Would Jesus have hated on gays?

a reply to: charles1952

Charles,

I realize that one poster believes it can all be made very simple.

I think that it can be too.

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

That would not be God's doing. Some scientists insist that a combination of nature and nurture shape almost all of our behavior and conditions. Again, the upbringing of a particular individual is not God's doing.

Why do you think that? Is your God a hands off absentee father with no plan for his orphaned creation?

At some point, there are individuals who experience sexual attraction for the same sex, homosexuals. Even if you conclude that the attraction is entirely placed by God, and very few scientists do, what does that show? If you are following the logic you're proposing, then God also made people with an attraction for other behaviors. There is no need to go through the list, just consider bosses with an extremely competitive nature who will trample anyone to get what they want.

In effect then, God made murders, thieves, adulterers, hateful people, traitors, etc. I would think you would be uncomfortable saying, "God made Stalin who killed millions, God doesn't make bad things, therefore mass international murderers are good things."

"God" made Satan and allowed sin to enter the world. God cursed mankind in the Garden of Eden.

Perhaps you don't realize that you just compared a gay poster to murders, thieves, adulterers, hateful people, traitors and Stalin.

And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth:
2 And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?
3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

If God makes blind people, why not gay people?

My understanding is that a homosexual has the attraction, but doesn't have to do the deed. That is truly a choice.

How is this homosexual attraction and choice any different from the attractions and deeds of divorced and remarried straight people, or unmarried straight people "living in sin" or single straight people having casual sex? Do they deserve the same amount of rebuke, disgust and scorn?

This discussion is about Jesus and God's laws.

And what did Jesus say about the law, again?

a reply to: charles1952

Charles, I'd like to address 2 points.

1. Evolution, genetic expression is the perfect example of free will. Gene expression has a choice. Change expression and survive, or not change expression and die. There is a choice down to the microscopic level. As stated previously, (concerning fruit flies) this adaptation in genetic expression is a choice that is used for the survival of the fly. Genetic expression drives that behavior.

2. I find it difficult to equate love with murder. People are born with the capacity to commit evil acts. Choosing to do those acts is up to the individual. But people born with the propensity for affection/attraction towards those of the same sex simply hold affection or love in a manner that is different to those who are heterosexual. God is the embodiment of love. Love is a most singular and pure emotion. Does it matter how that love is expressed, or to whom it is expressed for?

Now some may say that psychopaths love to kill. But that is a misuse of the word love and does not capture the true meaning of the term.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

a reply to: charles1952

My understanding is that a homosexual has the attraction, but doesn't have to do the deed. That is truly a choice.

Just as a heterosexual has an attraction - but doesn't have to do the deed. Somehow, society has found a way to make doing the deed OK for them - but a sin for everyone else

Homosexuality is a part of nature - this becomes more and more clear with each passing day - even if some of us weren't able to see the sense of this before science was on the case

Isn't the question, "What do people attracted to any behavior do if they learn their attraction is to something immoral, or sinful, or wrong, or whatever word you want to use?"

I realize there's a lot of room for snarkiness and fighting on this thread - but that hasn't happened. It's been a real nice, friendly read so far - no reason to wreck it now

And this isn't what I mean to do - but the problem seems to be unsolvable when we're dealing with such completely different points of view. When even the Christians can't agree - well...

We are born with or without the capacity for or the ability to love, hate - so many things. Whether this is by design or happenstance - I actually don't know and I'm not going to bother with any of that here

This thread is about whether or not Jesus would have had an issue with gay people - hated gay people - I believe

The thing I see in this world that is all too obvious is that when science says something that conflicts with religion - science goes out the door. For some - not all. I know and have known religious people (including Christians) that have no problem mixing their faith with science. Then there are those that stick to a strict interpretation of the Bible, and believe it or not - I get that. If you have faith - all the white noise outside would simply disappear - it would have to

What I don't understand is when your own faith is saying that everyone is a sinner, that God loves all his children - that we should not judge - we then get the volume pumped up on the demons and sin chat. It's a crutch - an out, a permission slip, a way to legitimize our fears and hatreds

We are born into this world - and then the world works it's magic on what we are (for good or ill) and we become more than what we were - different - a work in progress

And we are capable of great changes - back and forth and back again

Science isn't here to tempt you from your Lord - it's your fellow human beings trying to learn about the world around us

People are born straight - or gay.I know my saying that doesn't make it true for you. However, in the world we live in now it is reality - for many many people

Forgive me Charles - I know you're not simple. You wanted a discussion that leads somewhere - but, I'm not sure that these two viewpoints are going to come together and deliver an answer that will satisfy anyone

Unless we just agree that we are born - we do our best - the rest is between us and our maker - if there is one

Neurological basis for lack of empathy in psychopaths

When individuals with psychopathy imagine others in pain, brain areas necessary for feeling empathy and concern for others fail to become active and be connected to other important regions involved in affective processing and decision-making, reports a new study.

Seems like the Jesus I hear about would forgive this. If it needs forgiving. Maybe it only requires understanding

If you would indulge me Charles - what is sin? I've never heard a really and truly satisfying explanation

originally posted by: windword

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Yes, it really is that simple. Everything else falls into place, and all the dogma just falls away.

I love those testimonies of near-death experiences where people claim to have a life review, and during it they feel everything personally that they themselves put people through - the good and bad. I hope those experiences are true, because it exemplifies the whole "treat others as you would like to be treated" idea.

Imagine a world where in real time, you feel the effects of how you treat another - as if it were happening to you. It would sure stop a lot of people from hurting each other. Wonder why God didn't set it up that way? Hmmmm...

Back on topic, Jesus definitely would not have hated gays. Would he have condemned them or admonished them for being gay? I don't think he would have liked promiscuity, but I think he would have been cool with a committed, loving relationship - gay or straight.

Yahoshua did what was considered by the Jews as breaking the Law of the Sabbath (and many other laws).He gave his reason as a practicality of not "why" he broke the Law but that he broke no law at all he only did what was reasonable.He is not saying he is "exempt" from the Law he is saying the only law is reason.When he said "treat others as you want to be treated" he was not espousing an epiphany of moral and ethical wisdom as a Law..he was only stating common reason.

The Religious carnal mind thinks and believes in "laws" of ordinances to be strictly adhered to by penalty.Where as the creator God thinks of them as reasonable cause and effect.If you need food and you need to do "work" to get it do the reasonable thing no matter what day it is.If someone needs help and you can help them do so regardless of some restraint because it is the reasonable thing to do.

Painting reality with anything but the color of reason is defiling and perverting the painting.
Man can believe the scriptures say certain acts are against the law however if what they Believe lacks reason then it is only a perverted bigoted belief not reason.Some justify their bigotry by saying"it's right there "written" in "Gods law" where there is nothing in the scriptures that says something is Gods law except something "known" by "reason"…..Yahoshua proved that over and over.

When Yahoshua said he did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets he did not mean the "letter of the Law" of Moses he was talking of the meaningful reason of what is Truth.There are many that don't believe what Yahoshua said at all but believe they know all of what he said because they have "studied" the bible as if that was the method for acting reasonable.All morals and ethics are based in one foundational principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".There is no great epiphany in that statement.It wasn't even a statement only said by Yahoshua.It is common reason.The law of reason cannot be abolished and it can't be taught.It has to be known to act.

The religious carnal mind is fixated on morals and ethics and judgment when Yahoshua said this is the simple stuff.The religious carnal mind is constantly in a state of judgement of what THEY believe is right or wrong and use their "religion" to justify it never seeing it is not based on the foundation of reason.It is cherry picking "Laws" that had to be written in a book for them to understand it.If the chapter and verse and creeds have to be trotted out to "justify" or condemn what is right or wrong then reason is not being used.Everyone knows words can be twisted to mean and justify anything.It is mankinds religious nature to do just that and that is all this is.Bigoted men justifying the condemnation of other men in the "name " of their false religion.

Not only would Yahoshua not hate homosexuals it would never enter his mind to do so in any form.

a reply to: beezzer

Greetings and Namaste, friend. Master Jesus is my personal teacher, and I know him like my own Heart. He is ONE with me and I with him. The Master walked the Earth over 2,000 years ago. During that time, he was known as an Avatar, or a being who comes to a planet in physical incarnation in order to change the current spiritual, political, cultural, and social aspects of the collective consciousness into a higher state of being. Master Jesus saw God in everybody and everything, including people, plants, animals, minerals, rocks, and even man-made things. So when you speak of Homosexuality or Heterosexuality, it does not matter. When you see it in Duality like that, you are still seeing through the lens of Polarity Consciousness, which means Good vs Bad, Light vs Darkness, Men vs Women, Hot vs Cold, etc. The Master was able to function in Unity, which is God's Reality. This means that he saw everybody as the ONE Great Spirit of the Universe. He was not separate from you and I, nor was he separate from any part of creation.

Most people live in Polarity, but the Master did not. I know this because I have practiced living in Unity for a while now. And I don't see any form of Duality just like Master Jesus. So my answer is No, Master Jesus wouldn't judge anybody based on the outer things that people do and neither do I. It is inside their Hearts is what counts, because that is where God and all of creation happen to be.

I haven't checked the pages of replies, but in my mind it is extremely obvious what he would have done.

John 8
www.biblegateway.com...

Take that scenario, and change the woman caught in adultery into a homosexual, and I think that's pretty much exactly how Jesus would have treated it. Jesus would not have approved of homosexuality (the scriptures condemn it) but neither would he have advocated any kind of hatred or bigotry towards it.

On a personal level, like any other sin in the Bible, I certainly don't advocate homosexuality, but neither would I treat someone poorly for committing it, as long as they weren't hurting anyone else by doing so. If two gays want to do... whatever on their own, I don't care, as long as nobody else is affected. I do disagree with the ideas of gay marriage or gay adoption, because those issues affect people and society in general, and in a way that I believe would be negative. (and I might get flamed for that... but it is what I believe) If two gay people want to spend their lives together and sleep together and whatever else, that doesn't affect anyone else, and while I don't approve of it, it doesn't hurt anyone else, and so they have the right to behave that way.

Dollukka pretty much nailed what I was going to say.

The fact that Jesus accepted the sinner, does not mean that he accepted the sinner's behavior.

He would say "Go, and sin no more." That is hardly an invitation to continue along the same path.

However, Jesus did put his foot down when it came to others judging those sinners, as it was not their place, being that they were sinners themselves.

a reply to: beezzer, Windword, and Spiramirabilis

My dear friends and guides,

This may sound a bit much, but I really feel blessed that all three of you have responded to me, and in the same page! An abundance of joy. Conversation with each of you is always eye-opening for me. Thank you, thank you.

May I start with beezzer?

1. Evolution, genetic expression is the perfect example of free will. Gene expression has a choice. Change expression and survive, or not change expression and die. There is a choice down to the microscopic level. As stated previously, (concerning fruit flies) this adaptation in genetic expression is a choice that is used for the survival of the fly. Genetic expression drives that behavior.

In fruit flies, plants, fish, and the lower animals, I agree completely that genes and instinct (a word used by scientists to say "We don't know what it is, but it's there.") control absolutely the behavior. There is no conscious decision making by a chrysanthemum, so it is at the mercy of it's genes. No problems with you at all.

Is it the same in Humans? I think not. Assume for the moment that I am a Gay man. I'm walking down a street with few people on it, but one of them is the most beautiful man I've ever seen. My attraction meter goes sky high, and I'm all set to make an approach. Then something else clamors for my attention. I remember that walking along with me is my boyfriend, a very jealous man, so I had better not. That's all easily understandable and happens to all of us several times a day.

The important part, though, is that we have no clearly logical way to choose between those two urges. We have to have an "arbitrator" in ourselves to make the decision about which set of urges we will follow. That "arbitrator" is the difference between humans and Northern Pike. It has to decide what is "right."

Does it follow the principle of "Whatever will leave us with the most money is right?" Or, perhaps, "Whatever will make me happier is right?" We know both of those principles are wrong. The first results in unrestrained greed. Further, I believe no one has ever said to a First Sergeant, or even a coach, that "Four more laps around the field won't make me happy."

Not even survival is always the best choice. The Medal of Honor is our highest military decoration. It's frequently awarded posthumously. The world, however briefly, admires and reveres the person who snatches a child off a railroad track, but is killed himself. The person who has no higher goal than survival is often labelled "Coward."

2. I find it difficult to equate love with murder. People are born with the capacity to commit evil acts. Choosing to do those acts is up to the individual.

I completely agree with you. Please note that the Church has made special provisions for those who do not commit evil acts with full knowledge and free will. It is no sin, or a much lesser one, says the Church, if one is forced to do an evil act, or fully believes with a well-formed conscience and no intent to hide from the truth, that his act is good in God's eyes.

But people born with the propensity for affection/attraction towards those of the same sex simply hold affection or love in a manner that is different to those who are heterosexual.

I think the person who is the recipient of those affections is what makes the difference. Gays and straights can be best friends, have deeply personal conversations, be prepared to sacrifice themselves for each other, and all is good. The only point of dispute is whether sex with that person is wrong.

I suspect some of the three of you are married. If I met your female spouse at a hotel without your knowledge, but with her consent, and have a wild night of sexual bliss (I'm not that old), would it be wrong? I would say yes, not only in man's eyes but, more important, in God's.

God is the embodiment of love. Love is a most singular and pure emotion. Does it matter how that love is expressed, or to whom it is expressed for?

You're quite right that God is Love, but it is not true that Love is God. Many people believe that anything done for love is godly. But here again, we have trouble with the meaning of Love.

Love is normally considered, by people who spend a lot of time thinking about such things, to be the strong desire for what is best for the other person. The "Best" here on Earth, and eternally. We often confuse Love and Sex, shame on the English language.

A most "singular and pure emotion?" I'll agree with you, depending on what we think "Love" means. I love my mother and am dedicated to her care, but I'm not going to bed her (for dozens of reasons). Love is possible without sex. And, in my understanding, that's just what God and the Church is calling for in the case of those attracted to the same sex.

Thank you again, very much.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: beezzer

Would Jesus have hated on gays?

An enlightened being like he was suppose to be I would think absolutely not.

But man took words put them in a book called the Bible, and used to to manipulate the masses to their own selfish agenda's.

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

I'm so grateful that you have given me a chance to explain myself. Sometimes I write things which have effects I never anticipated.

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

You're absolutely correct. That's where we start. But what does it mean? If a father says to a child, be home by 6 p.m. and the child returns at 10, is that obedience, respect, or love? The examples are everywhere: husband - wife, teacher - student, etc.

Jesus says in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep My commandments."

We're only human, we will break His commandments, but by repentance and forgiveness we are washed "whiter than snow" and get another chance at it.

Again, the upbringing of a particular individual is not God's doing.

Why do you think that? Is your God a hands off absentee father with no plan for his orphaned creation?

There's some confusion here. I believe that I was not raised by God, but by my parents who did the best they could, but made mistakes.

Oh yes, God has a plan for His creation, and it is unfolding as He wills. But, on the "orphan" part, we are only orphans because we decided to kick out our Father, and stop trusting in Him, but in an evil angel.

"God" made Satan and allowed sin to enter the world. God cursed mankind in the Garden of Eden.

I suppose that in the more correct understanding, God made Lucifer who rebelled. That was his choice, many angels stayed loyal. Just as we have the choice, so did Lucifer. Yes, God allowed us a free choice to decide whether to sin. I don't think anyone would be happy had He created a world where no one had the ability to do anything contrary to God's law.

He didn't want to create a world of robots where no one had any choice but to bow before Him constantly. He loved us too much to create us like that.

Perhaps you don't realize that you just compared a gay poster to murders, thieves, adulterers, hateful people, traitors and Stalin.

If I did, it was unintentional, for I don't know his behavior or his heart. But the comparison is appropriate in one sense. In fact, I could compare myself to murders, thieves, adulterers, and the rest.

I'm a sinner, as were they. If not for God's mercy, I would share space with them in Hell. The Gay poster you referred to? His course of action is up to him. He, like all men, is a sinner. He should know by now what is right to do.

And Jesus passing by, saw a man, who was blind from his birth:
2 And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man, or his parents, that he should be born blind?
3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.

John 9 is a very interesting chapter, I'll attach a link to it, if you'd like to read the whole thing.
biblehub.com...

At the time, the Jews believed that earthly misfortunes were caused by sin. His followers asked if it was his sin that caused it, or his parents'. Jesus said it wasn't from either of the causes. There is no objection to believing that Satan twisted the man's genes (or whatever explanation you care to use), and Jesus said that the result of his blindness would serve the great purposes of God in letting the world know of God's miracles. Verses 32 and 33 are especially impressive in that regard:

32“Since the beginning of time it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of a person born blind. 33If this man were not from God, He could do nothing.”

Also Romans 8:28:

28And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

If God makes blind people, why not gay people?

First we don't know that God made him blind from birth. Second, "why not Gay people," doesn't get us very far. As has been noted, Gay people are not condemned by God or the Church, but certain acts are.

How is this homosexual attraction and choice any different from the attractions and deeds of divorced and remarried straight people, or unmarried straight people "living in sin" or single straight people having casual sex? Do they deserve the same amount of rebuke, disgust and scorn?

They are all sexual sins, and without God's mercy, and our desire to repent, the net result will be the same.

Nobody deserves disgust and scorn, but we all deserve rebuke when we're going the wrong way. All of us, to some degree, go the wrong way, and we should all be grateful for being rebuked and having our errors pointed out to us.

I believe that God's desire is for us to rebuke others when they stop loving God, but do it gently and lovingly, so as to persuade them to return. In more serious cases, when the person refuses to make corrections, other steps may be called for.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Dear Spiramirabilis,

First, I must deeply apologize if i was snarky at any point. I haven't seen any need to do it, and certainly didn't intend to. I'm very grateful for our conversations and wouldn't want to endanger them.

Just as a heterosexual has an attraction - but doesn't have to do the deed. Somehow, society has found a way to make doing the deed OK for them - but a sin for everyone else

I don't know if this is important to your ideas, but there may be a little confusion between God and Society. Many people think that Society is sex-obsessed.

As far as God goes (He told me in a secret revelation), he doesn't care much for heterosexual sins either.

Homosexuality is a part of nature - this becomes more and more clear with each passing day - even if some of us weren't able to see the sense of this before science was on the case

Even if this is true, to what purpose? Death, disease, starvation, aggression are all part of nature. The natural is not equivalent to the good.

This thread is about whether or not Jesus would have had an issue with gay people - hated gay people - I believe

I agree with you. God loves Gay people. He loves all people, and wants them to be in Heaven with Him. He does, however, hate sin.

The thing I see in this world that is all too obvious is that when science says something that conflicts with religion - science goes out the door. For some - not all. I know and have known religious people (including Christians) that have no problem mixing their faith with science.

I agree again, at least with your sentiments. The Church has been a huge supporter of science, without it, science's progress would have been retarded by centuries. I admire science, the search for truth is always and everywhere valuable. But what does Science have to say about sin? Nothing at all. I don't go to a priest if I need a tutor in nano-engineering. I don't go to a physicist to learn how to live my life, or even the meaning of it. They don't look into that.

What I don't understand is when your own faith is saying that everyone is a sinner, that God loves all his children - that we should not judge - we then get the volume pumped up on the demons and sin chat. It's a crutch - an out, a permission slip, a way to legitimize our fears and hatreds

The idea that everyone is a sinner is the most obviously true of Christian beliefs. It can be scientifically demonstrated. Just open a newspaper. But, still, God loves us, just as you would still love your best friend who does something wrong.

And I agree that I cannot judge another person, I don't have the authority. I can, and am required to, judge acts.

(Isn't it surprising that we've found so much agreement?)

The demon and sin chat business is a little tricky. It's silly for a Christian to think there are no demons and no sins. Being reminded of that is good for us. But it's not a lesson that has to be driven home every week, or every month. For my taste, depending on what's going on in society, twice a year is sufficient. It's possible to drive people to a state of fear by dwelling on Satan and his legions, but that's not healthy or holy.

Science isn't here to tempt you from your Lord - it's your fellow human beings trying to learn about the world around us

Again, science is no temptation for me, I admire it for what it learns.

People are born straight - or gay.I know my saying that doesn't make it true for you. However, in the world we live in now it is reality - for many many people

It doesn't matter much to me if people are born Gay, made Gay, or decide to become Gay. So, again, no real disagreement.

Everyone in life is faced with gifts and handicaps. I agree with you, that the question is what we do with them, how they affect us. (I'm agreeing with you all over the place.)

When individuals with psychopathy imagine others in pain, brain areas necessary for feeling empathy and concern for others fail to become active and be connected to other important regions involved in affective processing and decision-making, reports a new study.

No problems here, either. Some people can't feel empathy, some can't see colors, some don't hear well, some are too short for most sports.

Seems like the Jesus I hear about would forgive this. If it needs forgiving.

Yet again, I would agree. The Church has maintained since the start that if a person is not physically able to avoid a sinful act, then little or no guilt is implied to him.

If you would indulge me Charles - what is sin? I've never heard a really and truly satisfying explanation

I'm flattered beyond words that you would think to ask me. I certainly can't promise to satisfy you. I'll rely instead on another's words, with which I agree.

Trout (as an example) don't have issues of morality. They follow genes, instinct, or whatever, fairly blindly. There is no right or wrong for a trout. Nobody will ever describe a trout as "evil." People have freedom to choose. Some acts, by definition, are more moral than others.

If a person freely chooses one act over another because of the judgment of their conscience, it's fair to see that as a decision which can be judged as good or evil.

Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

Sin is an offense against God: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight.” Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil.

Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation. (Paragraph numbering and footnotes deleted)

From the Catholic Catechism.

I think our areas of agreement are massive. You, as opposed to our current president, may consider yourself a uniter.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Interesting...

Don't you find it a bit odd that Jesus said children are like those in heaven... Basically saying they're innocent..

Yet the OT God says you should kill bratty children?

I believe your catechism fails to recognise the issues between the two...

Then again, why would it I suppose

originally posted by: windword
God doesn't make rules about a rapist paying 50 sheckles to the girl's father and then force that girl to marry her rapist.

Just wanted to point out that you are misinterpreting what you are referring to. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a rapist has to pay his victim's father 50 sheckles and then marry her.

Its a common mistake and understandable if your looking for something to hate on.

originally posted by: charles1952

and with equal respect to you, I thank you for responding kindly with a spirited debate.

Your comments are fair and well regarded by me. Admittedly, I am no longer a Christian and even when I was, I was not so arrogant as to speak for others or for God.

I have to take a needed step back and admit that this is one of the many reasons I left Christianity. I will leave out the other reasons, save to say that I received no answers.

However, I felt there was a touch in inequality in the book. Yes, I have stated that I agree that it is only a book and could easily have been embellished but let us assume that it is holy script from God. I found it difficult to understand why if I laid with a man, especially out of the reason of love, I would be sinning. I did indeed disagree with much of what is written and I am adult enough to admit now that much of my statements in this thread come from my disagreement. Now one thing I AM aware of is this. I am a human being so I can agree with what you stated about me discussing human rules versus that of God.

So I find a fairer and gentler statement I can make is this

I "disagree" with the word of God on this subject, but I shall not pretend to know what the true word is

a reply to: Bone75

Just wanted to point out that you are misinterpreting what you are referring to. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a rapist has to pay his victim's father 50 sheckles and then marry her.

Really? Nowhere? What about Deuteronomy 22?

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Praise the Lord! Gotta love biblical morality!

a reply to: windword

Okay so it appears you were right and I was wrong. I tend to steer clear of the NIV because it is yet another translation.

One thing I will point out though is that in the King James version, the verses immediately preceding the one's your referring to make a clear distinction as to whether or not force was used, whereas your verses (in the KJV) does not. And where it is clearly rape, I doubt you have a complaint as to how it is handled...


25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

a reply to: charles1952

First, I must deeply apologize if i was snarky at any point. I haven't seen any need to do it, and certainly didn't intend to. I'm very grateful for our conversations and wouldn't want to endanger them.

I apologize for not being clearer - nobody has been particularly snarky when we easily could have been and usually are. I was commenting on how civilized the thread was - and that there wasn't any reason to start - with the snarking. These threads all feel like minefields lately - and I can snark with the best of them. Was mostly trying to say: I mean no offense and with all due respect

:-)

You know Charles - this is a most agreeable post - and this back and forth one of our better back-and-forths

I'm not a Christian. I know you know that - and as I mentioned earlier - it's difficult, I think, for two people that come from such completely different points of view to agree on much of anything

I don't have much time today for a real reply. The real reply I had in mind went on and on - and on... (you are luckily spared all that). It had something to do with morality being a part of nature - and a bunch of other stuff. With some clever editing we might have agreed again. Maybe :-)

I was struck by this:
Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience

Sometimes close is close enough

What is sin? Thank you Charles - I'm not sure there is a definition that will workfor everyone. It's one of those. But, this helps me understand what it is for you - and that's pretty much what I was after

Have a lovely Sunday

P.S.

I think our areas of agreement are massive. You, as opposed to our current president, may consider yourself a uniter.

Forgot to say: hah! Never one to waste an opportunity. Don't worry Charles - just a couple more years - how much damage can he do?

:-)

a reply to: windword

I, myself, prefer a different passage. The wording of the commandments is pretty much identical, however Jesus' summation of their importance is a bit more...direct.

There is no commandment greater than these.

So aside from law and prophets, the basic rules that God orders men to live by are simply put. "Love me, and love each other."

No. Jesus wouldn't have hated on gays. In fact I believe Jesus would have marched into places like the Westboro Baptist Church, denounced them and probably set them on fire or something. Every single Christian who puts another human being down for any reason, is one bad Christian. They have no right to judge. They're not God. If God wants to punish, He will punish. All we have to do is remember the TWO Commandments. They're so simple and easy to follow that even a non-Christian can obey them.

Both of them are love, which is the key to happiness for all of us.

a reply to: KyoZero

Dear KyoZero,

Relying on your kindness and patience, I'm going to do something unusual for me.

I "disagree" with the word of God on this subject, but I shall not pretend to know what the true word is

Knowing that we don't know is the beginning of wisdom.

May I sincerely suggest that you set about to find out what the "True Word" is? I won't tell you what your result has to be, but I'm quite strong in the belief that you have to look. This is the one question that a human worth anything at all will not dodge.

If it's all phony, or if you find the real truth, a man would have an obligation to announce it. If Jesus and the Bible is the "True Word," you'll know what to do.

Many have asked the same question you have, many have spent their lives plunging ever deeper into the question. They can serve as guides. There are posters on ATS who are willing to help with answers which may be right or wrong, but they'll serve as guideposts either way.

I'm asking you to bravely accept the challenge to search for the "True Word." It may not be what we like, or fit our preconceptions, but if it's there, there is no greater prize than finding it. I have confidence that you're too much of a man to just ignore the question as if it didn't matter.

With respect,
Charles1952