It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To Those That Condemn Homosexuality I Ask, Where Are Your Tassels!?

page: 18
14
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Fair enough. I appreciate the further clarification on your view points. It helps me to understand where you are coming from and the conversation takes on a different tone with increased understanding. Again, thank you for taking the time to do so, it is very much appreciated.




posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: peter vlar


Yet Jesus hung out with prostitutes and unmarried women, the OT is rife with rape and incest perpetrated bysome of the most important figures of the OT as esrly in Genesis as Cain, THE patriarch Abraham was married to his own half sister, Sarah. After Sofom and Gomorah, Lots daughters got him loaded and comceived sons with him. Kimg Davids eldest son raped his half sister Tamar amd the list goes on and on... So apparently the Law is more of a "Do as I say and not as I do" application. Pure hypocrisy at its finest.

I know that you mean well peter but your reasoning is not in accord with Christianity. I can't deny that most of what you say here is true. Jesus had not come to judge but to teach and verify His God. He said that He would cause division and He did. No one can learn unless he or she has someone or something to teach them. A sinner cannot learn to not sin unless he or she is aware of sin. You must have hands on to teach another person. Jesus entertained many sinners as well as those who did not practice sin and He said as much as He said that He came for the sinner and not the righteous.

Abraham and nephew Lot were not even aware of the Mosaic law and were not under the knowledge of Mosaic law. They were aware of the seven Noahide laws but were not saints by any means.
1- Do not deny God.
2- Do not blaspheme God.
3- Do not murder.
4- Do not engage in incestuous, adulterous or homosexual relationships.
5- Do not steal.
6- Do not eat of a live animal.
7- Establish courts/legal system to ensure law and obedience.

David is another case. David was barbaric and continually wrong. In fact he was so messed up that God saw him unfit to build His temple. He was always asking for forgiveness and then screwing up again and again. Just like most all Christians do today. But then David is not the old testament. He is just one character in those eras before Christianity and it is unfair to show him as an example of Christianity. He is not Christianity nor is he a representative of Christianity. According to Christianity David is nothing but another creature of God who lived and died as a man. Nothing more. David is not anything special in Christianity except to count genealogy. Not meaning to insult Judaism but that is one great differences between Christianity and Judaism. Jesus' nationality was Judaic and He embraced the Mosaic Torah but also eventually transitioned into His own doctrine.


I think you are misunderstanding the points I was attempting to make here. It wasn't my intent to equate OT with Christianity, it was a counter point to warmindy's interpretation of Christianity that includes Judaic Law as the basis for many of her beliefs and interpretations of scripture from a Christian point of view and the fact that there is a whole lot of cherry picking going on when it comes to accepted scripture that supports bigotry. If you're going to stand by the parts of Leviticus for example, which single out homosexuality but ignore what it says about family relations, land ownership, or sacrifice... It's dishonest to take such an approach while seated on your high horse( not actually you, its a generalization of the pronoun). You can't just choose which parts you want to accept and ignore others at your convenience while attempting to convince others that your views are based on the infallible word of god. Just my 2 cents on the matter.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: infolurker

And this is EXACTLY the same crap as the Seven Mountain Dominionists claim:
They intend to take over:

Family
Education
Arts/Entertainment
Business
Government
Media
Religion


Experts identify two main schools of Dominionism: Christian Reconstructionists, who believe biblical law, including stoning as punishment for adultery and other transgressions, should replace secular law; and the New Apostolic Reformation, which advocates for Christians to "reclaim the seven mountains of culture": government, religion, media, family, business, education, and arts and entertainment.

5 facts about Dominionism

So - I bet you'd just LOVE that program, right?
I'm not a communist, but the extreme right-wing is just as bad. There is a middle ground, and that's what we have to find.


I looked at that link, I must be out of the loop because I have never heard of this New Apostolic Reformation. Sounds like churches of Replacement Theology.

I then read this

When did Dominionism arise? Christian Reconstructionism is the brainchild of the R.J. Rushdoony, a Calvinist theologian who died in 2001, leaving behind several dense tomes and a small band of followers. The New Apostolic Reformation traces its roots to several Pentecostal movements that proliferated in the second half of the 20th century.


That explains it all, a Calvinist. And this thing of "several Pentecostal movement", let me be clear on this one, there are several types of Pentecostals, The Apostolic Pentecostal (Oneness), Trinitarian Pentecostals (Church of God, Cleveland Assembly; Assembly of God; Foursquare Gospel; Pentecostal Holiness International; Church of God of Prophecy; Mountain Assembly of God). Also the various Charismatic churches.

I think the author should have invested some time researching exactly which Pentecostals were involved in the movement. He put them all under an umbrella.

Since the word Apostolic is involved then those are the Oneness churches. They also have a Replacement Theology.


Experts say the New Apostolic Reformation has chapters of "prayer warriors" in all 50 states and in foreign countries where Pentecostalism and charismatic Christianity are popular. Membership numbers are difficult to ascertain, however, since adherents are not required to officially join any church, seminary or ministry.


Don't be worried at that term prayer warrior, it simply means to most Christians those who are willing to pray more. Maybe some think they have to do more.

Replacement Theology is supersessionism


Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.[1] Supersessionism is the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God's[2] chosen people[1][3] and that the Mosaic covenant has been replaced or superseded by the New Covenant.[4] From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent."[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds the Mosaic Covenant as still valid for Jews. While supersessionism was a core tenet of the Church for the majority of its existence, and remains a common assumption among Christians, since the Holocaust it has been rejected by some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations


There are several members on ATS who do follow supersessionism, and they argue it quite vociferously on ATS. I know when they do because they use terms like "Dispensationalism".

I reject supersessionism.


edit on 5/8/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Active Theocrats: The New Apostolic Reformation and The Seven Mountain Dominionists

I didn't know about them until 2 years ago, when I attended a conference.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede


I know that you mean well peter but your reasoning is not in accord with Christianity. I can't deny that most of what you say here is true.


Wait. You "can't deny" that most of what he said is true, but his "reasoning" is not in accord with Christianity....?????

So - bit of cognitive dissonance there. Which do you think is "true"?
This is how it sounds/reads to me: If it isn't 'in accord' with "Christianity", even if it makes sense and is undeniably true, it doesn't 'count' and must be dismissed simply because it is not in accord?

Even if it is reasonable and agreeable?

well, I guess that would explain why SOME Christians don't pay attention to reason - because they aren't allowed to do so and also be 'in accord' with "Christianity."

That sucks for THOSE [SOME] Christians that they are that confined to the walls of the box.
Sad.

edit on 5/8/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: It's Only SOME CHRISTIANS, not, by any stretch, ALL of them.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


Don't be worried at that term prayer warrior, it simply means to most Christians those who are willing to pray more. Maybe some think they have to do more.

I'm not worried in general, but I'm very worried that the 'members' of this NAR/7MD organization are in politics. Bachmann was one - Palin another. Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, and BROWNBACK........among others. I am very, very worried that people who think like this are running for office (and have held office, as governors, or Congress members, or both).

They like to stay "under the radar", but they are NOT kidding around. Cruz is one of them, in my opinion.

I live in Brownback's "territory", and this state has begun swirling into the sewers.
It's a fact.

edit on 5/8/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Seede


I know that you mean well peter but your reasoning is not in accord with Christianity. I can't deny that most of what you say here is true.


Wait. You "can't deny" that most of what he said is true, but his "reasoning" is not in accord with Christianity....?????

So - bit of cognitive dissonance there. Which do you think is "true"?
This is how it sounds/reads to me: If it isn't 'in accord' with "Christianity", even if it makes sense and is undeniably true, it doesn't 'count' and must be dismissed simply because it is not in accord?

Even if it is reasonable and agreeable?

well, I guess that would explain why SOME Christians don't pay attention to reason - because they aren't allowed to do so and also be 'in accord' with "Christianity."

That sucks for THOSE [SOME] Christians that they are that confined to the walls of the box.
Sad.


I think it is fair to say that Seede and I take a very Messianic view of Christianity, whereas others who come to ATS might be more Orthodox. That is why there seems to be so much disagreement and misunderstanding.

The core fundamental teaching of Christianity is that Jesus came to Earth to be born of a virgin, for the purpose of salvation for all people.

What happened in Christianity, as did with every other religion, is that some people were told what to think, some people came up with their own ideas and some people simply went with what sounded cool to them.

The OP asked why Christians were hypocritical for not wearing tassels, then some people didn't realize what the tassels actually were. Then some people constantly assume that all Christians are like Catholics and incessantly remind us of Catholic teaching.

The thing is, and I think Seede would concur, is that pure Christianity, in it's most basic and fundamental teaching, is that all people can seek God on their own. There has never been a requirement placed onto me to only accept Jesus the way that tradition says we must. Therefore, in comparing all religions to their religious texts, I accept the Christ of the Bible because that Christ has also been presented to me in a very real way.

While there are some Christians who come to ATS who talk about their own ways of viewing scripture, people think that all of us have to adhere to their interpretations. The one thing I do is always speak against misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says and I attempt to provide sources for my position.

And I have noticed that there is quite a bit of ignorance from some people (not saying you) regarding anything Jewish because they have never been around Jewish people and have never really studied Judaism to know what all their customs and traditions are, yet the Bible is very Jewish-centric.

Let me give you an idea of what most Christians do not realize, even though it comes from their Bible...




Matthew 25:6And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.



John 3:29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.



Revelation 21:2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.


Fiddler on the Roof has such Christian theology in it but some Christians do not know that because they have removed themselves from the very MOTHER that gave birth to Christianity, and that was the Jewish mother.

Therefore, I honor Judaism as the mother. I need to make a thread of all the Christian theology found in the movie.
edit on 5/8/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs


Wait. You "can't deny" that most of what he said is true, but his "reasoning" is not in accord with Christianity....????? So - bit of cognitive dissonance there. Which do you think is "true"? This is how it sounds/reads to me: If it isn't 'in accord' with "Christianity", even if it makes sense and is undeniably true, it doesn't 'count' and must be dismissed simply because it is not in accord? Even if it is reasonable and agreeable? well, I guess that would explain why SOME Christians don't pay attention to reason - because they aren't allowed to do so and also be 'in accord' with "Christianity."

Yes, most of what peter had said in his post was true as to the happenings of Abraham, Lot, David and others such as them. David did many despicable acts and as warminlndy pointed out he was greatly punished for his actions as well many others in the OT. Warminlndy also explained that simply because it is in the OT does not make it right and also simply because it is OT does not mean that Jesus agreed with their lifestyles. I agree with her in most all of what she teaches.

No one has said it was agreeable or that it should be dismissed by Christianity. There are many faces of Christianity and most all of professed Christians don't even resemble the Christ followers of the first century. Christianity is a dumping ground for all sorts of religions or cults and actually to have a meaningful discussion everyone should be aware of which face of so called Christianity is on the table. A good example is when you are in a discussion as a Roman Catholic with a JW you should be aware that the Jesus of a JW is not the Jesus of a RC. Both have the same name but not the same Jesus.

Peter had pointed out some very good points for me to consider and by being open minded I agree with much of what he also says. He and I disagree as to homosexuality and probably all of us have disagreements on various subjects with one another but because I disagree is not to say that all of the many faces of Christianity agree with me. I can prove this by reminding you that the very church of England has this same issue. England has two bishops. One bishop is a homosexual while the other bishop is not a homosexual. If I presented my case to both bishops I would have two answers just as we have on ATS now. There is one example of two faces of Christianity.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


The thing is, and I think Seede would concur, is that pure Christianity, in it's most basic and fundamental teaching, is that all people can seek God on their own. There has never been a requirement placed onto me to only accept Jesus the way that tradition says we must.


Okay then! I'm really glad you're back in action here.
Thanks.

I agree with that pure teaching. We are all unique, and find our path according to who we are.

(Not so much the 'virgin birth' thing, or miracles - just...that we are all as capable and connected to The Source as he was.)


hug.
edit on 5/8/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes, most of what peter had said in his post was true as to the happenings of Abraham, Lot, David and others such as them. David did many despicable acts and as warminlndy pointed out he was greatly punished for his actions as well many others in the OT. Warminlndy also explained that simply because it is in the OT does not make it right and also simply because it is OT does not mean that Jesus agreed with their lifestyles. I agree with her in most all of what she teaches.

No one has said it was agreeable or that it should be dismissed by Christianity. There are many faces of Christianity and most all of professed Christians don't even resemble the Christ followers of the first century. Christianity is a dumping ground for all sorts of religions or cults and actually to have a meaningful discussion everyone should be aware of which face of so called Christianity is on the table. A good example is when you are in a discussion as a Roman Catholic with a JW you should be aware that the Jesus of a JW is not the Jesus of a RC. Both have the same name but not the same Jesus.


A very salient point and a perfect analogy with the RC &JW in my opinion.


Peter had pointed out some very good points for me to consider and by being open minded I agree with much of what he also says. He and I disagree as to homosexuality and probably all of us have disagreements on various subjects with one another but because I disagree is not to say that all of the many faces of Christianity agree with me. I can prove this by reminding you that the very church of England has this same issue. England has two bishops. One bishop is a homosexual while the other bishop is not a homosexual. If I presented my case to both bishops I would have two answers just as we have on ATS now. There is one example of two faces of Christianity.


Disagreeing is human nature and in many instances a way for us to learn from each other if the parties are willing. The fact that we can, for the most part, be both civil and open minded regarding one another's views is seemingly new ground in ATS but perhaps by example it can shine a new perspective on some people. Regardless of my stances and how I'm viewed by some, my primary interest on ATS is to learn. Sharing knowledge is a secondary afterthought in the grand scheme of things!



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

And you know that if I am ever in error, you have the right to tell me.
I would not get upset if you did.

In fact, we are supposed to be challenged in our faith, so that we don't end up falling into the trap of private interpretation. And we are to always give a ready answer for the hope that lies within us.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm falling behind in this thread, trying to catch up.


I'm kind of amazed that you would invoke the Roman idea of abomination when the Romans themselves were accepting of every kind of sexual relationship, including pederasty and pedophilia. Yep, good comparison.

You might want to check your sources on that. I'm of the impression that 1st century Rome had strict moral codes.

The reason scandals are even read about is because they were scandals, deviations from the norm.

Romans weren't Barbarians, Heathens, nor Pagan. They had civilized religion. Heathen & Pagan means uncivilized country bumpkin religion.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy



Simeon and Levi attacked and killed every man in Shechem over the rape and kidnapping of their sister Dina. If they took her virginity seriously enough to make that type of response, then apparently kidnap and rape was something detestable to them.

You might want to read that story over again. The man was willing to do whatever it took to make it right with her father. Simeon and Levi were the wrongdoers by breaking the faith that Jacob and the man's father had.

They were cursed as a result.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm falling behind in this thread, trying to catch up.


I'm kind of amazed that you would invoke the Roman idea of abomination when the Romans themselves were accepting of every kind of sexual relationship, including pederasty and pedophilia. Yep, good comparison.

You might want to check your sources on that. I'm of the impression that 1st century Rome had strict moral codes.

The reason scandals are even read about is because they were scandals, deviations from the norm.

Romans weren't Barbarians, Heathens, nor Pagan. They had civilized religion. Heathen & Pagan means uncivilized country bumpkin religion.


LOL, I never implied that they were heathen and pagan.

It is really too difficult to post many links, because they contain those very images of homosexual acts of the Romans. I just am not comfortable posting links to the many sites that show it.

You have given me a challenge, to provide sources that don't show pictures, but it appears a lot of LGBT sites are celebrating it and talking about it, they even show the literature.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



There are a few types of Eunuchs, natural born and made Eunuchs as you describe are 2 of those. He was very clear about which ones were a gift from god and they were natural born, i.e. gay

When I was growing up, the Sabbath School teachers always said this was talking about celibacy rather than same sex. The church books said that too. Can you point to the post that explains this? I think I missed it or just glossed over it.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


pure Christianity, in it's most basic and fundamental teaching, is that all people can seek God on their own. There has never been a requirement placed onto me to only accept Jesus the way that tradition says we must. Therefore, in comparing all religions to their religious texts, I accept the Christ of the Bible because that Christ has also been presented to me in a very real way.

To paraphrase in my own words: Your Christianity connects you to God who is greater than Christianity, Judaism, New Testament, Old Testament, and all kinds of other books and religions. And since you found the Christ in Jesus and the Bible, you feel a commitment to the Bible.

If your God is greater than the Bible, wouldn't the Bible be a container too small to encompass Him? Similar to humans who are said to be clay vessels. Consider the implications.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy


You have given me a challenge, to provide sources that don't show pictures, but it appears a lot of LGBT sites are celebrating it and talking about it, they even show the literature.

I was referring to strict marriage codes actually, I don't think about homosexuality much, so I wasn't even thinking about it when I wrote that. Strange, given the thread and all.

I can look up the references myself. Thank you.

As far as gay marriage goes, when you think about it, much of marriage law has to do with inheritance. I think in Rome, a senior wealthy partner would legally adopt a less wealthy partner. That way next of kin was established, for inheritance. The idea of civil union in the U.S. would be similar.


edit on 8-5-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Although the OP addressed this in his opening post, I want to pursue it further.
Adultery was also a captical crime for which both people died, that was the law.
An adulterer died just the same as a homosexual. The punishment was exactly the same, death by stoning.
What does that tell us about how God felt about these infractions of major sin ? He didn't like them, he still doesn't.
BUT, we have Jesus sacrifice in between us and God, and it gives us a lot of leeway today, to stumble and fail, but to also learn from our mistakes without being killed for them.

Everybody always tries to make this into a "gay" only issue, it is not, it is strictly a morality issue and the scope of it goes way beyond just gays. Read 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, people who rob and extort money from other people, and drunks will suffer the same fate as homosexuals. It is the single vice in the bible that has it's own advocacy group, but there are many others that God condemns yet nobody says anything about those.

In the end if people want to pursue any of those vices they have free will, they can, this includes homosexuality.


edit on 9-5-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: WarminIndy


pure Christianity, in it's most basic and fundamental teaching, is that all people can seek God on their own. There has never been a requirement placed onto me to only accept Jesus the way that tradition says we must. Therefore, in comparing all religions to their religious texts, I accept the Christ of the Bible because that Christ has also been presented to me in a very real way.

To paraphrase in my own words: Your Christianity connects you to God who is greater than Christianity, Judaism, New Testament, Old Testament, and all kinds of other books and religions. And since you found the Christ in Jesus and the Bible, you feel a commitment to the Bible.

If your God is greater than the Bible, wouldn't the Bible be a container too small to encompass Him? Similar to humans who are said to be clay vessels. Consider the implications.


Yes, but that's the written glimpse we get of Him.
When I read the Bible, I say "God, what did you mean here?" Then I get an answer, it might take time or it might come quickly, but I always get an answer.

There was a time when the average woman like me could not have access to reading the Bible, I have the freedom to do so.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Although the OP addressed this in his opening post, I want to pursue it further.
Adultery was also a captical crime for which both people died, that was the law.
An adulterer died just the same as a homosexual. The punishment was exactly the same, death by stoning.
What does that tell us about how God felt about these infractions of major sin ? He didn't like them, he still doesn't.
BUT, we have Jesus sacrifice in between us and God, and it gives us a lot of leeway today, to stumble and fail, but to also learn from our mistakes without being killed for them.

Everybody always tries to make this into a "gay" only issue, it is not, it is strictly a morality issue and the scope of it goes way beyond just gays. Read 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11, people who rob and extort money from other people, and drunks will suffer the same fate as homosexuals. It is the single vice in the bible that has it's own advocacy group, but there are many others that God condemns yet nobody says anything about those.

In the end if people want to pursue any of those vices they have free will, they can, this includes homosexuality.



I think that maybe people misunderstand the position that we take that yes, people are going to be gay or straight, but the problem comes in actively engaging in behaviors.

I think that for those who were born gay (as they say) is probably part of the nature inherited by all children of Adam. Now others will disagree with me on that, but since we were all born with our nature and some were born to be very evil and some were born to be kind and compassionate, we would have to accept that sometimes people are simply going to do what people are going to do.

Some people say nature, some people say nurture. I think it must be both because I have seen for myself the nurture (not all nurturing leads to good) that some children have been treated very unkindly or were made to feel ashamed for being born they way they were. I think it a great disgrace to say to a child "I wanted a boy, but got a girl" or the other way. Then treat their daughter like she isn't worthy of being treated as a girl. The same thing I have seen with boys, mothers who have wanted a girl treat their little boy like girls. I've seen it myself.

If being gay is not inherited (people spent a long time trying to prove that one), then it is a choice, and if it is a choice, often it does result from society. And that's why we spend so much time talking about the Gay Agenda. If it is not inherited, if it was not the result of a genetic mutation (not all mutations are bad, remember) and if it was not the result of the inherited condition of our natures (that we call original sin that is inherited), then it is a choice.

If we start accepting that it is part of the human condition, inherited from the fall of Adam, then people will say there was no Adam. But Adam isn't really a name, it became a name, because Adam really is adamu, meaning man. If they say that we all inherited mutations from our early ancestors (adamu is our ancestor), then why is that a different message?

OK, so they say that it is evolution. OK, then we say that we are correct because we say that we have inherited our being and nature through many generations. It's the same thing, only people refuse the same religious statement.

Now if people are born gay, then it is inherited from the evolution of humans. Therefore they must have evolved from a non-gay ancestor that for whatever reason had a mutation that was handed down (inherited).

And if that isn't the reason, then it must be nurture or society and a choice.

But the Bible is against engaging in particular activities. The Bible also says that people shouldn't wake up in the day to drink all day and then go out drinking so they get into fights and rioting. Any activity that leads to any destruction, that's what the Bible really does tell us, and it is destructive to the very self-esteem of little boys and girls to make them feel less worthy of being who they are.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join