For Christians

[Montalban]

I'm not sure if this counts as derailing the thread, but I'd like to post about the original topic, you know, choosing between liberal and Christian beliefs. I am a Christian ( a preacher's kid in fact) and I am socially a liberal, as long as it doesn't cost me money I really don't see how allowing homosexuals to marry is against Christian beliefs.

I believe Jesus offered some socialistic insights, and the Acts of the Apostles shows them pooling their monies and distributing according to needs, so I too am a 'liberal' as far as economics is concerned

Worshipping the sun is against Christian beliefs, I hope we can all agree to this.

Even if you took a strictly biblical approach, which as an Orthodox, I don't, you find 1 Corinthians speaks out against sodomy... that is, the homosexual act. Christians love sinners, not the sin.

 

[Montalban]

Reconciling gay marriage as a Christian and an American has been a torturous affair. On the one hand I believe there is little doubt that homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible. On the other I tend to believe socially "lest thou harm none, do as thou wilst".

To a degree I agree with you. As a Christian I am expected to respect the law. So, if a law was passed allowing gay marriages, I would respect it, insofar as I'd not be trying to burn down town hall. However I believe it is an act for legitimising sodimising... and as a Christian I would protest against it.

I think though there is more about this than mere niceities of living in a pluralistic democracy as certain groups hi-jack language to call certain things 'progressive', instead of 'regressive' (as I would term them).

 

[26 X World Champs]

In pre-Civil War times, this is precisely the view expressed by many with respect to slavery. "Of course, while I would never own slaves, I would never deny you the right to do so." Could they be considered anything but pro-slavery?

This has to be yet another example of a totally abusrd (some might say STUPID) argument. You know what this is? It's a very poor attempt to hide prejudice. A new low Fantasea?

Today, there are those who say, "While I would never abort a human child, I would never deny you the right to do so." Can they be considered anything but pro-death?

Yes, it is pro-choice and it will never be illegal. You can bitch all that you want, and you most certainly have the right to your opinion. The fact is that abortion is not anything but legal.

A person who considers himself a Christian in full communion with his church does not have the liberty to support gay marriages. The Ten Commandments are not optional.

So Christians, according to Fantasea lack the ability to think for themselves and they must follow a novel written by hundreds of people thousands of years ago? If they think for themselves and decide to treat everyone equally then they are bad Christians?

Fantasea's narrow minded definition, prejudiced, and yes, bigoted point of view is exactly what is wrong with the RR today. Dogmatic, unable to think for themselves, they're sheep. Is there anything less educated than an individual who is unable to treat another individual equally? I just can't accept that to be a Christian you have to exclude others. That to me, is as Unchristian as you can get....

:attn1:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

The Ten Commandments are not optional.

Which commandment was anti gay?

 

[Fantasea]

I'm not sure if this counts as derailing the thread, but I'd like to post about the original topic, you know, choosing between liberal and Christian beliefs. I am a Christian ( a preacher's kid in fact) and I am socially a liberal, as long as it doesn't cost me money I really don't see how allowing homosexuals to marry is against Christian beliefs.

If one observes the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", embraces the question.

By the way, what is your father's explanation when you raise the question with him?

And, if being a liberal is going to cost you money, what then?

 

[Fantasea]

Originally Posted by Fantasea
In pre-Civil War times, this is precisely the view expressed by many with respect to slavery. "Of course, while I would never own slaves, I would never deny you the right to do so." Could they be considered anything but pro-slavery?

This has to be yet another example of a totally abusrd (some might say STUPID) argument. You know what this is? It's a very poor attempt to hide prejudice. A new low Fantasea?

As I read your words, all I see is a denial coupled with insult. If you are able to offer an intelligent refutation, please do so.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
Today, there are those who say, "While I would never abort a human child, I would never deny you the right to do so." Can they be considered anything but pro-death?

Yes, it is pro-choice and it will never be illegal. You can bitch all that you want, and you most certainly have the right to your opinion. The fact is that abortion is not anything but legal.

As I read your words, all I see is a denial coupled with insult. If you are able to offer an intelligent refutation, please do so.

Originally Posted by Fantasea
A person who considers himself a Christian in full communion with his church does not have the liberty to support gay marriages. The Ten Commandments are not optional.

So Christians, according to Fantasea lack the ability to think for themselves and they must follow a novel written by hundreds of people thousands of years ago? If they think for themselves and decide to treat everyone equally then they are bad Christians?

You reveal, once again, that you have no understanding of what it means to be a practical Christian.

Fantasea's narrow minded definition, prejudiced, and yes, bigoted point of view is exactly what is wrong with the RR today. Dogmatic, unable to think for themselves, they're sheep. Is there anything less educated than an individual who is unable to treat another individual equally? I just can't accept that to be a Christian you have to exclude others. That to me, is as Unchristian as you can get....

First, you may or may not know it but there are many homosexual persons who profess the Catholic faith and follow its teachings. A person's sexuality is not a concern of the Church which accepts all who are willing to observe its teachings. The Church teaching is that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Church teaching is the same for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals -- celibacy outside of marriage. Unmarried persons of any age or sexual orientation who do not remain celibate are not observing Church teachings.

Christ exhorted his followers to keep the commandments and to love one another unconditionally. That's what it means to be a Christian, a word which means "follower of Christ".

You cannot be faulted for not understanding these things. However, rather than jeer, mock, and insult those who do understand these things, you would be well advised to increase your knowledge.

You would also be well advised to drop the "RR" and couple specific individuals or groups with specific complaints that you may have. Generalizing, the way you do, makes one wonder who and what you are complaining about.

 

[Laternater]

:2wave: I would like to say that I am new in this forum and have enjoyed all responses and points of views. I am a gay Christian and it seems that there has been some great confusion on what Christians believe, not to mention the topic at hand, Gay Marriage. Myself as well as many other gay Christians would never disclude any portain of the Bible or it's teachings. However, if indeed our religious beliefs are the grounds for which we do not respect equallity in America, or any other country, then maybe we need to learn more about our teachings and their roots. I have read many comments summerizing the Bibles teaching, but no mention of where the teaching was formed nor the culture in which they evolved. I believe it's time that many persons in this forum to really get serious about thier beliefs and study this book, instead of just listening to a preacher ramble on about what he thinks, believes, and imagines. We must also look at the teachings of Christ himself and follow his example to love, forgive and treat everyone equal no matter the cost. These are the very things Jesus died for and is now living for. Gay marriage aside from religious beliefs is a right and should be equal to all that are willing to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. And yes these unions can and do exist throughout the world today, but are not married. Why? Becouse some political narrow minded politician thinks it's gross and no other reason. Good thing we didn't think this way about women's rights and the rights of persons of color, which religious organizations also faught against. Praise be to God, that the American people didn't listen to them.

 

[Montalban]

This has to be yet another example of a totally abusrd (some might say STUPID) argument. You know what this is? It's a very poor attempt to hide prejudice. A new low Fantasea?
:attn1:

Maybe you just don't get 'it'. Many people say that Christians don't have any rights to tell others how to live, and although Christians owned slaves, it was the Christian movement that largely over-turned slavery in Britain (William Wilberforce) and the USA (Garrison, et al). It was precisely because they believed in higher principles, despite what the law of the land said, that they moved to end slavery in their respective nations.

 

[Montalban]

:2wave: I would like to say that I am new in this forum and have enjoyed all responses and points of views. I am a gay Christian and it seems that there has been some great confusion on what Christians believe, not to mention the topic at hand, Gay Marriage. Myself as well as many other gay Christians would never disclude any portain of the Bible or it's teachings. However, if indeed our religious beliefs are the grounds for which we do not respect equallity in America, or any other country, then maybe we need to learn more about our teachings and their roots. I have read many comments summerizing the Bibles teaching, but no mention of where the teaching was formed nor the culture in which they evolved. I believe it's time that many persons in this forum to really get serious about thier beliefs and study this book, instead of just listening to a preacher ramble on about what he thinks, believes, and imagines. We must also look at the teachings of Christ himself and follow his example to love, forgive and treat everyone equal no matter the cost. These are the very things Jesus died for and is now living for. Gay marriage aside from religious beliefs is a right and should be equal to all that are willing to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. And yes these unions can and do exist throughout the world today, but are not married. Why? Becouse some political narrow minded politician thinks it's gross and no other reason. Good thing we didn't think this way about women's rights and the rights of persons of color, which religious organizations also faught against. Praise be to God, that the American people didn't listen to them.

Welcome to the forum, I'm fairly new to this one myself. I have highlighted for me what seems to be your biggest error, because Jesus didn't teach relative values. He didn't say "I am the way, the truth, and the light ... for now".

Jesus indeed did seek to end injustice, however He didn't seek to condone sin. When He told the crowd 'Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone', He was speaking of the former, however He turned to the prostitute and said "Go, and sin no more". In other words He wasn't saying "Hey, let's all ignore sin and go live happily together" because He commanded her to cease a particular life-style. He did so, because it was sinful. Jesus was not a new-age guru ahead of His time. He was not here to give us a 'self-help' lesson on feeling good.

He came to redeem us.

 

[Laternater]

I do appreciate your points. Although, I do believe you missed the point of my statements. No, Jesus was not a guru. He is the Man! Everything Jesus said and has done is forever. My point was this. That Gay Marriage is indeed a serious topic in all countries, as well the Bible. I do not look at our laws or legislation as a decree from God himself. I also recongnize that the Bible was written by man with the inspiration of God. Time, culture, and presence is all important in the study of scriptures or any liturature for that matter. One could never grasp the fullness of this book if he/she does not know the setting in which it was written. If you take the time and seriously study the human race according to the Bible, incest is a huge part of the beginnings. Much as racism and many mixed blood lines. Which the Bible condemns. How do you explain your way through that, you don't. You just move on. Gay marriage is not an issue of the Bible. It is an issue for society. Do we believe that persons of a different sexual orientation have not rights to live, love, and be treated equally? Wether or not you you agree with persons being gay, lesbian, bisexuals, or transgeners has no realvence in this matter.

For the record, religious organizations were the first to oppose freedoms to persons of color and women. This role changed later as people began to revolt against the churches. I would not expect everyone to know these things, but a lesson in church history and cultures would be most helpful in this area.

 

[Montalban]

I do appreciate your points. Although, I do believe you missed the point of my statements. No, Jesus was not a guru. He is the Man!

Jesus is God. I am not sure if you are saying He is Man only.

Everything Jesus said and has done is forever.

I agree, but not with the 'man' bit if you mean 'man' only

My point was this. That Gay Marriage is indeed a serious topic in all countries, as well the Bible. I do not look at our laws or legislation as a decree from God himself. I also recongnize that the Bible was written by man with the inspiration of God. Time, culture, and presence is all important in the study of scriptures or any liturature for that matter. One could never grasp the fullness of this book if he/she does not know the setting in which it was written.

I agree with this last point, which is why my church is not restricted to 'sola scriptura' debates.

If you take the time and seriously study the human race according to the Bible, incest is a huge part of the beginnings.

You need to differentiate between what is recorded for the record and what is recorded as ideal. Lot, I believe it was, was one who had sex with his daughters. No where do I recall saying that this is what we should be doing; in point of fact the Bible expressly forbids it.

Another example; King David lusted after the wife of one of his generals. He in effect had that general killed, so as to make his way with the wife. Again, no where does this say it was 'ideal'. And in fact it's shown that it isn't because King David repents. Simply by pointing to the fact that David is recorded in the Bible has having sinned is not an indicator that this is meant to be 'the way'. Thus I believe your logic is flawed

Much as racism and many mixed blood lines. Which the Bible condemns. How do you explain your way through that, you don't. You just move on.

I don't know what it is you're saying here; whether you're asking me a question, or telling me what you think I believe.

Gay marriage is not an issue of the Bible.

I must repeat that my beliefs are not contained solely within the Bible. But marriage clearly in the Bible is a man and a woman. St. Paul continually talks about husbands and wives, and their duties towards one another. Thus you are incorrect here to.

It is an issue for society.

Agreed on this one point, if it stood alone from your previous remark.

Do we believe that persons of a different sexual orientation have not rights to live, love, and be treated equally?

I believe a gay person has the right to be loved. I love gay people. I have a gay-atheist-marxist friend. Does this mean I accept him sinning? No. And I would hope that he doesn't accept mine. We should be able, with love give strength to each other.

Wether or not you you agree with persons being gay, lesbian, bisexuals, or transgeners has no realvence in this matter.

Am I not part of 'society'? If 'yes', then this contradicts your earlier statement. To a degree my opinion doesn't matter, because, come judgment day I am accountable for myself.

For the record, religious organizations were the first to oppose freedoms to persons of color and women.

Such a sweeping statement. Which freedoms? Which religions?

This role changed later as people began to revolt against the churches. I would not expect everyone to know these things, but a lesson in church history and cultures would be most helpful in this area.

It would be indeed, please source your comments. I know for a fact that the laissez-faire and liberal attitudes as promoted by Locke, Hume and others would have had me condemned for speaking out on slavery! Locke and Hume both believed that whatever you did, was up to you, and people should mind their own business. It was Christians such as Wilberforce (in Britain) and Garrison (in the USA) who appealed to higher Christian principles when arguing for the God-ness of ALL men as they opposed slavery in all its manifestations.

“Inferiority was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, and even John Locke ...(who) did not hesitate to defend slavery in his draft of the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina.”, Carroll, V & Shiflett, D “Christianity on Trial: Arguments against anti-religious Bigotry”, p31.

The atheist liberal; Locke who helped draft a constitution too, established slavery. “ he wrote the “Fundamental Constitutions for the Government of Carolina” in 1669”... “Black chattel slavery received particular sanction and protection under Locke's law: “
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html

Specifically, one rule says:

“CX: Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”
(http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html

“...echoed in Liberal John Locke's defence of slavery as “Property.”[18] Quesnay's and Mandeville doctrine of “let the Satan whom Smith esteems as the knowing Director of nature, fix the dice,” is echoed by Adam Smith's 1759 The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, as in his anti-American tract of 1776, The Wealth of Nations”
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2003...lieve_know.html
In other words, governments, churches etc, had no right to impose laws. Let nature sought things out. If some people are slaves, then it is natural for them to be so.

See also
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/1015.asp

 

[Laternater]

granted that you know some history and referenced everything. If this is the debate your looking for so be it. I am not one that believes everthing I read until further research. I will provide these references for you later today.

Now on to the real debate of gay marriage. At some point this became a debate of religion rather than gay marriages. Aside from the Bible and your religious views can you debate the topic on a political standpoint. Remembering that church is not relative to political affairs.

 

[Laternater]

Flawed logic? According to Plato, logic and reason are based of a reasonable assumption that has a logical conclusion. Yet i have not seen any of this from you with out typing long dialogues from some book. Just wondering if you have a real Logical platform? Books do not define logic.

 

[Montalban]

granted that you know some history and referenced everything. If this is the debate your looking for so be it. I am not one that believes everything I read until further research. I will provide these references for you later today.

Cool, though my response will depend on time, and time delay (as I'm half-way around the world from where you claim to be)

Now on to the real debate of gay marriage. At some point this became a debate of religion rather than gay marriages.

Or, you wanted it to be a debate on 'society' instead of gay marriages. I expect you'll be thinking no, because they're not separate, and then you'll have the reason for me introducing religion!

Aside from the Bible and your religious views can you debate the topic on a political standpoint. Remembering that church is not relative to political affairs.

You say so. I don't. My church compiled the Bible. Your opinion, though you're welcome to it, doesn't negate this small fact.

Flawed logic? According to Plato, logic and reason are based of a reasonable assumption that has a logical conclusion. Yet I have not seen any of this from you with out typing long dialogues from some book. Just wondering if you have a real Logical platform? Books do not define logic

The flawed logic was, as I pointed out, from you. You mention 'incest' in the Bible and I pointed out its relevance is not from setting some 'example' but merely recording what did happen. You simply assume that a bad thing such as 'incest' can be transposed to a number of different contexts, and I point out that the context is that of something 'historical' rather than 'exemplary'.

Further, you say that religion has no say in matters, and I simply point out that this 'attitutude' loosely akin to that of liberals such as Locke is flawed because if we were to live according to this, we'd still likely have slavery.* We'd be in that situation because if I brought up the issue of the morality of slaves with you (assuming that we lived in a slave-owner world), you could say "Why are you poking your Christian nose into my affairs? Don't you know you have no right to do so!) (this is the logic YOU make with gay marriages, that a person such as myself can not look to claims of a higher morality than what is currently popular and/or expedient. Any fault of mine may be in not properly being able to point out the flaws in your argument, to your satisfaction.

*I concede that arguments against slavery might be brought about from other concepts of higher morality, or perhaps from economics.

 

[Laternater]

Now who is making the assumptions. I am not saying that you can't have your opinion on gay marriage nor am I liberal. I just happen to have an open mind that believes in reason and logic. Just because you don't believe the way I or other philosophers do, does not mean the logic is flawed. I have noticed during this that you still refuse to debate the topic at hand, without turning to religion as a crutch.

 

[Rev.]

I would like to say that I am new in this forum and have enjoyed all responses and points of views.

Welcome, Laternater!

I am a gay Christian and it seems that there has been some great confusion on what Christians believe,

I'd really be very interested in having you enlighten me. :smile:

I have read many comments summerizing the Bibles teaching, but no mention of where the teaching was formed nor the culture in which they evolved.

I have lots of problems with this statement. Judeo/Christian teachings weren't "formed" and never "evolved." They were handed down from on high, if you will. The struggle has been with how to apply these timeless truths to what we percieve is a new situation.

I believe it's time that many persons in this forum to really get serious about thier beliefs and study this book, instead of just listening to a preacher ramble on about what he thinks, believes, and imagines.

I would never disagree with anyone who encourages others to study the Bible.

We must also look at the teachings of Christ himself and follow his example to love, forgive and treat everyone equal no matter the cost.

Love others? YES! "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" Matthew 5:44. "Love each other as I have loved you." John 15:12

Forgive others? Yes! "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, 'Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sisn against me? Up to seven times?' Jesus answered, 'I tell you, not seven times, but seventy times seven." Matt 18:21-22

Treat others equally? No matter the cost?

Sorry, "no matter the cost" goes with "Follow Jesus" "The Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." Matthew 16:24. But Jesus did teach us that we should count the cost first. Luke 14:25-30.

These are the very things Jesus died for and is now living for.

Jesus died so that we could love, forgive and treat one another equally? What petty things to die for! No, Jesus died so that we might be reconciled with God!

Gay marriage aside from religious beliefs is a right

Based on what?

And yes these unions can and do exist throughout the world today, but are not married. Why? Becouse some political narrow minded politician thinks it's gross and no other reason.

No, there are other reasons, not all of them based on the Christians idea of right and wrong. Christians are not the only religious group that teach against homosexuality. And religious people are not the only ones who oppose homosexuality. I'm afraid if you are going to be a religion of almost any persuasion, you will have to accept that. You can be religious or you can be gay, but it seems you can't easily be both. That is not my judgement of you, that is a statement of facts as I have learned them.

Good thing we didn't think this way about women's rights and the rights of persons of color, which religious organizations also faught against. Praise be to God, that the American people didn't listen to them.

I know some denominations split over the slavery question. The Free Methodists split from the United Methodist. Episcopalians and Baptist also split. HOWEVER, some denominations worked toward unity and equality, including MY church which was the first church after the Civil War to unite East/West (1907) and North/South (1908 ). We also believe in equality for women.

 

[Montalban]

Now who is making the assumptions. I am not saying that you can't have your opinion on gay marriage nor am I liberal. I just happen to have an open mind that believes in reason and logic. Just because you don't believe the way I or other philosophers do, does not mean the logic is flawed. I have noticed during this that you still refuse to debate the topic at hand, without turning to religion as a crutch.

I'll try and keep this brief.

There is a difference between not agreeing with you and feeling your argument is flawed. In this case I both disagree with you, and feel your argument is flawed, especially when you make such statements as the last sentence on a thread that is called "For Christians" (and especially when you offer a particular view of Christ; as if you believe only you have an exclusive right to do so).

You made some allegations about 'gay marriage' being of society and not of religion and that therefore I can't have a say of any import as if both 'relgion' and 'myself' are divorced from 'society'; which is another of your arguement's flaws. Religion is part of society. I am too. Therefore I have a right to an opinion and I have a right to an opinion based on a framework of religion, because as a member of society, I am religious. And so are you, it seems; and in putting your statements in a religious context such as "Jesus is the Man" etc, then I have a right to reply on these issues too. :doh

 

[Laternater]

Rev.Thank you for your comments. Evolution of the Bible and it's teachings are very important to the studies within the book. Evolution is a process of things and events that form into existance. Religion and our Christian beliefs do evolve over time. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" which is referenced from the beginning to the end. God doesn't change, but how we must apply them to our lives changes constantly.

You have also alluded to gays can't be Christians. This is not true at all. If this sin is the unpardonable sin, then what do you do with Jesus' comments of the rejection of the Holy Spirit? All sins are pardonable and all are guilty, Christians and non-Christians alike. Just because you make a confession of sins and plead for forgiveness doesn't mean you'll never do it again. It is our hope and mostly our intentions not to sin again, but that is not the reality. We are human and our ancestors have chosen this for us (Adem and Eve).

I live a very religious and spirit lead life. I have taken the time to study the Bible in it's full context and concluded that God loves his children (all of us) and he knows of our sins. I have yet to find one place where being gay is totally refuted in the Bible, unless you take the passages out of context and apply it what ever you would like it to. Please don't think this as hipocracy, but honestly, anyone can make the Bible mean and say whatever they desire, including Satan himself. Which is way context of events, places, and people is very critical to the Bible and it's teachings.

Jesus is God, Human, and Spirit rolled up into one package. And to think that Jesus didn't have human thoughts (sexual & practical), feelings (love & desire), emotions (happy & remorse) is absurd. Him being God would not allow him to act on them. Unfortuately, we are not the same. Although we should strive toward it.

 

[Rev.]

Rev.Thank you for your comments. Evolution of the Bible and it's teachings are very important to the studies within the book. Evolution is a process of things and events that form into existance. Religion and our Christian beliefs do evolve over time. As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" which is referenced from the beginning to the end. God doesn't change, but how we must apply them to our lives changes constantly.

I'm still listening...perhaps you could expand on this and provide examples of "evolution of the Bible and it's teachings?"

You have also alluded to gays can't be Christians. This is not true at all. If this sin is the unpardonable sin, then what do you do with Jesus' comments of the rejection of the Holy Spirit?

I never called it the unpardonable sin. And I also never said BEING a homosexual was a sin. I do believe the Bible teaches that homosexual acts are sins...it would be like if eating chocolate icecream was a sin. I could crave it all day long, but so long as I didn't actually EAT it, I haven't sinned. I would not demand a gay person get married and make babies in order to prove his salvation. But celibacy would be necessary--same as for unmarried heterosexual people.

All sins are pardonable and all are guilty, Christians and non-Christians alike. Just because you make a confession of sins and plead for forgiveness doesn't mean you'll never do it again. It is our hope and mostly our intentions not to sin again, but that is not the reality. We are human and our ancestors have chosen this for us (Adem and Eve).

I believe that the Holy Spirit can and will empower us to live a sin-free life. We don't HAVE to fall back into our old sins.

I live a very religious and spirit lead life. I have taken the time to study the Bible in it's full context and concluded that God loves his children (all of us) and he knows of our sins.

True, true!

I have yet to find one place where being gay is totally refuted in the Bible,

Have you seperated the act from the person as I did above? I just don't see how anyone could Biblically justify homosexual activity as okay.

Please don't think this as hipocracy, but honestly, anyone can make the Bible mean and say whatever they desire, including Satan himself. Which is way context of events, places, and people is very critical to the Bible and it's teachings.

I agree.

Jesus is God, Human, and Spirit rolled up into one package. And to think that Jesus didn't have human thoughts (sexual & practical), feelings (love & desire), emotions (happy & remorse) is absurd. Him being God would not allow him to act on them. Unfortuately, we are not the same. Although we should strive toward it.

Minor point of difference--Jesus was not unable to fall into temptation. He had free will, too. And I think his experience would have been invalid if somehow his "God-ness" made him "sin handicapped" and unable to sin. He did live a holy sinless life as an example to show us IT CAN BE DONE!

We are sinners, but we don't have to be. And it is not by might, not by power, but by HIS Spirit...

 

[Montalban]

I'm still listening...perhaps you could expand on this and provide examples of "evolution of the Bible and it's teachings?"

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on him, but I am also after some examples as he previously alluded to 'incest' in the OT scritpure as if this was an exemplary instance. I pointed out it merely documents what happened, and other parts of the Bible actually condemn this so the mere fact that it's in the Bible doesn't equate to it being a directive.

I think this is where his error lies in assuming that the Bible's teachings have 'evolved'. He's read some instances in the OT and noted that we don't do these things anymore.

 

[Rev.]

I don't want to sound like I'm picking on him, but I am also after some examples as he previously alluded to 'incest' in the OT scritpure as if this was an exemplary instance. I pointed out it merely documents what happened, and other parts of the Bible actually condemn this so the mere fact that it's in the Bible doesn't equate to it being a directive.

I'm sure Laternater can speak for himself, but as I go over the quote you are referring to, I don't think that is what he said or meant.

If you take the time and seriously study the human race according to the Bible, incest is a huge part of the beginnings. Much as racism and many mixed blood lines. Which the Bible condemns.

I think that Laternater is saying that incest, racism etc ARE a part of early man's history, yet the Bible condemns them. I don't believe he was endorsing those practices. I'm not sure what the point was in bringing it up though. That kinda got lost in what followed.

 

[Laternater]

Thank you Rev. That is exactly my point. The incest comes in because there are laws against that as well. And if you look at the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve, incest was a part of life. Of course logic and reason can figure this one out. And I do appologize that I do not have references for this. My Theological and Christian History books are in storage right now. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that incest is gross.

 

[Montalban]

Thank you Rev. That is exactly my point. The incest comes in because there are laws against that as well. And if you look at the beginning of creation with Adam and Eve, incest was a part of life. Of course logic and reason can figure this one out. And I do appologize that I do not have references for this. My Theological and Christian History books are in storage right now. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that incest is gross.

It still makes no sense. You've recounted that there's incest in the OT. But to what purpose? There is no point saying that people committed incest, and that there were laws against this, because it doesn't negate the fact that sodomy is also not condoned by the Bible. What relevence does it make that people did this?

Next you've still not addressed your 'objections' to me quoting religion, when you make some statement about religion has nothing to do with it (even though that's part of this thread), but society does, even though religion is part of society.

 

[Montalban]

I'm sure Laternater can speak for himself, but as I go over the quote you are referring to, I don't think that is what he said or meant.

Who knows? All he's done is repeated the 'fact' that it happened.

I think that Laternater is saying that incest, racism etc ARE a part of early man's history, yet the Bible condemns them. I don't believe he was endorsing those practices. I'm not sure what the point was in bringing it up though. That kinda got lost in what followed.

Indeed it's not condoned by the Bible, so I still wonder why bring it up.

People worshipped idols. That's in the OT too, people did it. But aside from stating a truism, (or in his case, re-stating it out of any context of a point) his statements make no sense.

 

[Laternater]

OK, I will paint you a picture. The entire point was to get you to debate the issue of gay marriages in society rather than debating religion. I can debate anything you like but this forum is not about religion or is it?