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.
I suppose it would be fair to say that we both can read whatever we choose into or out of the Bible.
Our Constitution demands due process and equal protection under the law. If the government is going to grant special privileges and "rights" to some, they must be granted to all. The government must also protect and ensure our inalienable right of freedom of religion. So, unlike those Christians who would impose their Christianity on me and others, I will not do the same.
and, of course, the only commandment that Jesus gave us.
You don't need my permission or approval to believe as you wish and act accordingly, nor do gays... Likewise, I neither need nor want your approval or permission to exercise my God-given and Constitutionally protect freedom of faith and conscience.
Whatever you say. smh
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: JohnFisher
This does a good job addressing your first paragraph.
carm.org...
What a load of garbage! So, let me get this straight, according to your link, we don't stone adulterers and unruly children any more because it's a cultural thing, but adultery and sassy back talk are moral issues?! GET OUTTA TOWN!
Why didn't Jesus wash his hands after touching the sick? Was that just a cultural thing too? Or, were Jesus and friends just making it up as they went along, deciding what laws were important to keep and what laws weren't? Why do you believe it's okay to eliminate God's order of circumcision as "cultural", but maintain that homosexuality is a moral issue? Where's the logic?
Why is it okay to change the mandatory Sabbath from the 7th day, when God rested, to the 6th day, if you feel like it and if it's okay with your boss, but maintain that homosexuality is an abomination?
It used to be just fine for a man to marry as many women as he could afford, because men were supposed to spread their seed and multiply as much as possible. We don't think like that any more, culturally, and we value small families, birth control and women's reproductive choices. We consider it immoral to have children who can't be taken care of or loved.
Churches do and should accept anyone into the congregation, including homosexuals.
If that were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Yes, there are some churches that embrace gay marriage, just like the OP that you're rebuking. I'd imagine you'd also have some words for those pastors.
There are plenty of churches that won't think twice about what goes on with heterosexuals and won't treat them as "sinners" that need to be reproached and corrected for their life style. But the gays stand out in most churches and attract rebuke, correction and you insist that they need to change, end their relationships and remain celibate, while remarried divorcees and couples that are shacking up and living in sin, get a pass. That's just plain old Christian hypocrisy!
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Boadicea
I suppose it would be fair to say that we both can read whatever we choose into or out of the Bible.
I don't think thats an honest statement. Is it of your opinion that all interpretations of a text are equally valid?
Is the Bible the Word of God?
...there is a difference in what God requires of us now as opposed to the OT times. In OT we were not at peace with God, but the gift Christ gave us put us at peace with God.
It is not my opinion that homosexuals cannot be saved. However it is my opinion that in order to be saved that have to recognize they are being sinful and that without Jesus their sin wouldn't be forgiven.
I didn't say you don't have a right to think whatever you like, but merely wanted to discuss the topic according to scripture.
You yourself used the word "interpretation," which is pretty much what one reads into or out of something, in this case the Bible.
My interpretation is valid to me and that's all it has to be for earthly purposes.
The Bible is man's word of God.
There is also a very big difference between what God requires of us and what we require of others. That same gift of peace that Jesus gave us is meant to be the same gift of peace we give others.
If folks aren't hurting anyone or causing problems for the rest of us, we should let them be.
When people are being good to each other and loving others, we should be happy.
which includes the issue of some imposing their religious will on gays, me and others by denying equal application of marriage laws to gays.
The Bible claims to be God-breathed. The way you worded everything it seems to me that you think the Bible has errors in it because it was made by humans. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
How can this be true if the Bible wasn't even composed or compiled at the time that Jesus supposedly said that? What Law do you think Jesus was talking about? Not eating sacrificial lamb after the 3rd day?
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Boadicea
An interpretation is the action of explaining the meaning of something. If I said "the pig is blue" one could not simply read into that and say "the pig is red" and it be considered a valid interpretation. By valid I mean does it have a sound basis in logic and fact, or rather simply put is that interpretation true.
My interpretation is valid to me and that's all it has to be for earthly purposes.
This is similar to saying that something is true for me but not for you. Truth(funny i just started a thread on this) is not subjective. The best way I can explain truth is using a boolean value. Either something is true or it false.
The Bible is man's word of God.
The Bible claims to be God-breathed. The way you worded everything it seems to me that you think the Bible has errors in it because it was made by humans. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
There is also a very big difference between what God requires of us and what we require of others. That same gift of peace that Jesus gave us is meant to be the same gift of peace we give others.
I don't think we can give that gift. I think only Jesus can give that gift, but maybe I just misunderstood you, are you talking about spreading the word of salvation?
If folks aren't hurting anyone or causing problems for the rest of us, we should let them be.
Actually the Bible says that all sexual immorality is a sin against ones own body... [snip]... This is something God tells us to do for our own sake, not for the sake of others.
When people are being good to each other and loving others, we should be happy.
I don't think it is a sin for two guys to love each other, but when they have sexual intercourse it is a sin by biblical standards I don't think there is a way around that unless you just throw out some parts of the Bible as "error".
which includes the issue of some imposing their religious will on gays, me and others by denying equal application of marriage laws to gays.
As I told a couple of my buddies who are gay, I can't marry a man either and therefore we have equal rights. To which they responded "BUT YOU DON"T WANT TO MARRY A MAN." I replied by saying "its not about what we want, but what is equal." The application of the law is equal among all people, some people are just not happy with what is applied.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog
Heard it before. First four minutes he defines himself by his sexual orientation. That is my main issue with the homosexual community. Straight people don't define themselves be what gender they sleep with. They don't define themselves by who their sleeping with. Who you are sleeping with has nothing to do with who you are.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea
Great thread, and I agree. For instance, the majority of the Democratic party is Christian. Clearly THEY all support gay marriage (or at least most of them).
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword
How can this be true if the Bible wasn't even composed or compiled at the time that Jesus supposedly said that? What Law do you think Jesus was talking about? Not eating sacrificial lamb after the 3rd day?
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by iinspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
The bold text is translated from the word theopneustos and it literally means God-breathed. The better question is whether or not a text is indeed Scripture
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea
Well remember, it's always the loudest that get the most attention. Unfortunately, the way things work is that when you are happy and satisfied, there is no reason to yell and scream, but when you are upset and feel slightest, you yell and scream all the time. This causes the worst of your group to be associated with such opinions. Not to mention, it gives those opinions more media exposure, so also helps to spread them.
So you think that these passages were talking about their own authors, their own authors declaring their own writing to be equally as Holy as the book of Isaiah, say?
Rule of thumb, if someone has to tell you that their writings are "God breathed" they're probably full of sh!t.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Boadicea
This is why I insist over and over on this website that I don't like the religion, but I have nothing against the people who worship it. There certainly ARE people who take the message it is SUPPOSED to be saying to heart and try to practice it.