I didn't mean to seperate into sects, but mindsets.
And Craven - who knows his bible (the devil quoting scripture etc.....LOL!) - has pointed out that the new testament exhibits anti-homosexual diatribes, also.
One thing's for sure; there's a helluva lot of emotional baggage on both sides of both the church-and-gays debate and the Arab-Israeli debate. Its not too surprising neither controversy shows much sign of imminent resolution. I wonder ... if the gays continue to feel unrepresented and oppressed by Religion, will they take to blowing themselves up at Revivals?
Hmm - I don't know - I ain't been a christian since I was 14 - I don't keep up all that well.
I certainly hope not, Timber!!!!
Hmmm - to argue against myself - I am thinking that pre-christian empires, like the Roman, did not attempt to destroy existing religions of conquered peoples, making conquest by the Romans less culturally traumatic......
Me be not clear, but I know of what I speak.
The Southern Baptist Conference is very fundy, and very anti-gay.
There has been a movement with the Baptists that the harshness of many of the 'stands' of the SBC are unChristian and in opposition to the teaching of Jesus. They split off into the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. The CBF embraces blacks (gasp), homosexuals (double gasp) and all comers.
My little town has split right down the middle--churches have erupted and split, and families have encountered related uproar.
I left my church over it, and a group of us are building a new church. Intolerance has no place in a church, IMO.
Yes, there is a diatribe in the NT about homosexuals--but those who take a lesson from the teaching and example of Christ focus on these things--
Judge not ...
Feed my sheep...
Love one another...
If anyone calls My name...
'Tis all a Rorschach, in many ways, I believe...
True.
I'm beginning to understand Frank's point about cherry-pickin' our druthers re: the Bible.
If Jesus died for our sins, doesn't that set a very dangerous precedent?
1) We are now free to sin without responsibility, because he already paid the bill. Just ask Jesus to forgive afterwards and it'll be okay.
2) If Jesus runs out of forgiveness, just find somebody else to do as Jesus did. Feeling guilty? Just crucify someone. Once you kill them, they will have died for your sins. So do whatever you want in life, because as long as you accept Jesus Christ into your heart and do your acts in his name, you will go to heaven.
Has anyone read something in the Bible that goes against this approach? I'm not trying to knock religion, I'm honestly wanting to know the frame of mind behind Christianity, if anyone has studied it much.
Is it really possible for someone to die for someone else's sin? How is that arranged?
Maybe a straight person needs to climb up on a cross to make gay people alright.
Sofia,
a tip to get around the NT intolerance: Paul was certifiable. He seemed to have a distain for women and sex in general. There is much other speculation that I will not cite because as a Christian it offended me but that much is certain.
Paul was not a big fan of sex and it shows in his writings.
Craven de Kere wrote:was very funny, even if not intended.
This was irony, if this was not realized at the first sight, I provide clarifications.
But from the other side, it reflected my attitude toward terrorists: I do not have any serious reasons for being compassionate toward them, indeed.
Really interesting, these past few pages. It's interesting -- and curious and significant -- that Sofia (and many others before) will split off and build another, more tolerant church. This physical evidence of the diversity of modern Christianity shows its life -- and contains its death, I believe.
Steissd -- I don't think compassion is (or should be) based on "serious reasons." Compassion is a talent which everyone in a decent world should develop precisely to overcome the rationales human beings tend to create to get their own way.
Tartarin wrote:Really interesting, these past few pages. It's interesting -- and curious and significant -- that Sofia (and many others before) will split off and build another, more tolerant church. This physical evidence of the diversity of modern Christianity shows its life -- and contains its death, I believe.
Tartay! Right on, you go, girl!!!!! In a slightly more serious vein, you point out the necessity of people securing a belief system with which one wants to adhere to without having to invent changes in its very foundation: explains why I can't identify with any organized religion ... explains why the closest I can come to is "humanism" (which is trying enough, considering some of the humans around here <heavy sigh>).
kill 'em all and let Rex Reed sort 'em out.........
hey, you big ole' bear: doncha mean Ralph Reed :wink:
Sofia wrote:Bunny--
I think there are churches (Christian) with leanings to Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament types like to keep homosexuals out. And condemn them, and harrass them and pass laws against them.
The New Testament types want to embrace the homosexual community, and realize the church should open its doors to everyone. Even for those who consider tha act of homosexuality a sin, should realize we all sin--and one sin is no worse than another. (For those who believe that, anyway.)
People, who follow more closely to Jesus' teaching, could not in good conscience turn any interested person away from attendance or service in a church.
Seems to me there is a lot of hypocrisy in that latter group, Sofia. Or is it okay with you folks to pick and choose which of the decrees your god makes that you will follow -- and which you will disregard?
