex with someone you loved. A large part of me still believes that.
However, life taught me there were many people who had no qualms about sleeping with someone they didn't love, and there were plenty of guys who would say those three little words just to get in a girls pants. Then there is all of the mental gymnastics one can do to convince themselves they are in love with someone who they are really only sexually attracted to.
So, in some sense, it seems to me the kids these days are more honest. They want to have sex and they don't have to pretend it is something more. Then, when it is something more, they are more likely to know that it is something more and not some delusion they made up to justify having sex with someone.
Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.
I don't condemn someone for thinking homosexuality is not how God designed things. Heck, I still haven't made up my mind entirely on that score. What I do have a problem with, is how someone treats another person - I have a problem with treating someone badly, with denying someone equality, because they are homosexual.
we can all read and discuss ... if doctrinal is not limited to the Bible .. what doctrine is referred to?
In simplest terms, it would be my opinion that doctrine could come from any source that one holds in esteem. For some it is the bible, for others the torah and oral traditions, for some the quoran, for others it could be a scientific study, etc. etc.
where has bigger context been discussed ... or you mean the context of modern political correctness?
what history?
Well, I believe Eyes brought up some of the bigger context surrounding some verses. She also mentioned history. SirG and Clay brought up some of what they see as deeper meanings.
you seem to have quit speaking as if it is only your opinion, and have not discussed anything doctrinal ... but are in "the teacher" mode.
Generally, anything I say is simply my opinion. It just seems to get tedious to have to add "imo" after every paragraph.
No thanks ... nothing has impressed me to want to attend your class.
well that's cool by me. I didn't realize I was running a class. Any idea what I am charging for it, cause I sure could use the cash!!
Well, I started this and then haven't come back much, but I have been doing more reading of the Bible (more than I have in a while and more than I care to do anytime soon) as well as other writings on this subject and I've changed my mind. I don't see anyway to read what is written and say the Bible does not consider homosexuality a sin (in that a sin is something the god of the Bible or the people writing it considered as wrong.) Sorry to disappoint anyone. I have read plenty that I disagree with and it I has reaffirmed why I am not a Christian. I could go off on a number of things, but I won't.
I don't believe TWi's teachings on this are completely in line with the bible. I also don't think the OT abominations are as clear as some like to think, although, there is no way to make it say that the writers thought it was ok or that one could say God thought it was ok, IMO. Romans 1 is the clearest, though, I don't see it saying that they are "deserving of death"... while clearly disobedient children are. Instead, they merely receive their "fitting" punishment "within themselves." Of course, the immediate context of this is the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged" and circumcision vs. the heart.
In Romans 2:12 you see anomos that WW spoke of. Although, I don't see applying Durkheim's definition to this case as appropriate or accurate. In this case, as it is with most cases of this word and it's root, it is in terms of those without the Mosaic Law or who are ignorant of the law... meaning Gentile as it clearly states in the context, or those violating the law. The verse in 2 Thess doesn't seem to fit his definition either, rather it is referring to those that have departed from the law or violated the law. After looking at this anomos a little, I can't see how you say that Durkheim's definition is nearly identical to the Greek word.
WW, you didn't say it implicitly but you seemed to be implying this definition of "normlessness" might fit here in Romans 1 and 2 or perhaps you are saying it applies to people like me and some of the conversations that have been taking place lately. Either way I see that as quite a distortion of reality. In my world, something is wrong based on it's own merits, it's effect on others, the big and small picture, not just because someone's god says so. This, IMO, is how it has always been, filtered through every society's values and ethics, including the OT Jews. That is why I take a different view of those OT abominations.
However, I was ASKED.
I didn't ask for your opinion of me or my motives in starting this thread (they were all wrong, BTW). I asked honestly for an open discussion. I was hoping for some to have a little more on the topic that fit my view of things, but that doesn't seem to exist. No big deal.
Oh and uh, WW, you're a close-minded, reactionary knuckle-dragger.
Thanks Abigail, I couldn't say much more at this time.
I appreciate your heart and life.
I'm at a loss for words with such a post.
I've missed all of my "basement dwelling" friends and it is good to see all of you. The past 6 - 8 months have been very busy at work, trying to keep up with kids and homework, etc. etc. But we have finally found a competent legal secretary who I will truly enjoy working with, which has lightened my work load considerably. And school is out for summer!! YEAH!!!!
But, I have been speaking for myself the entire time. I was never speaking for Cman, I was simply trying to re-state what he said in another way, in the hopes that it would help you understand, because you didn't seem to. to you, maybe I was trying to make a point to cman ... it is difficult when a third party feels the need to intercede ... btw ... I don't think you understand either ...
I don't see anyone treating homosexuals badly .. I see know it alls telling people that believe the bible, that they are wrong, yet offering lame and ignorant arguments "from the Bible".
This started with the God blesses gay marriage thread ... no space was given for those that opposed ... judges did their job, so that was that.
There has been no progress. ... people that think homosexual acts are all fine are "right", and all others are "hateful" or need help understanding ... I do see closed minds, but they do not belong to the very tolerant bible "thumpers"
Thanks lindyhopper ... I agree on that .. and I don't accept all that the "Bible" says ... but I think those that do should be allowed their space ... sort of ...
so it seems acknowledging what the Bible says is a starting point to how Christians or others should treat professed homosexuals. I see mostly acceptance.
Take a minute and asked yourself what makes me a sinner?
Wrote 06-12-2008
Here I sat just a little above Hell reaching out up and away for Heavenly wisdom to share with you from the God the Father and Mother of Creation who loves as does their beloved offspring of pure love Jesus the Christ the seed touching your heart.
If I was to say what makes me a sinner I would say my personal doctrines the things I believe others should do all so the beliefs I push on others like a law unto what I think is right and just. But if these doctrines are not given with love they have no value to anyone but me because I feel self-righteous while others feel walk on.
It does not matter whether I got my doctrines right out of the written word of God itself without love they are nothing but with love they have power while I share them with love and not as a hateful law they are received with meekness.
These beliefs share with God’s love are no longer doctrines of man but truths from above as we together see we both are sinners and ask above for understanding while we work on our weak area’s together without one word of judgment but loving one another as believing friends can.
The old lie “Thus said the Word” has been destroy in our hearts and replaces with “together we can grow more perfect as we live love of God together” as the puff up old man loses one more battle with the fleshly natural of self. Together we overcome our sins but apart the sins just seem to grow into devils who promote hate.
What are the true devil spirits of this world the ideals and doctrines of hate that seems to control the heart of the self-righteous fool who claims in his heart he loves God but in truth he loves promoting his ideals of what right and wrong are in his foolish mind. He jumps on the weak with words from the good book spoken without love thinking because he got them from the good book he can do no wrong.
But he has become an anti-Christ because he does not know the true Christ in his heart for how can he when he hates so many who are sinners when he is a sinner himself. Maybe one day he will wake up out of his rage and see it is not about a pushing game but a loving as God loves.
I do not care what the sin is whether its over eating or Homosexuality it is just a sin or whatever you call it but until you see the person who is a sinner by the act of Homosexuality as no different of a sinner than you who have your sins hiding from all too. You will never push your beliefs on the Homosexuality and make him change nor will he be able to change you into his kind.
It has never been about the label of the sin but loving each other as brothers and sisters who are fleshly sinners trying to become God-like or Christ-like. We are all human trap in a fleshly body until the great day when we walk spiritually by our hearts and not the lust of our flesh and bone.
Lots of conditions aren't normal, doesn't make them sin, an evil act.
How does a homosexual quit sinning and becme not a homosexual? They can obviously be celibate, or fake it in a hetero relationship. But that is outward, not inward change.
I thought people were supposed to quit sinning? Confess, receive forgiveness etc.
A house burgler--they can change their behavior, move on.
I am not sure who you are talking to but I would like to try
Lots of conditions aren't normal, doesn't make them sin, an evil act.
I would have to agree with you normal is what we think it is in our mind
How does a homosexual quit sinning and becme not a homosexual? They can obviously be celibate, or fake it in a hetero relationship. But that is outward, not inward change
habits are hard to overcome but inner desires can be overcome but they are a day by day battle not overnight just like us overcoming our fleshly thinking to only think spiritual God knows we are still human
I thought people were supposed to quit sinning? Confess, receive forgiveness etc.
we are to do our best each day not to sin but God understands we are human and the battle we fight
James 2:9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Colossians 3:25 But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
God is not a respect of persons but the cause behind the wrong and the desire to overcome whether it has been overcome or not
A house burgler--they can change their behavior, move on.
yes but the desire to take is still there like the person who drinks needs help to overcome and stray a winner over alocol the desire never leaves
i haven't read all the posts, but i do want to comment on the following:
Doctrine is not limited to bible believing Christians, Rhino. This isn't the Christian only forum or even the Biblical discussions only forum.
straw man, abi...
no one has suggested that this is the "christians" only or "biblical" discussions only forum...
BUT this IS a thread about biblical doctrine (or was suppose to be) as noted by the intent of the person who started the thread in his first post: "With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says"
one could just as easily have started a thread here in the doctrinal section, and said:
let's discuss the pagan doctrine of homosexuality...
let's look at the doctrine in the koran concerning homosexuality...
let's look at all doctrines in reference to homosexuality...
(and folks can still start those threads that focus on a variety of doctrines)
but that is not the intent of this thread...
the stated intent of this thread was to look at what the bible says.... i.e. biblical doctrine...
No, it is not necessarily a bad thing to have your mind made up. I have my mind made up too - so what.
i agree, so what!
so what did you bring it up for??
So, if I am neither going to persuade or be pursuaded, what is the point. Why do you participate in such discussions, if not to do the same?
the point is to present my opinion that homosexual acts are not okay according to the bible...
Most people express their opinion because they think someone is interested in hearing it. Usually someone is interested in hearing it because it reaffirms their own belief (in a sense a form of persuasion) or it causes them to consider another perspective (again, in a sense, a form of persuasion.)
i definitely do not care whether anyone is interested in my opinion or not...
nor do i seek to be reaffirmed in any kind of way... by any stretch of the imagination...
what i say is neither popular nor politically correct...
but i still have a right to post it...
Oh give me a break! Eyes has certainly not proclaimed herself a victim and neither have I.
well, i don't know about "proclamations", but there definitely have been insinuations and innuendo...
eyes has stated that she was "attacked" and that she is a "target...
you have accused me of nagging, stalking (following), hounding, and harassing...
you have both insinuated that eyes is a "victim" via the use of these kinds of words...
i get the impression that you think that eyes is some poor defenseless victim that i continue to relentlessly persecute...
look, abi, if eyes doesn't want to respond to any of my posts, she is most certainly free to do that...
but instead you hurl accusations at me in an attempt to get me to shut up and stop posting, obviously, on any thread where eyes is posting...
what makes you think that you have the right to tell me where i can post, and what posts i can respond to?!?
it makes you look a little unhinged.
more innuendo...
You could discuss this issue with any of the other posters, ask them questions, etc. etc. and they may even be willing to respond.
again, you are telling me who i can and can't talk to...
what gives you this right??
Instead, you continue to ask the one person who has already said she doesn't care to respond. Why is that?
um, it's a free country...
why do you care who i talk to??
just for the record: i asked eyes to explain the reasons for her disagreeing with the plain meaning of the verses a total of ONE time back on may 24th...
perhaps you should review my posts!
by may 25th, i realized that eyes was NOT going to explain her reasons or support her opinion...
although i did ask her one more specific question on that thread, namely: "are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)"...
which, of course, she did not answer...
that is the extent of my questions to eyes regarding the topic of homosexuality!
so why do you keep saying that i ask her questions about this issue "over and over and over"??
maybe if you say that i'm "nagging", "hounding", "harassing" long enough, you can get others to believe you... and get others to think of me in a derogatory way...
i think your accusations of me are a dishonest attempt to discredit me...
i didn't think you did this kind of thing, abi...
i also asked her about the alleged "attack" on her book thread...
or do you think i should not have asked that either?
do you think that i should let unfounded accusations go unchecked??
for the record, eyes could not provide any information about this...
but then, how can one provide information about something that doesn't exist?
Perhaps that person would like to engage in a debate or discussion with some of the posters, but not all of them. Perhaps that person simply doesn't care to discuss it with you, but would like to continue conversing with Sir, Bramble, Roy, etc. etc.
perhaps this, perhaps that...
what difference does it make?
are you telling me that i should just shut up because eyes doesn't care to discuss it with me but only with other people??
what sense does that make?!?
are you again telling me who i should talk to and what posts i can respond to?
or are you suggesting that i be removed from the conversation... in effect, marked and avoided???
peace anyway,
jen-o
p.s. i just noticed that eyes made a post to me regarding doctrinal issues about homosexuality... (post #77)
so how am i forcing her to "debate" with me via "nagging, hounding, stalking, and harassing"?
cant help but notice i didnt respond to your opening post very well anyway
besides...thats quite a tall order for the gsc, imo
i dont even think the various authors of the books in the bible canon shared the same views about God, sex, death, reality, etc...
and i tell ya...aside from life's other tugs
im personally getting weary of written public conversation such as these
especially regarding the most important kinds of things (god, sex, death, etc...)
and how the same conflicts and polarizations are predictable
i still dont think we are very good with all this
...some worse at it than others
for one
we oversimplify
speak too soon
go too fast too far
put the cart before the horse
yada yada
not to mention
in all my years here
most no one ever refers to any doctrines whatsoever anyway
the mountains of doctrinal taboos present here
make looking at the whole of art and literature about god sex and death
a view through a pinhole
as if we have become so insular and self-assured as to be quite blind to anything remotely close to authentic wholesome spiritual indoctrination
with any sort of historical or demonstrable benefit to one's self and the world at large
we reject the lion's share of valid info
and we mostly lack the social skills and environs to come close to the deep experienced ways of non-violent communication required for shared doctrinal depth
...we go round and round in our same disfunctional sit-com series of misunderstandings and confusion...from the get-go
like we always blow it on steps one through three or so
and any final ultimate once and-for-all doctrinal conclusions made from these kinds of discourses
are still going to be temporary
...
i guess im trying to say that we are in need of new tongues for this stuff
if we want to have doctrinal conversations of any significant depth or degree
i feel my contributions are, at best...desperate splatterings on a crumbling wall
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
17
17
16
Popular Days
Jun 11
47
Jun 9
16
Dec 22
14
Jun 12
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Abigail 15 posts
rhino 17 posts
cman 17 posts
DrWearWord 16 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
47 posts
Jun 9 2008
16 posts
Dec 22 2009
14 posts
Jun 12 2008
11 posts
Popular Posts
rhino
No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of applicat
rhino
It is YOUR judgment that I have harassed and need to justify anything. And the fact that other people are involved is why I want to get be sure the record is set straight. To be more straight forwar
rhino
I respond when the lies and accusations are repeated. I generally have not responded when someone else chimes in with their support against those hateful close minded people, unless I am addressed by
Eyesopen
So I pulled this out of the pie fight on the other thread. The blue is Jen-o and the red is my response.
I received no response as of yet to this post, but am patienly waiting to see if this is what Jen-o wanted or not.
On this thread I made this statement:
To which Rhino replied:And I replied:
Perhaps my reply here is not clear enough as Rhino is still saying that I have said that the Bible is a flawed and hateful document. So just to set the record straight...I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the book itself has had many "hands" in it since it first began long before some of it was even written down, to me this means that it is flawed. If you have a better word then please use it. I clearly never said that the Bible was hateful, I said (basically) how can an organization promote a hateful doctrine. If you equate the Bible with an organization than fine, but I do not. As Bramble continues to say doctrine that is harmful or not helpful does not seem Godly to me and should not be equated with God or His word and I agree.
And finally, Rhino if I somehow inadvertantly or by your perception have wronged you than I apologize. But if 'the shoe fit' with one of my more downgrading comments then that sir is on you as I directed none of my comments to anyone in particular, just as I said in the homosexual marriage thread. Jen-o decided to take my opinion personally for which I asked her why and she could give me no answer that I found to be adaquit. But you have indicated that you wish it to be done so it is. Done.
With that being said....can we go back to the orginal topic of this thread...please?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Sure ... I think jen-o aptly replied in another thread. Along with the homosexual stuff were other things that are not acceptable. Then there is Romans that is clear ... and WW offered something else, since the clear verses are not allowed for some reason. (I know that sounds like piffle, but clear verses really do help)
I'd prefer jen-o or WW or others handle this if it is really doctrinal ... but it really is not as I see it. I don't see what other hateful documents you are referring to. You said the victors write the history. What history are you referring to? It sure seemed like you meant the Bible.
I hope you sell a million books eyes ... but I don't think you have a leg to stand on if you want to really stand up in this doctrinal forum.
If that can be settled, the next step would be to decide if homosexals should be rounded up and put in prison ... well, really, the question gets down to something more like .. how to deal with marriage ... accepting that the Bible does NOT bless it.
But I'll let you guys calmly discuss the doctrinal issue ... that would be refreshing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Hateful doctrines or hateful documents?
For the record:
A bad or evil doctrine can be developed from a perfectly good document. In turn, that twisted doctrine can (but doesn't necessarily) influence how that document develops over time.
I think Eyes is saying that the "document" that we call the Bible isn't necessarily the same document it was at it's inception. Furthermore, I think she's also saying that erroneous doctrine has played in both wrong interpretation and twisting of the original document.
I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong.
On another note...
It always amazes me how a belief system based on "love God and love your neighbor as yourself" deteriorates into name-calling and mudslinging under the guise of "standing for Gawd/ the Truth/"or whatever self-righteous drivel meets one's fancy. Frankly, this smacks of ego and insensitivity.
So what? Here we sit - some of us 30 years after walking from an abusive cult and there are some that have become precisely what they claim to hate. Some deliverance - huh? I'd say THAT shows how evil and insidious a doctrine can be - except around here we tend to call it "Waybrain."
And for the record, I'm NOT pointing fingers at anyone. If you say I've accused you- you're either mistaken or lying. Period. I haven't named even one name or even thought about any one poster while typing this. I guess I'm disgusted with the whole mess. So if the shoe/dress/closet/suit/flippers - whatever - fit then so be it. That's on you, not me.
I've been guilty of being overly aggressive myself and I've had to take a large step back and realize that sometimes the only way to win is to walk.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
See this is the problem Bill. Doctrine.
God will never be nailed down to one.
Interpretations and opinions from people , yes.
Is this what is being sought?
Eye's opinion and interpretation.
Or What the scriptures are saying and saying many things in one breath.
Is it answers or others opinions that is sought after.
And accusations of wrong doing is a waste of time, unless that is what is wanted.
(Count me out)
Getting to the heart of the matter would be the direction I would take.
And the heart of the matter is not what Eyesopen thinks.
And she knows it.
Accusations of attacks are just distractions from anything useful.
We have all done wrong as doojable just pointed out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I think this is still the doctrinal section, where doctrine is still not being discussed.
i don't know what "hateful doctrine" was referred to .. it sure seemed like the Bible, and I asked.
I have already conveyed this ... if only what we have is hateful .. but there are no other "documents" that show otherwise ... is this really a doctrinal question ... or is there some whole new revelation we are just now hearing of, that MUST be right because ... well ... just because?
cman .. I appreciate that you give much thought to something .. but I don't understand what ... and I mean that in a nice way, really. may even really agree with you .. but in this case, I disagree with what seems to be an attempt to change a belief by dishonestly using the doctrine, while at the same time denouncing the doctrine we have as not the REAL doctrine.
None of it sounds sincere even .. let alone "right".
I'll write a book to explain it all one day ... :o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Peel an onion, Rhino. That is a large part of what Cman is saying.
There are many many many layers to the Bible. You see one layer, Clay another, Sir yet another still. . .
Sometimes we can share what we see and add a layer to someone else's vision, though their new perspective will not be exactly the same as the perspective of the one who shared. Sometimes we can share a layer and the person we share with won't understand it. Later, someone else will say the same thing in a different way, and the person will understand.
So. rhino, what does doctrine say about how to treat homosexuals, or sinners, or whatever label you care to use?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Here is a bit of my take, Rhino, for what it's worth.
I am Jewish, though quite obviously not orthodox. I know what the Old Testament says about homosexuality. I also know the literal, orthodox view does not sit right in my heart.
In SirG's posts I see Kaballah, that works for me. I don't know the ins and outs of SirG's studies or the path that led him to his current beliefs, but Kaballah sits well in my heart. In Eyes posts I see questions, logic, and argumentative reasoning. That too is Jewish and it sits well in my heart. Yet neither of them are Jewish and neither of them have followed the same field of studies, the same path.
Clay uses shades of both and adds his own unique perspective.
I struggle with the more literal views that you seem to have and Jeno does have. It tends to raise my hackles. Maybe that's not fair, but I am being honest about how I see it. That doesn't mean that the two of you don't have valid layers to add to this onion, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
No one has shown a layer of the Bible that accepts the homosexual act ...
and cman can speak for himself ...
and who is this "we"?
Your version is that the Bible means nothing .. it is all nuance, layers, nothingness ... which seems total BS .. right back to where we started. We are in doctrinal .. if you want to expound on your doctrinal layer, go right ahead ... not some children's story about onions.
Despite the accusation of close mindedness ... I was looking for something real .. instead I get bad interpretation and something that should be written in the onion.
Still waiting for that "doctrinal" discussion. Ha ... but thanks for talking down to me .. that's the ticket.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
AS FAR AS I HAVE SEEN, THIS POST HAS GOTTEN WAY WAY OUT OF HAND. IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER. THAT'S JUST FINE AND GOOD, SINCE THE SIMPLE ANSWERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, MOSTLY ON PAGE ONE.
MUCH OF THE REST OF THIS IS ONLY HERESAY, WHEN AT FIRST THE ENTIRE TOPIC WAS MERELY TO SEE WHAT THE BIBLE HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF HOMOSEXUALITY. THAT MUCH HAS BEEN PRESENTED AS CLEARLY AND LOGICALLY AS WAS NECESSARY.
MY ADVICE TO THOSE WHO WANT TO CONTINUE THIS BY ADDING MORE AND MORE TO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED IS SIMPLE:
I FIND THAT THERE IS NO REST HERE. AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THOSE WHO KNOW THE ANSWERS ARE CONTINUING VERY HARD TO CONVINCE OTHERS WHO REALLY DONT CARE TO KNOW IN THE FIRST PLACE. THOSE OTHERS ARE ONLY USING THIS POST AS A JUMPING BOARD TO THROW IN THEIR 2-CENTS WORTH, AND ARE FAST TURNING THIS ENTIRE POST INTO AN ARGUMENT WHICH NOBODY WILL WIN! IT IS A BLATANT WASTE OF TIME FROM HERE ON! IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS THE TRUTH -- THEN READ FOR YOURSELVES:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 29:9 If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IF YOU ARE WISE, THEN YOU HAVE ALREADY FOUND THE ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL POST FAR BEFORE THIS THREAD. DON'T WASTE ANY MORE OF YOUR TIME HERE, WHEN THERE ARE PLENTY OF BETTER PLACES TO READ AND CONSIDER GOOD OLD HONEST DOCTRINAL PRESENTATIONS FOR THOSE WHO WANT ANSWERS FROM THE SCRIPTURES THEMSELVES!
STOP FUELING THIS RAGING FIRE AND IT WILL EITHER DIE OUT OF ITS OWN ACCORD, OR ELSE MERELY BECOME 100% FILLED WITH THOSE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR NOTHING ELSE BUT TO ARGUE, OR TO PRESENT THEIR OWN UN-BIBLICALLY-SUBSTANTIATED VIEWS. AND JUST WHO IN THE DOCTRINAL FORUM CARES FOR ANY OF THAT? THE INTRUDERS NEVER BELONGED HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proverbs 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AND IF THE STRIFE CEASES NOT, THEN WHO CARES? THE WISE AT HEART HAVE ALL ALREADY REMOVED THEMSELVES. THE REMAINING FOOLS CAN JUST FIGHT AMONG THEMSELVES!
AND ONE LAST THING: I WOULD NOT WANT TO WASTE EVEN ENOUGH TIME TO MERELY READ THE TITLE OF THAT BOOK -- LET LET ALONE ITS CONTENTS!
I'M OUTTA HERE!
Spectrum49
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
OK thanks Abi ... this makes more sense, you are speaking more directly for yourself ... thanks.
I'm not a "literalist" ... it is more about not telling other people they are hateful for their belief.
It seems clear enough the homosexual act is not "normal" ... I think bramble or someone alluded to something happening early to cause some psychic thing or whatever ... so it is like dealing with an injury maybe ... some people limp ... but that is not absolute ...
it seems to me the life style is "promoted" ... and there is a political aspect ... are people naturally attracted to animals? yet that becomes acceptable in certain realms ... of all the wild sexual stuff that happens with teenagers now, is it beyond possible that the homosexual acts is "promoted" by a PC teaching? Is it really just how you are born? I think there is more to it than that.
Some cities seem more given to these things, even in the Bible. Was it really genetic there? Or is it taught and accepted, along with adultery and other "vile" things? This sexual "openness" does not seem good ... free love, no rules ... do we want Woodstock to rule?
Maybe the Bible offers more wisdom than most are willing to accept. wht we see here, I believe, is political correctness ... all who hold any belief that does not praise homoexuality ... must be condemned ... and it is the fact that we see that here in spades that troubles me.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Thanks Abigail, I couldn't say much more at this time.
I appreciate your heart and life.
I'm at a loss for words with such a post.
Rhino, there will not be anything solid outside of your own self to believe,
Not the bible, not a person, but that which is has been, is, and always will be,
changing inside of you, around you, with you....forever.....
The healings of the nations from the tree of life is not always the same.
But healings it is and always will.
Such we look to see, though pain is sometimes involved.
The difference in removing a splinter or pulling a full grown tree.
Roots and all from the mind, for the good ground to receive the seed.
Love....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sheesh Rhino, you are a tough cookie and you make it difficult to have a civil conversation sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
we can all read and discuss ... if doctrinal is not limited to the Bible .. what doctrine is referred to?
where has bigger context been discussed ... or you mean the context of modern political correctness?
what history?
you seem to have quit speaking as if it is only your opinion, and have not discussed anything doctrinal ... but are in "the teacher" mode.
No thanks ... nothing has impressed me to want to attend your class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Well, I started this and then haven't come back much, but I have been doing more reading of the Bible (more than I have in a while and more than I care to do anytime soon) as well as other writings on this subject and I've changed my mind. I don't see anyway to read what is written and say the Bible does not consider homosexuality a sin (in that a sin is something the god of the Bible or the people writing it considered as wrong.) Sorry to disappoint anyone. I have read plenty that I disagree with and it I has reaffirmed why I am not a Christian. I could go off on a number of things, but I won't.
I don't believe TWi's teachings on this are completely in line with the bible. I also don't think the OT abominations are as clear as some like to think, although, there is no way to make it say that the writers thought it was ok or that one could say God thought it was ok, IMO. Romans 1 is the clearest, though, I don't see it saying that they are "deserving of death"... while clearly disobedient children are. Instead, they merely receive their "fitting" punishment "within themselves." Of course, the immediate context of this is the concept of "judge not lest ye be judged" and circumcision vs. the heart.
In Romans 2:12 you see anomos that WW spoke of. Although, I don't see applying Durkheim's definition to this case as appropriate or accurate. In this case, as it is with most cases of this word and it's root, it is in terms of those without the Mosaic Law or who are ignorant of the law... meaning Gentile as it clearly states in the context, or those violating the law. The verse in 2 Thess doesn't seem to fit his definition either, rather it is referring to those that have departed from the law or violated the law. After looking at this anomos a little, I can't see how you say that Durkheim's definition is nearly identical to the Greek word.
WW, you didn't say it implicitly but you seemed to be implying this definition of "normlessness" might fit here in Romans 1 and 2 or perhaps you are saying it applies to people like me and some of the conversations that have been taking place lately. Either way I see that as quite a distortion of reality. In my world, something is wrong based on it's own merits, it's effect on others, the big and small picture, not just because someone's god says so. This, IMO, is how it has always been, filtered through every society's values and ethics, including the OT Jews. That is why I take a different view of those OT abominations.
I didn't ask for your opinion of me or my motives in starting this thread (they were all wrong, BTW). I asked honestly for an open discussion. I was hoping for some to have a little more on the topic that fit my view of things, but that doesn't seem to exist. No big deal.
Oh and uh, WW, you're a close-minded, reactionary knuckle-dragger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
I've missed all of my "basement dwelling" friends and it is good to see all of you. The past 6 - 8 months have been very busy at work, trying to keep up with kids and homework, etc. etc. But we have finally found a competent legal secretary who I will truly enjoy working with, which has lightened my work load considerably. And school is out for summer!! YEAH!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I don't see anyone treating homosexuals badly .. I see know it alls telling people that believe the bible, that they are wrong, yet offering lame and ignorant arguments "from the Bible".
This started with the God blesses gay marriage thread ... no space was given for those that opposed ... judges did their job, so that was that.
There has been no progress. ... people that think homosexual acts are all fine are "right", and all others are "hateful" or need help understanding ... I do see closed minds, but they do not belong to the very tolerant bible "thumpers"
Thanks lindyhopper ... I agree on that .. and I don't accept all that the "Bible" says ... but I think those that do should be allowed their space ... sort of ...
so it seems acknowledging what the Bible says is a starting point to how Christians or others should treat professed homosexuals. I see mostly acceptance.
peace ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
That's cool Abigail.
Lindy, There's a God of the Bible?
Is there also a God of GreaseSpot?
I just can't get my mind around such limitations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Take a minute and asked yourself what makes me a sinner?
Wrote 06-12-2008
Here I sat just a little above Hell reaching out up and away for Heavenly wisdom to share with you from the God the Father and Mother of Creation who loves as does their beloved offspring of pure love Jesus the Christ the seed touching your heart.
If I was to say what makes me a sinner I would say my personal doctrines the things I believe others should do all so the beliefs I push on others like a law unto what I think is right and just. But if these doctrines are not given with love they have no value to anyone but me because I feel self-righteous while others feel walk on.
It does not matter whether I got my doctrines right out of the written word of God itself without love they are nothing but with love they have power while I share them with love and not as a hateful law they are received with meekness.
These beliefs share with God’s love are no longer doctrines of man but truths from above as we together see we both are sinners and ask above for understanding while we work on our weak area’s together without one word of judgment but loving one another as believing friends can.
The old lie “Thus said the Word” has been destroy in our hearts and replaces with “together we can grow more perfect as we live love of God together” as the puff up old man loses one more battle with the fleshly natural of self. Together we overcome our sins but apart the sins just seem to grow into devils who promote hate.
What are the true devil spirits of this world the ideals and doctrines of hate that seems to control the heart of the self-righteous fool who claims in his heart he loves God but in truth he loves promoting his ideals of what right and wrong are in his foolish mind. He jumps on the weak with words from the good book spoken without love thinking because he got them from the good book he can do no wrong.
But he has become an anti-Christ because he does not know the true Christ in his heart for how can he when he hates so many who are sinners when he is a sinner himself. Maybe one day he will wake up out of his rage and see it is not about a pushing game but a loving as God loves.
I do not care what the sin is whether its over eating or Homosexuality it is just a sin or whatever you call it but until you see the person who is a sinner by the act of Homosexuality as no different of a sinner than you who have your sins hiding from all too. You will never push your beliefs on the Homosexuality and make him change nor will he be able to change you into his kind.
It has never been about the label of the sin but loving each other as brothers and sisters who are fleshly sinners trying to become God-like or Christ-like. We are all human trap in a fleshly body until the great day when we walk spiritually by our hearts and not the lust of our flesh and bone.
Thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Lots of conditions aren't normal, doesn't make them sin, an evil act.
How does a homosexual quit sinning and becme not a homosexual? They can obviously be celibate, or fake it in a hetero relationship. But that is outward, not inward change.
I thought people were supposed to quit sinning? Confess, receive forgiveness etc.
A house burgler--they can change their behavior, move on.
How does a homosexual change their sex drive?
Does not seem to be the same type of sin at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved Bramble
God loves you my dear friend
I am not sure who you are talking to but I would like to try
Thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
holy camoly!
this thread sure grew in one day...
i haven't read all the posts, but i do want to comment on the following:
straw man, abi...no one has suggested that this is the "christians" only or "biblical" discussions only forum...
BUT this IS a thread about biblical doctrine (or was suppose to be) as noted by the intent of the person who started the thread in his first post: "With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says"
one could just as easily have started a thread here in the doctrinal section, and said:
let's discuss the pagan doctrine of homosexuality...
let's look at the doctrine in the koran concerning homosexuality...
let's look at all doctrines in reference to homosexuality...
(and folks can still start those threads that focus on a variety of doctrines)
but that is not the intent of this thread...
the stated intent of this thread was to look at what the bible says.... i.e. biblical doctrine...
i agree, so what!so what did you bring it up for??
the point is to present my opinion that homosexual acts are not okay according to the bible... i definitely do not care whether anyone is interested in my opinion or not...nor do i seek to be reaffirmed in any kind of way... by any stretch of the imagination...
what i say is neither popular nor politically correct...
but i still have a right to post it...
well, i don't know about "proclamations", but there definitely have been insinuations and innuendo...eyes has stated that she was "attacked" and that she is a "target...
you have accused me of nagging, stalking (following), hounding, and harassing...
you have both insinuated that eyes is a "victim" via the use of these kinds of words...
i get the impression that you think that eyes is some poor defenseless victim that i continue to relentlessly persecute...
look, abi, if eyes doesn't want to respond to any of my posts, she is most certainly free to do that...
but instead you hurl accusations at me in an attempt to get me to shut up and stop posting, obviously, on any thread where eyes is posting...
what makes you think that you have the right to tell me where i can post, and what posts i can respond to?!?
more innuendo...again, you are telling me who i can and can't talk to...what gives you this right??
um, it's a free country...why do you care who i talk to??
just for the record: i asked eyes to explain the reasons for her disagreeing with the plain meaning of the verses a total of ONE time back on may 24th...
perhaps you should review my posts!
by may 25th, i realized that eyes was NOT going to explain her reasons or support her opinion...
although i did ask her one more specific question on that thread, namely: "are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)"...
which, of course, she did not answer...
that is the extent of my questions to eyes regarding the topic of homosexuality!
so why do you keep saying that i ask her questions about this issue "over and over and over"??
maybe if you say that i'm "nagging", "hounding", "harassing" long enough, you can get others to believe you... and get others to think of me in a derogatory way...
i think your accusations of me are a dishonest attempt to discredit me...
i didn't think you did this kind of thing, abi...
i also asked her about the alleged "attack" on her book thread...
or do you think i should not have asked that either?
do you think that i should let unfounded accusations go unchecked??
for the record, eyes could not provide any information about this...
but then, how can one provide information about something that doesn't exist?
perhaps this, perhaps that...what difference does it make?
are you telling me that i should just shut up because eyes doesn't care to discuss it with me but only with other people??
what sense does that make?!?
are you again telling me who i should talk to and what posts i can respond to?
or are you suggesting that i be removed from the conversation... in effect, marked and avoided???
peace anyway,
jen-o
p.s. i just noticed that eyes made a post to me regarding doctrinal issues about homosexuality... (post #77)
so how am i forcing her to "debate" with me via "nagging, hounding, stalking, and harassing"?
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
truly sorry Lindy
cant help but notice i didnt respond to your opening post very well anyway
besides...thats quite a tall order for the gsc, imo
i dont even think the various authors of the books in the bible canon shared the same views about God, sex, death, reality, etc...
and i tell ya...aside from life's other tugs
im personally getting weary of written public conversation such as these
especially regarding the most important kinds of things (god, sex, death, etc...)
and how the same conflicts and polarizations are predictable
i still dont think we are very good with all this
...some worse at it than others
for one
we oversimplify
speak too soon
go too fast too far
put the cart before the horse
yada yada
not to mention
in all my years here
most no one ever refers to any doctrines whatsoever anyway
the mountains of doctrinal taboos present here
make looking at the whole of art and literature about god sex and death
a view through a pinhole
as if we have become so insular and self-assured as to be quite blind to anything remotely close to authentic wholesome spiritual indoctrination
with any sort of historical or demonstrable benefit to one's self and the world at large
we reject the lion's share of valid info
and we mostly lack the social skills and environs to come close to the deep experienced ways of non-violent communication required for shared doctrinal depth
...we go round and round in our same disfunctional sit-com series of misunderstandings and confusion...from the get-go
like we always blow it on steps one through three or so
and any final ultimate once and-for-all doctrinal conclusions made from these kinds of discourses
are still going to be temporary
...
i guess im trying to say that we are in need of new tongues for this stuff
if we want to have doctrinal conversations of any significant depth or degree
i feel my contributions are, at best...desperate splatterings on a crumbling wall
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.