Is being gay a sin according to your religion?

[shmogie]

Why would the son of God, who could walk on water, turn water into wine, give vision to the blind, and raise the dead, need training to walk and talk? He obviously didn't get training for the other stuff.

He was A HUMAN, born as a HUMAN, he didn't recognize his calling, who he was, until he was able to until he could mentally process it. When in your life did you clearly recognize your alleged "gender identity" that you say you were born with ?

 

[shmogie]

Scared that the credibility of your views are being put to shame?

No, I don't cast pearls before swine

 

[shmogie]

Well, sorry. i like to attempt humor sometimes.

I always wondered why religious people get offended when someone makes fun of their beliefs while expecting that atheist are not when religious people mock theirs, like when they say we believe the universe created itself, or other logical nonsense.

But rest assured that I cannot possibly be offended by any mocking whatsoever. So you can shoot at will. But now I know that you can, so I will try to be more sensitive about your mountain moving strong faith.

Now, seriously. Did Jesus exist before His human birth? In case He did, was He conscious? And when He incarnated, did He forget everything?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, he existed as an integral part of a being with three points of consciousness. When he became HUMAN, he was like all other humans, with the same limitations, a child does not have the mental ability to grasp all things. He willfully became human and accepted those limitations. He didn't forget everything, as a human child he was incapable of understanding. He was 33 or so when his ministry began, when he had a full revelation and complete grasp of himself and his calling

 

[viole]

Yes, he existed as an integral part of a being with three points of consciousness. When he became HUMAN, he was like all other humans, with the same limitations, a child does not have the mental ability to grasp all things. He willfully became human and accepted those limitations. He didn't forget everything, as a human child he was incapable of understanding. He was 33 or so when his ministry began, when he had a full revelation and complete grasp of himself and his calling

Yes, but what happened with the three points of consciousnesses when He was a child?

One of them might have disappeared, at least for 33 years. Or so.

By the way, was He present when the global flood took place? Do you think He agreed with the decision of His two other partners to drown virtually everyone?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

I don't think there is and I don't even think they claim to be eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, do they?


Agree to disagree that the people who wrote the Bible had some kind of superhuman, infallibility powers? I don't think so. That's an extraordinary claim that's going to require some extraordinary evidence. As above, I don't even think they themselves said as much, did they?

Yes, they did. and their is extraordinary evidence, enough for me as a jury of one to come to a clear verdict. You too are a jury of one. You decide if there is any evidence at all, and what it means, if anything. I have no calling to plead any case before you, to sway you or convince you. Nor am I a witness to be examined or cross examined by you or anyone else. This is a casual conversation taking place on a video screen, nothing else. You , and most here have no real interest in what I believe or why, this is sport for you, I recognize that, and it is amusing to me. I am not teaching a class in Christian Apologetics, nor am I doing a one on one study with someone seeking further knowledge. As long as I am amused, I will participate as I choose

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, they did. and their is extraordinary evidence, enough for me as a jury of one to come to a clear verdict. You too are a jury of one. You decide if there is any evidence at all, and what it means, if anything. I have no calling to plead any case before you, to sway you or convince you. Nor am I a witness to be examined or cross examined by you or anyone else. This is a casual conversation taking place on a video screen, nothing else. You , and most here have no real interest in what I believe or why, this is sport for you, I recognize that, and it is amusing to me. I am not teaching a class in Christian Apologetics, nor am I doing a one on one study with someone seeking further knowledge. As long as I am amused, I will participate as I choose

What extraordinary evidence is there?

Like I said a while back, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from and how you are making the claims you are making. That's something I am interested in. You don't have to participate, but then I guess I'm left wondering why you've come to a debate forum.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

He was A HUMAN, born as a HUMAN, he didn't recognize his calling, who he was, until he was able to until he could mentally process it

Then where did he learn to walk on water? Turn water into wine? Shouldn't the son of a god have just known these things? Yes, there are motor skill developments and other things, but does a god really need an education?

When in your life did you clearly recognize your alleged "gender identity" that you say you were born with ?

When I was about three or four.

 

[shmogie]

Yes, but what happened with the three points of consciousnesses when He was a child?

One of them might have disappeared, at least for 33 years. Or so.

By the way, was He present when the global flood took place? Do you think He agreed with the decision of His two other partners to drown virtually everyone?

Ciao

- viole

They still existed, he wasn't unconscious, just limited. Or there s the Arian belief, that he was essentially the first creation of God, empowered by God to create all things, who again chose to become human. Arians believe that he wasn't created immortal but was made so at the resurrection. Therefore, He was stone cold dead and relied solely on his faith that he would arise, just as we do. I have studied Arianism in depth, and have a few crossover views. Yes, the antidiluvian people were highly intelligent, creative, and we have no idea how advanced their civilization was, I think it was highly advanced. Nevertheless, they were consumed with evil by the use of their free will, thus they were eradicated, beyond redemption

 

[shmogie]

Then where did he learn to walk on water? Turn water into wine? Shouldn't the son of a god have just known these things? Yes, there are motor skill developments and other things, but does a god really need an education?

When I was about three or four.

If a HUMAN at three or four, cannot grasp that he was born to a wealthy family, and will one day be very wealthy, but his brain can't get around it,why do you believe Jesus, as a human, was any different

 

[shmogie]

What extraordinary evidence is there?

Like I said a while back, I'm trying to understand where you are coming from and how you are making the claims you are making. That's something I am interested in. You don't have to participate, but then I guess I'm left wondering why you've come to a debate forum.

Debates don't take the form of endless repetitive questions

 

[shmogie]

Where do any of them claim to be eyewitnesses?

" I saw", "We saw". "he said", " I was with him", "we were with him" "We went to" "He said to me" etc., etc., etc,. etc

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If a HUMAN at three or four, cannot grasp that he was born to a wealthy family,

Who was born into a wealthy family?

why do you believe Jesus, as a human, was any different

Because, as the story goes, he is a god. He may have taken human form, but he is still a god.

 

[shmogie]

Who was born into a wealthy family?

Because, as the story goes, he is a god. He may have taken human form, but he is still a god.

He didn't "take on human form" "He became human", not the same

 

[shmogie]

Yes. The evidence was provided for you earlier in the thread.

I know of a now debunked "scientific theory" that stated homosexual males had smaller brains, I don't recall any other evidence

 

[Ingledsva]

Albright discussed Qumran, you know when that was, so as a source, his research is not as old as you imply. I see how it works, If you are believer, your research cannot be trusted because you are biased. If you are not a believer, that stance contains no inherent bias, means total objectivity..................That, sir, madam, whatever, is utter nonsense. Shall we play dueling scholars, and I will choose only those that meet your very narrow, nonsensical, standard for acceptability?? If your qualifications are what you say they are, and to this point I have no reason to doubt that they are, you know it can be done

Please post separately to each person - so we know to whom each sentence is directed.

"According to rabbinic literature, the androgyne was a creature that existed at the beginning of Creation. It was both male and female and had two faces."

"The concept of the androgyne began with the rabbinic need to reconcile the two versions of Creation that appear in the biblical book of Genesis"

http://judaism.about.com/od/jewishculture/a/What-Was-The-Androgyne-Biblical-Creation-Story.htm

And as shown - it can be translated as such.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

More inane bull from you. You are brainwashed by marginal and spurious translation that allows some justification for yourself, so be it., Virtually NOBODY accepts that translation accept fellow travelers on the same bus. Don't respond, I shan't

And as usual you provide no actual rebuttal.

I showed that it can be translated that way, - AND - showed where Rabbis had also understood it that way.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Sorry to put it to you, but it says marriage is only between man and woman. I dont agree with it; and, I (and no one else) cant change scripture just because we disagree.

If you dont believe me, ask a Jew native in Hebrew language. Most cultures marry couples as man and woman. Many husbands are chosen for many woman. Culture doesnt change just because its (same sex marriage) not in scripture.

Ephesians 5:22-33 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

Not wives shall leave to wives, mates to mates, person to person.

These verses (above and below) specifically tall about man and woman.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And no its not all in context. No verse in scripture makes the union between man and woman ananymous so that there isnt descrimination as we do in the states. Quran, Torah, and Bible just isnt like that.

Ephesians 5:25-33 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it

Hate to put it to you but where in jewish culture do they say "it doesnt say 'homosexuals cant marriage' in those exact words, so it must bs okay."

Thats like saying "It doesnt say murder is okay in the bible (though it says love thy neighbor) so it must be right. Like husband and wife verses above, loving they neighbor excludes murdering them.

Ephesians 5:25-33 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.

This one is used a lot. You know, not all christians disagree with same sex marriage just in some denomi they cant get blessed by their church.

There is a gay church around where I live and I dont know what scriptures they use to bypass marriage and its cultural surroundings that it is between man and woman.

Maybe find that for me?

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

In the states, I was looking up my family and searched the 1940 census. Husbands or sons were usually head of house. Wives did not take care of the property unless it was inherited to them. Yet, none said to the census guy "yes, Im male and this is my husband".

Down in South Carolina, bible belt that would get you nearly killed. Culture has a lot to do with how the bible is interpreted. Many non denomi and some denomni dont get that.

Ephesians 5:31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

No where in the bible does it say

"Hey, we got an exlusion to the rule. Men can marry each other in X circumstance."

No. Man and woman. I disagree and it is what it is.

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband.



I put these verses because there is no "same sex marriage" in the bible. Id like to assume based on text and culture that such things are not looked good upon because they focus directly on opposite gender.

Is it wrong, yes. That doesnt mean its not in scripture.



I have to find it. I dont read the bible anymore. It says each of us have callings and not all people are called to marriage. As such, the Church says that gay people are called to celibacy.

Yes. The bible does not promote same sex marriage. They dont mention same sex love. It only reffers to lust (too much scripture to quote)

I guess you can go with it by saying "its not there, its okay." But think about it. The culture and the bible promotes opposite sex love and matrimony. There arent exclusions. Why would it be so specific rather than trying to be politically correct to please everyone especially when there is no evidence that homosexuality was a problem in those countries?



This is like you asking me show in the math book where it says 2 and 2 is 45. Its not there. Does it make it right?

Whats your point?

But Carlita - not a single one of those verses actually says only male and female marriage, - or that homosexuals can't marry.

We can assume as a patriarchal culture they would write mainly about heterosexual marriage, and heritage.

*

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But Carlita - not a single one of those verses actually says only male and female marriage, - or that homosexuals can't marry.

We can assume as a patriarchal culture they would write mainly about heterosexual marriage, and heritage.

*

It doesnt say only, of course. The culture and the bible says male and female. It doesnt mention about same sex marriage. If murder wasnt in the bible would it be right?

That is how many christians see their logic. I dont agree with it and that doesnt mean scripture doesnt teach it. In this case it is both biblical and cultural. Cant get around that.

Just because I disagree with what the bible says about male and female marriage, doesnt change that scripture and hebrew and roman culture does not promote same sex marriage.

I cant change someone else's holy book based on my opinion. It is what it is. Plus, I dont believe the bible is the end all to christian faith. I do agree, according to the Catholic doctrine and Bible, that marriage is between male and female. Only according to Catholic doctrine and Bible,


My personal opinion, its wrong. I disagree. Dont like it. That doesnt change a thing, though. Why should I care anymore. I left.

 

[Ingledsva]

Once again, you are wrong. Christ said marriage was between a man and a woman and sacred, as does the entire NT. Don't bother to respond, we have been down this road before, and your surmises and strange beliefs prove nothing. You can infer whatever you want from the animals, my dog, when a puppy ate her own poop, that can be very normal behavior for a dog, but when people do it, especially as part of deviant sex, it isn't normal. You seem irrational, and I really don't want to deal with you.

And again you say stuff without showing us any proof.

Jesus never said marriage was only between a man and a woman, - as already shown.

Nor does anywhere else in the NT say marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Look at Carlita's post above - none of the verses she quoted as being about such, - actually say anything about marriage being only between a man and a woman.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

It doesnt say only, of course. The culture and the bible says male and female. It doesnt mention about same sex marriage. If murder wasnt in the bible would it be right?

That is how many christians see their logic. I dont agree with it and that doesnt mean scripture doesnt teach it. In this case it is both biblical and cultural. Cant get around that.

Just because I disagree with what the bible says about male and female marriage, doesnt change that scripture and hebrew and roman culture does not promote same sex marriage.

I cant change someone else's holy book based on my opinion. It is what it is. Plus, I dont believe the bible is the end all to christian faith. I do agree, according to the Catholic doctrine and Bible, that marriage is between male and female. Only according to Catholic doctrine and Bible,


My personal opinion, its wrong. I disagree. Dont like it. That doesnt change a thing, though. Why should I care anymore. I left.

But again, - the verses you posted do NOT say marriage is only between a man and a woman. Jesus didn't say so either.

*