Christianity in decline

[Evangelicalhumanist]

As far as JC saying homosexuality is bad, well I think he made a mistake ha ha.

Jesus mad no mention of homosexuality at all -- not a word. Paul did, but then, as far as I know, Paul is not Jesus, nor is he divine.

There are also scholars (including Bishop John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal church) who strongly suspect that what Paul refers to as "a thorn in the side," is his own homosexual leaning.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Jesus mad no mention of homosexuality at all -- not a word. Paul did, but then, as far as I know, Paul is not Jesus, nor is he divine.

There are also scholars (including Bishop John Shelby Spong of the Episcopal church) who strongly suspect that what Paul refers to as "a thorn in the side," is his own homosexual leaning.

Jesus adhered to the OT

 

[Samael_Khan]

They are not my scriptures.
That's just a religious metaphor. It can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. And I am not religious, so it's of no great significance, to me, anyway.
They are not my scriptures.
I care about the message of the story, and the promise that comes with it. As I have found them to be true.

OK. So I understand where you are coming from if you are not a Christian because that is similar to my view. The book's story has a message with characters in the narrative.

Why, though, do you have Christian in your religion title, but do not consider the Bible your scriptures?

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes it is my friend

If you recognize that then cool.

 

[King Phenomenon]

If you recognize that then cool.

I do And it don't bother me one bit

 

[Samael_Khan]

I do And it don't bother me one bit

It shouldn't then. I think that most Christians pick and choose what to believe which is why there are so many denominations. Nonetheless many of them say that they alone know exactly what the Bible says about certain topics. You aren't under such an illusion which is good.

 

[PureX]

You can't pretend you're a scholar when you aren't. And we need teachers and scholars to help us understand the bible.

Why? The Bible is just a collection of religious texts written by men of a particular culture a long time ago, about how they conceived of God.

Yet many are charlatans, I'll agree; but if you reject all instruction from the wise and learned, then take heed of Proverbs 1:7. The bible is not a book where everyone is entitled to hold forth an authoritative opinion.

Everything written about God is open to interpretations and opinion. No one knows any more than anyone else about it. We all have to make up our own minds about it.

Everyone will have an opinion, but to be confident of understanding the bible aright, you need to seek out and learn from those with authority themselves. And Jesus himself, the final authority, condemns all forms of immorality in Mark 7:21-23.

To be "confident of understanding" is a fools errand, inspired by fear and ago. A wise man is skeptical of his own pretense of wisdom. And doubly skeptical of the presumed wisdom of others.

 

[PureX]

OK. So I understand where you are coming from if you are not a Christian because that is similar to my view. The book's story has a message with characters in the narrative.

Why, though, do you have Christian in your religion title, but do not consider the Bible your scriptures?

Because I have found the message of the story to be true, and I believe the promise it offers us to be logical. That is: that God's divine spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity exists in all of us, and that if we will set aside our own fear and selfishness and allow that spirit to rule our thoughts and behaviors, it will heal us and save us from ourselves, and help us to heal and save others, as well. And that when/if we all will finally accept this as our true reality, the whole world will be healed and saved (from us).

 

[eik]

Why? The Bible is just a collection of religious texts written by men of a particular culture a long time ago, about how they conceived of God.
Everything written about God is open to interpretations and opinion. No one knows any more than anyone else about it. We all have to make up our own minds about it.
To be "confident of understanding" is a fools errand, inspired by fear and ago. A wise man is skeptical of his own pretense of wisdom. And doubly skeptical of the presumed wisdom of others.

Everything you have said tells me you don't have much respect for the bible or its authors, or the message conveyed therein, because you see it as all relativistic, which deprecates the very purpose and authority of religion. To make something of little authority by asserting it is open to continuous re-interpretation is really to abolish it.

Just because there are those who interpret it after the manner of the flesh / world for mercenary or other private purposes doesn't mean to say its message in the end is either variable or open to any degree of actual interpretation, other than the one given to it by Christ and his apostles, who did not see a variable interpretation. So although in many aspects diametrically opposed to the tenets of modern society, or modern denominations, which are politically based rather than based on the morality of religion, I disagree that biblical principles are open to a variable degree of interpretation.

There are no grounds for modifying the core teachings of Christianity just because you, or anyone else, finds them to be politically unacceptable in the modern era.

 

[PureX]

Everything you have said tells me you don't have much respect for the bible or its authors, or the message conveyed therein. Just because there are those who interpret it after the manner of the flesh for mercenary or worldly purposes doesn't mean its message in the end is either variable or open to any degree of interpretation other than the one given to it by Christ and his apostles, even where diametrically opposed to the tenets of modern society, which is politically based rather than based on the morality of religion. There are no grounds for modifying the core teachings of Christianity just because you, or anyone else, finds them to be politically unacceptable.

Where it conveys wisdom and truth, the Bible warrants our respect. Where it does not, it does not. The truth is not in the words, it's in our experiences with each other. Both the good and the bad. Through these we learn the truth. That God's love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity acting in us and through us to others does indeed heal and save us from ourselves, and help us to heal others. Where the Bible affirms this, it is good. Where the Bible does impedes this, it is not. The same is true of any 'holy' book. And of any religion. This 'truth of Christ' transcends religion, and should not be bogged down or distorted by our religions or our lack thereof.

 

[halbhh]

None of that will change the fact that many homosexuals are offended by the Old Testament of which Jesus Christ adhered to. For this reason that's why I'm trying to give JC an out with the idea of him making a mistake or being sexually repressed himself. I like to keep an open mind of the possibilities of things that are in fact possible.

I've reviewed, and now I'll try to better address just exactly what you are talking about only --

I've spent an hour or 2 over the years looking at translations of the original Hebrew in the Old Testament on this, such as in Leviticus -- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." in chapter 18. Which seems to be specifically intercourse sodomy -- just 1 thing.
And others have spent time, such as the translators for instance of the ESV, to give a good example, or the NIV, to get the translation accurate.

And their translations in the Old Testament (O.T.) and New, both, make it seem there is just this 1 precise, specific act only (only just 1) that is forbidden among consensual sex between adults that are in a monogamous faithful relationship.... (and the 1 act is forbidden for all couples, of every sort, including man/women, traditional married, etc.) This 1 act, and not any others of the various non-coerced acts.

Which leaves everything else between consenting adults (who are faithful to each other) which isn't that particular 1 thing.

Since we are instructed in the O.T. not to add extra stuff into the words than only what they say..... then we shouldn't add extra meanings! (anyone wanting to see this instruction just ask me)

If you got a book of sexual techniques, this 1 thing would be like only...1% of the techniques.

That leaves the other 99% still left one could do.

You shouldn't trust those prejudiced political positions you have heard and that many loud voices claim is "Christian" -- they didn't even read carefully! (or they just trusted some preacher that didn't read carefully). (also, for that matter, ask Christians at a church that isn't so political as to endorse Trump for instance, but are more oriented instead to Christ, and if you ask 20 people, you might get 20 distinct opinions, but probably will hear mine among them)

When you have a non-politicized translation that is accurate -- good ones are the ESV and NIV for instance -- then you have a lot of freedom in a monogamous relationship that is faithful.

So, we can turn, again, to the key, crucial thing that helps us understand --

The rule for all actions, of every kind, every situation:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

So, you see why it mattered my last post previously not to accept just whatever the political-power-seeking Christians that will insist is Christian, when it's often just their prejudice. They have created a powerful false impression.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I've reviewed, and now I'll try to better address just exactly what you are talking about only --

I've spent an hour or 2 over the years looking at translations of the original Hebrew in the Old Testament on this, such as in Leviticus -- "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." in chapter 18. Which seems to be specifically intercourse sodomy -- just 1 thing.
And others have spent time, such as the translators for instance of the ESV, to give a good example, or the NIV, to get the translation accurate.

And their translations in the Old Testament (O.T.) and New, both, make it seem there is just this 1 precise, specific act only (only just 1) that is forbidden among consensual sex between adults that are in a monogamous faithful relationship.... (and the 1 act is forbidden for all couples, of every sort, including man/women, traditional married, etc.) This 1 act, and not any others of the various non-coerced acts.

Which leaves everything else between consenting adults (who are faithful to each other) which isn't that particular 1 thing.

Since we are instructed in the O.T. not to add extra stuff into the words than only what they say..... then we shouldn't add extra meanings! (anyone wanting to see this instruction just ask me)

If you got a book of sexual techniques, this 1 thing would be like only...1% of the techniques.

That leaves the other 99% still left one could do.

You shouldn't trust those prejudiced political positions you have heard and that many loud voices claim is "Christian" -- they didn't even read carefully! (or they just trusted some preacher that didn't read carefully). (also, for that matter, ask Christians at a church that isn't so political as to endorse Trump for instance, but are more oriented instead to Christ, and if you ask 20 people, you might get 20 distinct opinions, but probably will hear mine among them)

When you have a non-politicized translation that is accurate -- good ones are the ESV and NIV for instance -- then you have a lot of freedom in a monogamous relationship that is faithful.

So, we can turn, again, to the key, crucial thing that helps us understand --

The rule for all actions, of every kind, every situation:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

So, you see why it mattered my last post previously not to accept just whatever the political-power-seeking Christians that will insist is Christian, when it's often just their prejudice. They have created a powerful false impression.

Not lie with a male is what gay people are offended by. And it could mean more than just intercourse. The Bible can't wiggle out of that one

 

[halbhh]

Not lie with a male is what gay people are offended by. And it could mean more than just intercourse. The Bible can't wiggle out of that one

Ah, but...this same action is wrong when women do with with their husband, too --

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

See? It's the same proscribed action, no matter gender or orientation.

That's what I see in the text, having read it carefully, and all the various verses, but in the best modern translations that are not politicized.

So, that leaves everything else that isn't this one action, between consenting adults in a faithful relationship.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Ah, but...this same action is wrong when women do with with their husband, too --

Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

See? It's the same proscribed action, no matter gender or orientation.

That's what I see in the text, having read it carefully, and all the various verses, but in the best modern translations that are not politicized.

Obviously it's OK for a man to lie with a woman

 

[halbhh]

Obviously it's OK for a man to lie with a woman

These wordings where someone would 'lie with' or "know" another intimately were indirect wordings to refer to intercourse sex. But... among the wide variety of possible physical sex acts, so far as just the physical details, only just 1 between consenting adults in a faithful relationship seems to be proscribed. Leaving all the rest as ok between consenting adults in a faithful relationship, so far as I understand. In other words, about 20 or 50 other acts, or 100 if you count small changes I guess, all fine.

 

[eik]

Not lie with a male is what gay people are offended by. And it could mean more than just intercourse. The Bible can't wiggle out of that one

Why would it want to "wiggle" out of that one? And why should the bible care whether gay people are "offended?" Causing offence to those antithetic to God's law is what the bible is all about,

 

[King Phenomenon]

These wordings where someone would 'lie with' or "know" another intimately were indirect wordings to refer to intercourse sex. But... among the wide variety of possible physical sex acts, so far as just the physical details, only just 1 between consenting adults in a faithful relationship seems to be proscribed. Leaving all the rest as ok between consenting adults in a faithful relationship, so far as I understand. In other words, about 20 or 50 other acts, or 100 if you count small changes I guess, all fine.

Yeah that one act being wrong is offensive to gay people.

 

[halbhh]

Why would it want to "wiggle" out of that one? And why should the bible care whether gay people are "offended?" Causing offence to those antithetic to God's law is what the bible is all about,

Too often some try to represent, without knowing scripture well it appears then, that even just being gay is sin, when instead scripture refers to a specific physical act.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Why would it want to "wiggle" out of that one? And why should the bible care whether gay people are "offended?" Causing offence to those antithetic to God's law is what the bible is all about,

Yeah I was going to write, I'm not sure if the bible would even want to wiggle out of that one. But I said that in another post. Well the Bible is and an inanimate objects so it can't care or not care haha. This thread is about 7 billion people believing that homosexuality is a sin.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Too often some try to represent, without knowing scripture well it appears then, that even just being gay is sin, when instead scripture refers to a specific physical act.

Well I think commonsense says otherwise imo. As far as 'being gay' well that's fine but I think the Bible is referring to any act even thoughts really Imo. It really would be odd to do all the other acts and exclude just one Imo. I'm aware that some people can't do that one Act however