13 Things The Bible Forbids Other Than Homosexuality

reply to post by Annee


Very interesting, Annee

Any real history of the "biblical mythical Jesus" is nonexistent. There is Nothing - - Zip - - Zero - - to support the myth of "biblical Jesus". There is definite real history of the time of Jesus - - and a real Jesus that was a political dissident. Any person who studies the real truth - - real history - - will come away as a non-believer. Because there is nothing there.

Where can I find this real history?
Any material you wan't to link or quote for me?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


My life experience. I keep my mind open to all possiblities.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by deepankarm
Another bible bashing thread. yawn.....

Coffee should help that

All you people supporting homosexuality, why you want approval of christians who view that behaviour in negative light???

Although not a homosexual, I can answer the captain obvious answer
laws are created that treats hetrosexual couples better than same sex partners.
try going to see a companion in the hospital when its family only...
also tax incentives and the like...etc.
All of this is based on a religious institution that permeates the government and tries to deny equal rights to homosexual couples.

so ya..its not the approval of christians they are wanting..rather, the non exclusive opinions influencing policy from holier than thou christians whom are hypocrites (as demonstrated by this thread)

BTW i ain't a Christian but i love Jesus even as a Hindu.
His teachings on homosexuality are very clear and believe me no true spiritual or religilous leader would disagree.

Agreed..his teachings on homosexuality is quite clear
incidently, he did not say a single word ever about it.
So...his silence says it all...and nobody whom read the bible would disagree with that (the fact he did not weigh in at all on it.)

So...I guess it is about as taboo as getting a tat, working on sabbath, ham sandwiches, curved haircuts, etc....

Beware of religious fanatics and non believers as both are dangerous.....

Fairly random. ok...erm...don't run with scissors.

I have read bible and if you have any common sense, you would understand Jesus's views.
Secondly, society has every right to provide special rights to those who are beneficial to the society.
Heterosexual relationships have maintained the society as you know it and if it weren't for the opposite sex unions and families, what would be the state of civilization.
Heterosexual couples DESERVE those benefits for their services to the society.
Albert Einstein DESERVES much more respect than many others.
It's not a case of equality, it's a matter of APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION.

reply to post by deepankarm


Are you saying that a homosexual does not contribute to society? Or just to not to the breeding program?

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
Where can I find this real history?
Any material you wan't to link or quote for me?

Nope.

If you are curious. If you want factual history - - you will find it.

I wanted to find the truth. I was actually looking for the truth about Jesus.

I've spoken to several seminary students who did the same thing. They wanted to prove Jesus - - so they searched for factual truth. There isn't any. Not of the "mythical biblical Jesus".

All of them left the seminary because they realized it is just a big old lie.

reply to post by CaptainNemo


Why would his post be interesting when he's not even being honest to himself let alone others.

Here is some real history by several non-Christians that bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration



Respectfully, those are not first hand accounts and only one or two are from the time Jesus is said to have lived. Certainly they are not proof that god exists or that this man was the earthly incarnate of god. I think you and I agree at least that this is a matter for faith alone and I hope that you respect my decision to expect proof and that my rationale for this is valid.

I also hope that those who read this thread can see that the reason religion - in this case, christianity - is challenged is because one human being saying to another that they believe something that can't be proven and not only that if the other does not believe they will be damned to an eternity of pain but that their very nature - something they had no choice in being - is evil - is just not right and good.

I'm quite thick-skinned but when I am attacked for something I had no say in at all, it really hurts.

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by CaptainNemo

 

Why would his post be interesting when he's not even being honest to himself let alone others.

Here is some real history by several non-Christians that bear witness to Jesus of Nazareth.

I was thinking the same and then saw your link R.G. This should help
garfee. If a person doesn't believe the testimony of the faithful who
knew Christ and shared it, passed it down, there are non-Christians of
the time who speak of Jesus Christ.

thank you and blessings,


colbe

Originally posted by deepankarm
I have read bible and if you have any common sense, you would understand Jesus's views.

Unless you are christ himself come to amend the bible and add stuff in about gays, then indeed his views are clear..he has no opinion about gays, and said only love neighbor/self/god. Thats it.
You appear to be a follower of paul, not christ.
Do not bear false witness, do not proclaim the lords name as your own, The more you suggest you know jesus's true intent outside of what he said, the more you corrupt his words, and therefore the more you act as the anti-christ.

Secondly, society has every right to provide special rights to those who are beneficial to the society.
Heterosexual relationships have maintained the society as you know it

Your opinion matters little. The discussion angle I am speaking of is from the united states, where all people are created equal. You and whatever backwoods country you are hailing from have your own primate way of doing things, the western world attempts to mirror an element of equality as our core value.

and if it weren't for the opposite sex unions and families, what would be the state of civilization.

erm, not understanding the question here. There have always been unions, marriages, or whatever you want to call them..be it christianity, or pre-christian marriages. But, if there was no institutions of unions, well, I don't reckon much would be different..people would still breed...come to find out, you don't need a piece of paper in order to do this. Go watch nat-geo for awhile..you will find all of nature breeds and doesn't look for a minister to marry them before.

Heterosexual couples DESERVE those benefits for their services to the society.
Albert Einstein DESERVES much more respect than many others.
It's not a case of equality, it's a matter of APPROPRIATE RECOGNITION.

So, in a world overpopulated, we can now punish hetrosexual couples for overbreeding, right? I mean, if we can, by your argument, give special benefits to people whom help society, then we can punish those whom hurt society...right? So, overpopulation...lets say any more than 2 kids per family and the government can simply shoot a family member...sound good to you? After all, its not a system of equality in your mind, but of rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, right?

Albert Einstein...how the hell did he get into this discussion?
Incidently, without Einstein, we may have never invented the nuclear bomb, which killed tens of thousands of people, and indirectly caused major life problems with hundreds of thousands of people.
How is that good for society?
Don't get me wrong, Einstein was actually a peacenik, but his discovery directly lead to the largest scale of death this earth has ever known...

So, using simple outcome for recognition as your a fan of, hetrosexual couples should be cursed as the precursors of overpopulation and resource destruction, and einstein is the greatest serial killer earth ever has known.

Your logic is shaky, and I can gain nothing from continued interactions with you.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Leland M. Haines is not a credible source to present a factual objective view of Jesus.

His writings are published by: Biblical Viewpoints Publications

Plus much of Jocephus writings in regards to Jesus were discredited as fraud. I am not saying Jocephus was a fraud - - - but that someone inserted writings into Jocephus work.

www.bibleviews.com...

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by Garfee
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

Just because real locations were included in the stories and that they have been so often printed does not mean the stories themselves are true.

How do you know there was a Korean "Police Action"?

That Hitler, Churchill, and Roosevelt ever really existed?

That there was a genocide of the Jews in Europe in the early-mid 20th century?

That Columbus ever sailed across the Atlantic from Palos de la Frontera in 1492?

That there ever was a Joan of Arc?

That Napoleon Bonaparte actually lived from the 15th of August, 1769 until the 5th of May, 1821?

All that you think you know may be just your imagination or someone's lies.

Right?

But are you sure?

Given that none of these were supernatural events, I think we can set the standards of evidence accordingly.

reply to post by Annee


You're confusing me, are you saying that you believe that the Jesus of the Bible, all feats attributed to him, and his eventful life, isn't true? Please clear that up for me.

You're basing your conclusion off of, to you, a lack of satisfactory evidence. Thankfully, the majority of us don't share your scholarly standards; including the many anthropologists, linguists, and archaeologists who say that yes, Jesus was born in or around Galilee in the year 4 B.C, he was a Jewish rabbi and healer. I will admit, that the Bible that flys off the shelves has some exaggerations and inconsistencies about the life of Jesus. If you're attempting to convince somebody else of your 'revelation' you're going to have to, "come harder than that".

You've examined texts like the Thallus letter? Or the most satisfactory text, that acknowledges that Christ was crucified Pontius Pilatus, the Tacitus text?

Show me wrong, Annee

Originally posted by CaptainNemo
reply to post by Annee

 

You're confusing me, are you saying that you believe that the Jesus of the Bible, all feats attributed to him, and his eventful life, isn't true? Please clear that up for me.

Yes - that is exactly what I am saying.

There was definitely a Jesus (actually several) of that time. The one most believe was the Jesus of the Bible (the real one - not the mythical one) - - was a political dissident - - and put to death.

You can research it if you are curious and choose to.

reply to post by deepankarm

You have to understand that you can be homosexual and Christian as the others but you have to overcome lust as the others

No you cant. The very definition of "Christian" is to be "like Christ" or "little Christ". Jesus was not a homosexual, and you should know that if he would not do it than you better damn well not do it because he is the living example of how to be and how to live.

Point blank if you're homosexual you are not nor can you ever be one of us, until you put that part away. Better to be single and celibate the rest of your life than to give into sexual immorality and perversion.

The same goes for people who claim they are christians but have unmarried and promiscuous sex. Being a christian implies ambassadorship. If Jesus wouldn't do it then neither should you and if by chance you do, then confess to him ask him forgiveness.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by deepankarm

 

You have to understand that you can be homosexual and Christian as the others but you have to overcome lust as the others

No you cant. The very definition of "Christian" is to be "like Christ" or "little Christ". Jesus was not a homosexual, and you should know that if he would not do it than you better damn well not do it because he is the living example of how to be and how to live.

Jesus also did not go about condemning people for their sins. He showed mercy whenever sinners were being persecuted and always sent them on their way with a simple piece of advice; don't sin anymore. It is entirely possible then for a homosexual to be a Christian, but it involves suppressing desires that are part of their core being. In my opinion this is not a healthy way to go, hence I do not identify myself as a Christian.

Point blank if you're homosexual you are not nor can you ever be one of us, until you put that part away.

It is debatable whether or not homosexuality is immoral. This issue is closely connected to cultural mores rather than commands from God. If you feel hatred towards homosexuals and act as such, you are not being a good Christian, for Jesus tried to teach you to love your neighbour as you do yourself.

Better to be single and celibate the rest of your life than to give into sexual immorality and perversion.

Read this as "better to suffer your whole life alone than fulfil your desires and strive to be happy". Why do you think this way? I'd like to really understand why this so-called "immorality", which does not affect you directly nor adversely, is such a big deal to anyone.

you see what happens when u modify the bible?

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Jesus was not a homosexual, and you should know that if he would not do it than you better damn well not do it because he is the living example of how to be and how to live.

So how come you're not Jewish?

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


That has got to be the stupidest argument I've read in this thread.

God wouldn't make something a certain way, if it is contrary to what he wants.

Originally posted by Glass
If you feel hatred towards homosexuals and act as such, you are not being a good Christian

If you have hatred towards any group you're not being a good Christian. (Matthew 5:43-48) Part of the general misunderstanding is that disagreement with does not equal hatred. I don't think you should wash your car if it's about to rain but I don't hate you if you do so. I don't think that being an open homosexual is what you should be working towards as a Christian any more than getting drunk at bars every Friday night is acceptable for a Christian's actions. Neither of the condemnations equate to hate.

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Glass
If you feel hatred towards homosexuals and act as such, you are not being a good Christian

If you have hatred towards any group you're not being a good Christian. (Matthew 5:43-48) Part of the general misunderstanding is that disagreement with does not equal hatred. I don't think you should wash your car if it's about to rain but I don't hate you if you do so. I don't think that being an open homosexual is what you should be working towards as a Christian any more than getting drunk at bars every Friday night is acceptable for a Christian's actions. Neither of the condemnations equate to hate.

However, all of your examples refer to matters of choice. Homosexuality is only a 'choice' if you are hard-wired with the option. 'Normalcy' is entirely subjective, and if you can envision sexuality as a mere matter of 'choice'...then God Bless, eh?

But to some of us, there's no choice...gay or straight, that's just the way we're built.