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.

 

Christianity in one word: Anti-homosexual

page: 42
38
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture1200
I remember from reading the New Testament is there was nothing there that made any reference to sexuality.

Paul said it was a no-no in Romans.




posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by SaturnFX
 





Does it matter if we progress? what motivates us?


Again, why should it matter at all if we are just animals with an animal brain which somehow took all this time just to organize itself from picking fleas off one another to thinking about Creatio ex Nihilo? Is there any point at all to our existence besides claiming we have no choice in being homo or hetero?


Is there any point to being alive to begin with? a theist is promised eternal cool stuff once they die...so, why are they then not trying to get themselves killed at any given opportunity? (some are mind you).
Biologically we are driven to strive, grow, expand, etc...we can discuss more existential reasonings and justifications, but its unnecessary. biology tells us to do it, so we do..same with eating. to do not is to cause pain in us...should we consider just killing ourselves, our mind goes into total panic mode, even a natural death hits our primitive fight or flight mode. Most things we do is focused on foundation and expansion of ourselves and our species...

Now, philosophically, why are we doing it? meh...add your reason in here.
Personally, I think our goal is to become eternal somehow. Immortality perhaps...write our names in the stars as it were...



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I think your question is (or is it my question..hmm), is this order that is in the universe conscious...intentful....or is it just order without reason.

the answer to that, for me anyhow, is..I don't know
and I don't believe anyone whom says they do know...whom is also a human like me.
Because, it is unknowable..at least with our current level of technology (and perhaps for all time..technological limit).

I don't know allows for lots of musings and wonderings though.


Well then I like this definition


The All is the Hermetic version of God. Alternatively, it has been called The One, The Great One, The Creator, The Supreme Mind, The Supreme Good, The Father, and The Universal Mother. The All is seen by some to be a panentheistic conception of God, subsuming everything that is or can be experienced. One Hermetic maxim states "While All is in THE ALL, it is equally true that THE ALL is in All." (Three Initiates p. 95) The All can also seen to be hermaphroditic, possessing both masculine and feminine qualities in equal part (The Way of Hermes p. 19 Book 1:9). These qualities are, however, of mental gender, as The All lacks physical gender.


According to Hermetic doctrine, The All is more complicated than simply being the sum total of the universe. Rather than The All being simply the physical universe, it is said that everything in the universe is within the mind of The All, since The All can be looked at as Mind itself (Three Initiates pp. 96–7). The All's mind is thought to be infinitely more powerful and vast than humans can possibly achieve (Three Initiates p. 99), and possibly capable of keeping track of every particle in the Universe. Despite The All being described as subsuming the universe, the possibility of there being things outside of The All is not excluded.



The All may also be a metaphor alluding to the godhead potentiality of every individual. "[God]... That invisible power which all know does exist, but understood by many different names, such as God, Spirit, Supreme Being, Intelligence, Mind, Energy, Nature and so forth."[1] In the Hermetic Tradition, each and every person has the potential to become God, this idea or concept of God is perceived as internal rather than external. The All is also an allusion to the observer created universe. We create our own reality; hence we are the architect, The All. Another way would to be to say that the mind is the builder. Freemasonry often includes concepts of God as an external entity, however, esoteric masonic teachings[citation needed] clearly identify God as the individual himself: the perceiver. We are all God and as such we create our own reality. Although others believe God to be abstract. Meaning he is not seen in reality, but understood through deep contemplation. He is all around us everyday, just hiding in the miracles and beauty of our Earth.


en.wikipedia.org...

So much for other's insinuation that I just believe only what the bible tells me so because it is the bible.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Well, Saturn? Which is it to be? Ridicule or adult discussion? Humanism is the inversion of traditional religious thought. I have just shown that traditional thought can be converted into more scientific theory, and I have no problem relating to both religion and science. I think in the end science will prove some religious theories true. I do not subscribe to the theory that the earth is only 6000 years old. I do not think of God as an anthropomorphic man in the sky making all our decisions for us and condemning us to a hell if we don't do exactly as He says we should.

humanism can be equated to a religion to those wanting to find a religion in it. I don't disagree..they can see humanity as gods in the making as it were..and perhaps they are half right.
but to be a humanist, does not require you to see humanism as a religion...I accept much of what they teach and suggest as a guide of understandings and vision of where we as people should strive for.
It is the cookie over the moldy bread choice.
Good you don't toss out scientific understandings...of course, many a religious types would be quite cross with you if you said that to their face...you pinko lefty communist you.




But I do subscribe to an omniscient Being with knowledge far greater than any of us can imagine in our finite awareness.

I don't deny that possibility. Frankly, a deity I would potentially accept as being just that (a deity) is as you just said...like a fruitfly trying to understand nuclear science.



You, on the other hand, seem to believe that god is a creation of man, and that the Universe evolved from a disorganized mass of sludge into the amazing organization of matter in the most complex of form by some kind of happenstance, unless you can indicate to me you believe otherwise....
edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

Again, I don't subscribe to the assumption that anything was ever disorganized..things alter all the time based on reactions.
God, the image created by man, is just that...a image man has made to try to understand the reactions going on here.
Doesn't mean there is or isn't one..I just don't believe in the images we make. far too simple.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Not a bad blurb there. not too far off what I entertain actually.
It puts more importance on life though than I would. the reaction (the all) seems to not consider much for or against life in general..otherwise every planet would be a perfect place for life to set its feet on. every moon would be filled with life, etc...so, if there is a conscious decision that sparked off this simulation, it doesn't seem like its bothered that much with life moreso than the reactions of matter in general...perhaps life is just a sort of matter checker...a slightly more complex reaction than say, wind.

hard to consider infinity...because while doing so, you start to lose focus on what your role is overall...it can become quite overwhelming mentally to contemplate your role in the universe.

but I can make a mean chicken salad..so that has to count for something.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by arbiture1200
I remember from reading the New Testament is there was nothing there that made any reference to sexuality.

Paul said it was a no-no in Romans.


As I have stated, I'm not a bible scholar. So I missed it, sue me. Being a gay man I did have on one occasion a guy who asked me "when did you chose to be gay"? Seeing him writing on a piece of paper I asked him "when did you choose to be right handed"? Since I believe the Almighty does not make mistakes, its up to us not to imprison ourselves with our own dippy hangups.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture1200
one occasion a guy who asked me "when did you chose to be gay"? Seeing him writing on a piece of paper I asked him "when did you choose to be right handed"?


Thats perhaps the best line I have heard yet to sum up the entire argument
Well done sir.

In regards to Paul/bible
Some believe Paul to have not been preaching the message of christ, but rather someone whom was making up his own religion based on his personal viewpoints and stances.
It is common to ask a christian whom is anti-gay what exactly did christ specifically say about homosexuality...not paul...but christ.
also, what did he say about tattoos (both are forbidden in the OT)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Circular logic is defined as this:

Circular Logic

Or in other words, what you've been doing. You should consider speaking for yourself, instead of letting the Bible do your talking, my friend. It's seriously crippling your critical thinking skills.


Do you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution? If so why? Because Darwin said so? Because your science book said so? Because your schoolteacher presented it to you as irrefutable and proven truth with absolutely no alternative theory whatsoever, to be believed forever and ever regardless of what other scientific ideas could possibly be entertained long into the future?
If so, I ask you to reconsider your question to me.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


The Old Testament is based on Mosaic law, the Torah. Jesus said he came not to change the law but to fulfill it. How many times must I repeat this? We do not know what he may have discussed among his disciples about it, if anything. But a study of the Essene community which he is said to have grown up suggests an adherence to male/female relationships. This is not to suggest that he was judgemental.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


Either way, its over.
when something is fulfilled...it is over, quest accomplished, time to move on. When you fulfill a contract to build a home, the contract is over...doesn't mean you keep working on the home after its fulfilled and you got paid.

So, the OT is old school..toss it. rip it out completely as if it never happened (except for maybe some historical interest)...which means, start new...new contract..new rules...ok, christ...go.
love self, love neighbor, love god...gotcha...from the word of god to man...simple enough.

who is this paul dude..whats he going on about? Why is he using terms from the old contract..does he know that was fulfilled? hmm.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So you are now saying Mosaic law is not of importance because Jesus came and said some stuff about he and his father being one? I guess that is in keeping with your idea that there is no timeless truth, that everything is subject to man's whim at any given moment.

So do the laws of mathematics change or just our perception of them? I have read that Pythagorus studied with the priests in Egypt.

I love Donald in Mathmagicland






edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
chapter one of john says Jesus IS the WORD.... the word was with God, the word WAS God.

Seeing as how a lot of Jesus' time in the bible was spent correcting people and correcting so called masters false interpretations of the bible, could it be that just as he made it clear that sacrifices were not needed as he WAS the sacrifice, that he was saying that others had simply misinterpreted the law?

It does seem that this could be a big possibility.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Your very kind, thank you. I never knew about the tattoo thing in the OT... The fact that Paul would have "made it up" as he went and attributed his wisdom to Christ does not surprise me in the least. As an example, I know a young lady who is one of the major league rising stars in quantum physics. She is not well published, and she hesitated to publish what I consider truly ground breaking work. She called me, and we talked for several hours about this paper and when we came to the end of the conversation I asked her "Have you decided which journal to present this paper to"?

Her biggest concern, was not being able to tie in her concepts in with the accepted legends in physics and math. This is not at all unusual in advanced research, but it can inhibit truly revolutionary breakthroughs, because you can't use the name of one of the well known authorities to validate your ideas. I said the value of that paper will rise or fall on it's own merits. And for any scientist, presenting a revolutionary idea with out "back up" that can be a very lonely and terrifying place.

We have all heard the expression "theres an old saying that I just made up". It's a problem of linking your ideas to some previously well known person. Wether Paul did indeed plagiarize Christ's words, or just came up with them himself we are not likely to ever know. But it does say something about all of us, to often we fear "owning" what we say.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   


Either way, its over. when something is fulfilled...it is over, quest accomplished, time to move on. When you fulfill a contract to build a home, the contract is over...doesn't mean you keep working on the home after its fulfilled and you got paid. So, the OT is old school..toss it. rip it out completely as if it never happened (except for maybe some historical interest)...which means, start new...new contract..new rules...ok, christ...go. love self, love neighbor, love god...gotcha...from the word of god to man...simple enough. who is this paul dude..whats he going on about? Why is he using terms from the old contract..does he know that was fulfilled? hmm.
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


So it's ok for me to shag my neighbours wife and covet all his flashy goods, dishonour my mum and dad and the 'GOD' of my upbringing, murder, steal and whatever else now?
Paul was a Rabbi who knew and understood more about the law and the Torah than you will ever understand in your closed western mindset understanding.
Don't impose your culutural biases and ignorances upon them.
You don't understand Hebraism, or the the Torah.
Jesus 'fulfilled it' means that you are now answerable to Him rather than 'Moses' or the 'law of Moses' that seperated the Hebrew people from amongst the other peoples of the world as a 'Covenant/relationship' people with the GOD who gave them those rules.
'Mercy triumphs over judgement.' But sin is still sin.
You face a prosecution who has a case against you that you cannot win. The lawyer for the prosecution has been advised to represent you as well as his client, on conditiion of your acknowledgement of your complicit guilt in the crime.
Jesus chooses to be the lawyer to represent the prosecution, AND you.
Don't pretend you're not guilty. Justice will be served, but you'll get off.
Understand the prosecution and the lawyer.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Exactly, it's time to apply ALL Biblical norms, and if a woman is found not to be a virgin after marriage, she must be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

Anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Jesus was clear on this, and it is perpetual and unforgiven adultery as a "marriage".
(Matthew 5:32)

If a man is not a virgin it doesn't matter, but if a man rapes a virgin he can pay some Shekels and he must marry that woman, and they cannot be divorced, and if he accuses a woman falsely of not being a virgin, and a "garment" is produced as proof of her virginity, then the man cannot divorce her for all his life.
That is his punishment.
The woman, if found guilty by a garment, must be stoned to death by all the men of the community.
That is her punishment.

Some people on this thread want the "old law", so let's apply it.

All second marriages should be declared null and void, and a tribunal of religious men should be established.

I'd say be lenient with the wrongful women of today.
Those who were not virgins upon marriage should return to their first husbands, pay a fine, become celibate, or accept being stoned to death.
Truly religious women will arrive at the given time, and hand out bags of stones.
It's in the Bible, so it's for their own good.
Their children will be "bastards"; cast out from any true congregation.
(Deuteronomy 23:2. Incidentally the word can also mean racially mixed, as we learnt under apartheid that saw itself as Bible-based.)

Laws against rape should be adjusted for religious fathers, so that if their daughters are raped as virgins the offender can pay a small fine to the father. No age of consent is given.
(Deuteronomy 22:28)

Then we have the Old Law that Jesus apparently taught (although He didn't keep the Sabbath, and it appears He didn't marry at all).
Yeah, let's be fair and apply it all.

Then we can sum it all up in another word - Misogyny!
edit on 20-5-2012 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX


In regards to Paul/bible
Some believe Paul to have not been preaching the message of christ, but rather someone whom was making up his own religion based on his personal viewpoints and stances.
It is common to ask a christian whom is anti-gay what exactly did christ specifically say about homosexuality...not paul...but christ.
also, what did he say about tattoos (both are forbidden in the OT)


Is this not off topic banter? Have you no respect for your own OP?
This post addresses neither GAYS or Christians. Except the totally wierd ficticious question about an anti gay Christian being asked by some unknown COMMON anybody,"what would a jew specifically say about homos."SAD,sad sad



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
chapter one of john says Jesus IS the WORD.... the word was with God, the word WAS God.

Seeing as how a lot of Jesus' time in the bible was spent correcting people and correcting so called masters false interpretations of the bible, could it be that just as he made it clear that sacrifices were not needed as he WAS the sacrifice, that he was saying that others had simply misinterpreted the law?

It does seem that this could be a big possibility.


Don't matter in this thread. HE WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. Was he a gay jew?



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
So it's ok for me to shag my neighbours wife and covet all his flashy goods, dishonour my mum and dad and the 'GOD' of my upbringing, murder, steal and whatever else now?

I would say none of what you just mentioned is loving your neighbor.

well, might be ted bundy style love mind you...but not the common understanding of it.
Fail



Paul was a Rabbi who knew and understood more about the law and the Torah than you will ever understand in your closed western mindset understanding.

Paul was a man. I am a man
We are equal.
He can give his opinion on what the ring represents in lord of the rings, as can I...we are equally correct (or incorrect).
My mind is quite open in these matters. Yours however seems to be on a leash programmed by your religious leaders on how to think.


Don't impose your culutural biases and ignorances upon them.

I will if I want.
I want
therefore I did.


You don't understand Hebraism, or the the Torah.

I also don't understand egyptian, but I know how a sundial works. If the bible is timeless and for all, then all will understand, no matter what time it is
I understand what Christ was saying
Paul however sounds like a nut to me.


Jesus 'fulfilled it' means that you are now answerable to Him.

Thats what it means to you.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by SaturnFX


In regards to Paul/bible
Some believe Paul to have not been preaching the message of christ, but rather someone whom was making up his own religion based on his personal viewpoints and stances.
It is common to ask a christian whom is anti-gay what exactly did christ specifically say about homosexuality...not paul...but christ.
also, what did he say about tattoos (both are forbidden in the OT)


Is this not off topic banter? Have you no respect for your own OP?
This post addresses neither GAYS or Christians. Except the totally wierd ficticious question about an anti gay Christian being asked by some unknown COMMON anybody,"what would a jew specifically say about homos."SAD,sad sad


The topic ship sailed away long ago..now we are sort of just chit chatting due to lack of interesting threads elsewhere.
I also provided you the links to the books where the studies were published, the group that did them, the christian author whom did the groundwork and published the book,
Not sure what more you need..do you want to personally review the raw data?
Actually, I stopped caring about what you want awhile back. you have, as the kids say today, a bad case of butthurt...so your just rambling now.
Must really bug you that this thread is 40 pages long though...that must really get under your skin..coming back everyday to see it growing more and more...ooh..you must be red faced and your little hands all balled up in a fist.

heh

hmm...that was fun..it felt nice to be insulting and a jerk. I can see why you do it soo often.



posted on May, 20 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


FX you own this
"Paul was a man. I am a man
We are equal.
He can give his opinion on what the ring represents in lord of the rings, as can I...we are equally correct (or incorrect).
My mind is quite open in these matters."

I do not like to use longjohn's school of reading comprehension.
But this is a case that I must.

YOU are a man. Christians are men.
You and THEY are EQUAL.
Now say you are sorry for being a Christianaphobe and move on FX.
I guarantee your flags will double or more.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join