Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

I was a Christian, - studied the Bible, - took Comparative Religion, - and a separate history of the Catholic church, etc.

It was not unhappiness, or anything of that sort, that made me leave the Bible and Christianity.

It was the realization - after actual study of the Bible, - that the irrational, baby murdering, "God" of the Bible - could not actually be God.

*

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. With your study and training, you must understand Christianity is based upon the teachings of Christ, not the Torah and the rest of the OT. I don't find the alleged baby killer anywhere in the NT

 

[shmogie]

We are not talking about a witness that we can track down and verify the information directly from, and find corroborating evidence.

We are talking about a text with a lot of fantasy claims, - which obviously puts it in instant doubt.

And as you have been told, - the majority of theologians do not think most of the books were written by the people they name as author.

*

Wrong. A written statement of a dead witness is just as valuable as evidence live witness testimony. " As I have been told" What someone says, and you believe, doesn't make it true. In fact, I know better

 

[shmogie]

I don't think you have to prove you were a Christian since God would already know and it would have been between you and God anyway. I just know that many people, including myself, were baptized, went to church, and considered themselves to be Christians only to later have come to a totally different understanding, point of real repentance, laying aside self, and fully for the first time trusting Jesus Christ alone for one's entire life direction. It is different and transforming.

Thus, you really became a Christian

 

[Ingledsva]

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. With your study and training, you must understand Christianity is based upon the teachings of Christ, not the Torah and the rest of the OT. I don't find the alleged baby killer anywhere in the NT

LOL! That is a copout, - as Christians claim the God of Tanakh is God - and that Jesus is his son/trinity.

And of course you folks keep trying to use Tanakh texts against homosexuals. Just reading the last few pages of this thread, one can see the use of many Tanakh texts by Christians.

You don't find the baby killer? Have your read your Bible?

It says YHVH killed everybody in the flood, - that would include innocent babies!

It says YHVH killed the First Born of Egypt, - that would include innocent babies!

It says YHVH killed King David's baby for the sins of his father, - that is an innocent baby!

It says they are ordered to kill everyone including the dumb animals in a war, - that would include innocent babies!

Just a few of the places it says - the same "God" kills babies.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Wrong. A written statement of a dead witness is just as valuable as evidence live witness testimony. " As I have been told" What someone says, and you believe, doesn't make it true. In fact, I know better

A written statement from a dead person, is only as good as the evidence that proves what it says is true, - and evidence that it is actually even written by the person claimed.

So that would be a fail.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

wrong

LOL! If you just want to state what you think, - add - "I think!" = I THINK you are wrong.

Otherwise give an actual rebuttal with proof of your position.

*

 

[InChrist]

Thus, you really became a Christian

Yes, thanks and praise to God my Savior!

 

[Ingledsva]

Off point, READ

LOL! On point - as to WHY they would write it that way.

*

 

[shmogie]

LOL! That is a copout, - as Christians claim the God of Tanakh is God - and that Jesus is his son/trinity.

And of course you folks keep trying to use Tanakh texts against homosexuals. Just reading the last few pages of this thread, one can see the use of many Tanakh texts by Christians.

You don't find the baby killer? Have your read your Bible?

It says YHVH killed everybody in the flood, - that would include innocent babies!

It says YHVH killed the First Born of Egypt, - that would include innocent babies!

It says YHVH killed King David's baby for the sins of his father, - that is an innocent baby!

It says they are ordered to kill everyone including the dumb animals in a war, - that would include innocent babies!

Just a few of the places it says - the same "God" kills babies.

*

"You folks" nope, not me I NEVER quote the OT re homosexuals. Nothing from the NT.

 

[shmogie]

A written statement from a dead person, is only as good as the evidence that proves what it says is true, - and evidence that it is actually even written by the person claimed.

So that would be a fail.

*

Not quite. The written statement must be evaluated as it stands, as a piece of evidence. All evidence is then evaluated. If your allegation re the name were true, which it is not, whoever wrote it had a name, maybe bill, or herman, or julio, what possible difference does it make, other than something you can argue about ?

 

[Ingledsva]

"You folks" nope, not me I NEVER quote the OT re homosexuals. Nothing from the NT.

"You folks" as in Christians -

"LOL! That is a copout, - as Christians claim the God of Tanakh is God - and that Jesus is his son/trinity.

And of course you folks keep trying to use Tanakh texts against homosexuals. Just reading the last few pages of this thread, one can see the use of many Tanakh texts by Christians."

If nothing from Tanakh - then no virgin birth prophecy. No Hebrew Messiah prophecy. No YHVH as his father.

Those claims in the NT don't stand in isolation - without them - No virgin born, Messiah, Jesus, etc.

*

 

[sojourner]

uh, the names are inherent in the text. Evidence ?

Uh, the names don't appear on the earliest manuscripts. Meaning that they were added later.

 

[Ingledsva]

Not quite. The written statement must be evaluated as it stands, as a piece of evidence. All evidence is then evaluated. If your allegation re the name were true, which it is not, whoever wrote it had a name, maybe bill, or herman, or julio, what possible difference does it make, other than something you can argue about ?

LOL! Because this court/debate is discussing who actually wrote them, and when.

*

 

[Sundance]

Part 1 - More than 1200 characters so I have to split it into two parts.

LOL! You obviously didn't read the material I posted. The HEBREW could only keep other HEBREW as indentured servants. I've already said this!

ALL others could be held and bred forever!



Apparently you don't read what you post, before you post it. And - Apparently you didn't read the JEWISH information I posted which tells us the actual word means SLAVE, not bondsman, - which is why it says "in the TRUE sense of the word!" I note you left that part out. LOL! The part that says the TRUE MEANING of the word is SLAVE. I didn't leave that pertinent information out of my post! Go look!


SEE PART TWO

*


*

To clarify my intentions, it was to bring to light the fullness of the text you cited, making sure it's presented as a whole and not being cherry-picked. Figures. I guess you didn't read the statement in bold print and the information which followed. You just nit-picked, ironically.

 

[Sundance]

LOL! What does how they treated their REAL SLAVES - have to do with our discussion about them having REAL SLAVERY?

And isn't it interesting that a Talmudic view shows the right to BREED SLAVES - which is RAPE. Again TRUE SLAVERY.




LOL! Did you even BOTHER to read this before you posted it? Note the highlighted words!

They very OBVIOUSLY continued to hold REAL SLAVES past the DISPORIA - as STATED THERE!




Not a problem with the sourcing, - as with this post you PROVED that what I said was absolutely correct. LOL! And that YOU are wrong.

Next time I suggest you read it better.

Wow! Once again, you have cherry-picked from a neutral source. Not even bothering yourself to read beyond what YOU seem to have highlighted...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

A short musical interlude....

 

[JoStories]

You said: "this is simply untrue. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that three of the Gospel writers knew Christ. The letters that were circulated throughout the Apostolic Christian congregations, they were, uh, you know, letters i.e. written. The book of Revelation from the very beginning speaks of it being written down. If it is "widely accepted" the width of it is pretty narrow, probably limited to the "Jesus project" where I think you get most of your talking points. The idea's you present as "widely accepted" are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars"

You may be one of those scholars, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you overestimate those who support your position.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence of someone who knew Jesus? No. We cannot even provide enough evidence to agree that Jesus actually lived. I happen to believe he did but was only a good prophet and nothing more. So if you have evidence of these men meeting and knowing Jesus, provide it or admit its simply your opinion.

 

[JoStories]

A bit of circumstantial evidence to consider. According to your theory, the early Church fathers entered into a conspiracy to write down unatributable stories, as first hand fact, manufacturing alleged Apostles, as the absolute writers. Now these stories they wrote, and lied about, have as a foundation principle of always being truthful and honest., OK, liars and con men can say anything, if they perceive an advantage to them. However, these very same men who perpetrated your lie were persecuted, and many died horrible deaths, defending what they had written, standing by their lies, rather than recant. No doubt someone reading this will find a psychological report that alleges to explain this phenomenon. However, I have 25 years of dealing with liars and fraudsters, I have interacted with hundreds of them, and not one would rather die than cop out to their lie. My experience is not unique, I say with absolute assurance that thousands of police officers, criminal investigators, and lawyers would confirm my experience. It is totally irrational to me to believe that liars would write stories, in which they lie about them being first hand accounts, lie about the authors, in which truthfulness is required so strongly, gain virtually no advantage or profit for writing them, in fact they suffer persecution for believing and practicing belief in the lies they have written, and some are brutally tortured and die, rather than recant their belief in their own lies. No sir, that is a myth too ridiculous to believe

You do realize that you were responding to yourself in this argument. One wonders if you are slightly left of center.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I find it so obvious that this is an evolutionary trait that has come up as a product of consciousness. Positive thinking and hope for a long life make people more likely to be successful. It seems logical that this hope wouldn't be limited to our life on earth, as the belief that everything ends with death would limit that hope in a profound way. Also, our belief in judgment after death helps many to be better morally. As a societal species, we have benefitted from this belief.

Sure some may believe that, and I respect it, but don't agree. I have found life much more joyful, meaningful, and everything by accepting life as all there is. It wasn't until I accepted death as cessation of self that I made peace with it, and stopped fearing it.

 

[shmogie]

You said: "this is simply untrue. There is absolutely no reason to doubt that three of the Gospel writers knew Christ. The letters that were circulated throughout the Apostolic Christian congregations, they were, uh, you know, letters i.e. written. The book of Revelation from the very beginning speaks of it being written down. If it is "widely accepted" the width of it is pretty narrow, probably limited to the "Jesus project" where I think you get most of your talking points. The idea's you present as "widely accepted" are not accepted by the overwhelming majority of Biblical scholars"



Can you provide irrefutable evidence of someone who knew Jesus? No. We cannot even provide enough evidence to agree that Jesus actually lived. I happen to believe he did but was only a good prophet and nothing more. So if you have evidence of these men meeting and knowing Jesus, provide it or admit its simply your opinion.

I have never spoken of irrefutable proof on this issue, we are dealing with evidence that leads to a reasonable conclusion, your claims are just evidence as well. "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any basis for dating any book of the NT after about AD 80. two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical NT critics of today" William F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, p.136 "In my opinion, every book of the NT was written by a baptized Jew between the 40's and 80's of the first century" William F. Albright, "Towards a More Conservative View" p. 3 "Thanks to the Qumran community discoveries the NT proves to be in fact what it was formerly believed to be; the teachings of Christ and his followers between ca. 25 and ca. AD 80 ( William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity, p.23. As you should know Albright has impeccable credentials as a Bible Scholar. The founder of the "Death of God" movement John A.T. Robinson dates Matthew at 40-60 AD, Mark, 45-60 AD, Luke 57 AD to after 60 AD, John 40 AD-65 AD "Redating the New Testament" The John Rylands payri, an NT manuscript, dated from 117-138. " Since the fragment was found in Egypt and was written in Asia minor, circulation time is demanded, placing the composition within the first century". ibid. p. 52 Jose O'Callahan, a Jesuit Paleographer, identified a manuscript fragment from cave 7, dated, 50 BC- 50 AD, Qumran community, from the Gospel of Mark. He eventually identified nine fragments, as belonging to one Gospel, Acts, and a few Epistles, these were dated slightly after AD 50 (http:// biblia.com/bible/esv./Mark%204.28) As I said, I can match you scholar for scholar who attribute the composition of the Gospels at 100 AD or earlier