Dad disowns his gay son in handwritten letter

[Retro Rob]

A new commandment does not remove the old commandments. God Himself commanded the Jews to follow The Law - Jesus did not have to say what was already known. If you are not Jewish, you have nothing to worry about, The Law never applied to you, and will never apply to you (until the time when Jesus sets up His kingdom on the Earth - one of the reasons why the nations will rage against Him).
.

You seem to be under the assumption that God's favor is still with the Jews. They rejected and killed the Christ, (or demanded that Pilate hand him over for impalement) yet God's favor is still with them?

I hope I am misunderstanding that about you, and that you don't believe that.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 says that Christ died so that all sorts of men can be saved, so Jews are not some "special" property of God as you seem to be implying.

God Himself commanded the Jews to follow The Law - Jesus did not have to say what was already known. If you are not Jewish, you have nothing to worry about, The Law never applied to you, and will never apply to you (until the time when Jesus sets up His kingdom on the Earth - one of the reasons why the nations will rage against Him).]

...but the Law doesn't apply to anyone anymore, period. It's a common misconception among some Jewish people that they are still under Law. The Bible says otherwise and I can show more passages as to why that is wrong. True, they were under the Law before the Christ established the Christian Congregation prior to his death, but the point of his death was to remove that Law, and to allow all men to benefit from his sacrifice.

You don't need to Jewish to benefit. You don't have to be anything but a human.

Since Jesus paid the penalty already for not following it, all I am left with is the rewards. 🙂

You really need to go back and read your Bible.. or a proper one.

John 3:16 says that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but obtain everlasting life.

You keep talking about Jews just getting rewards, and that Christ died because of the Jews' disobedience as regards following the Law. That's not accurate at all, and you are mislead. The passage I just quoted says "everyone" exercising faith... not just Jewish people. He died out of love for the world (people, in other words).. not just Jews.

 

[werepossum]

I seriously doubt any of the heterosexual P&N regulars are good-looking enough for that to happen.

I am. I am so incredibly handsome that everyone wants to be just like me. This is why Americans are so fat. And old.

 

[alzan]

Ooh, I HATE it when that happens! Fool me once, shame on you; fool me sixteen times . . .

Abraxas spurred some semi-random thoughts, namely:

HIV is not necessarily a homosexual disease. Some African countries, where it is primarily spread through heterosexual contact, have the highest infection rates in the world. Speaking of which, HIV infection is rapidly growing amongst blacks. Is the next step discrimination against blacks? 'Cause we've been down that road before and I do not believe that dog will hunt a second time.

I really don't see why people consider homosexuality differently from a Biblical standpoint than eating shellfish or catfish or pork, or mixing wool and linen. If one is to be an absolutist on the Bible, is there not a moral imperative to be absolutist on every part of the Bible? And at least as far as the New Testament and especially the Gospels of the Christ go, seems to me they are geared exclusively toward inner reflection rather than the Old Testament fire and brimstone, keep your neighbor in line approach. If it offends G-d - and I personally am not convinced it does - rest assured that G-d still loves the homosexual and that he (and every one of the rest of us) have no doubt offended G-d worse in other ways. G-d is by definition a big boy; I think He can handle the gays being gay without the rest of us making sure they are hammered into our understanding of G-d's will. (And if He can't handle gays being gay, wasn't it a real dick move to allow them to be born gay? It's like running a marathon for salvation and then randomly stapling anvils to the balls of every tenth man. And considering that Jesus said it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into Heaven, and considering that by the standards of Jesus' time we are all filthy rich, do any of us really have the time to concentrate on fixing other people without risking our own souls? If I see a man stuffing his face with catfish and then refusing to give a bum even a buck, can he really find salvation through denying others the same rights he enjoys, at no cost to himself? Speaking of dick moves.

Opposing gay marriage seems to me to be no better than supporting higher taxes (or fewer services) for people who aren't you. In fact, it's worse, for whom I am free to marry is much, more central to my happiness than whether after taxes I have $50 discretionary income or $500 discretionary income.

I'm also really uncomfortable with people describing gays as bad because they have such high rates of disease. A disease is bad, certainly. Behavior can certainly be irresponsible, and it can be bad if it hurts someone else, but surely a person isn't bad for having a disease - any disease, even if his own behavior contributed. First, that applies only to gay men who are promiscuous, not gay women, and some non-gay groups such as hemophiliacs actually have historically suffered under greater rates of infection. Second, if there were less societal pressure against gays there might be less promiscuity; certainly there would be fewer men in the closet grabbing anonymous sex and bringing it home to Mama. And third, shouldn't that apply to other diseases as well? Are we to disparage black folks for their high rates of sickle cell anemia? White folks evil for the skin cancer? Damn Asians and their bird flue? A big middle finger to white collar workers and their damned heart attacks? I generally dislike the slippery slope arguments, but it seems to me that this is, um, shall we say a trail with an insufficiently high coefficient of friction for safety and stability.

I had this argument with a friend in real life as we were driving to a job. He's a super nice guy, but dead set against gay marriage. His main argument is it's unnatural. Dude, seriously? We're hurtling down the road in a metal box at speeds not even cheetahs can reach. When we get to our destination, you're going to design a very large cave that will be built on top of the ground. I'm going to harness lightning and bring the sun indoors. When we're done, two thousand people will sit in air-conditioned comfort and watch as the fantasy of someone they will never even meet is enacted in photo-realistic glory - much of it created by computers. Unnatural? That ship sailed a few thousand years ago.

I'd settle for the loud-mouthed fanatical Christians just to do their best to be Christ-like; Jesus loved all and that's all he really wants Christians to do. Love your G-d, love your neighbor, love yourself. Leave your disagreement with their actions or thoughts at home.

A sick and deranged thought and a truly disturbing image that thanks to you is indelibly etched in my brain

 

[dank69]

If you're somehow saying I believe in the Bible out of fear or "eternal torment" then no, you're wrong.

I honestly care about people, believe it or not.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm asking if you need the bible to tell you what is right and wrong. As I suspected, you do not. So what is the fucking point of your beloved book?

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd settle for the loud-mouthed fanatical Christians just to do their best to be Christ-like; Jesus loved all and that's all he really wants Christians to do. Love your G-d, love your neighbor, love yourself. Leave your disagreement with their actions or thoughts at home.

So.. he just loved all? He didn't take the message to people, educate them, correct them?

I feel you, though. We shouldn't be going back in forth in circles.. "loud-mouthed" as you put it.

But part of being Christ-like has a lot to do with talking to people about the Bible as well because he did just that too.

 

[cybrsage]

I am. I am so incredibly handsome that everyone wants to be just like me. This is why Americans are so fat. And old.

😀 I did laugh...and heartily too.

 

[cybrsage]

You seem to be under the assumption that God's favor is still with the Jews. They rejected and killed the Christ, (or demanded that Pilate hand him over for impalement) yet God's favor is still with them?

I hope I am misunderstanding that about you, and that you don't believe that.

But of course the Jews are still God's chosen people. They did many horrible things and God punished them for it. If you look, there is a cycle which is repeated:

Jews honestly try to follow The Law. God protects and blesses them. These blessings make life good. Jews start to think they earned these blessings on their own. God starts to warn them via the prophets. Jews do not care. God starts allowing other nations to harm them. Jews do not return to God. God allows Israel to be conquered and the Temple Destroyed. Diaspora happens. Jews are subjected to horrible things, slaughtered, etc. Jews return to honestly trying to follow The Law and repent. God restores Israel. The people rebuild the Temple. God protects and blesses them. These blessings make life good...

We are simply in another one of those cycles. God is faithful and just to always keep His promises. God made a promise to the Jews and God is not a liar.

1 Timothy 2:3-6 says that Christ died so that all sorts of men can be saved, so Jews are not some "special" property of God as you seem to be implying.

Correct, Jew and Gentile alike can receive the salvation offered through Jesus. This does not suddenly mean God is breaking His promise.

...but the Law doesn't apply to anyone anymore, period. It's a common misconception among some Jewish people that they are still under Law. The Bible says otherwise and I can show more passages as to why that is wrong. True, they were under the Law before the Christ established the Christian Congregation prior to his death, but the point of his death was to remove that Law, and to allow all men to benefit from his sacrifice.

Then why did Paul make a huge deal out of the fact that he never stopped following The Law? Jesus did not come to destroy The Law, which is what you are implying when you say it was removed.

All men can benefit without having to remove The Law.

You don't need to Jewish to benefit. You don't have to be anything but a human.

Correct.

You really need to go back and read your Bible.. or a proper one.

John 3:16 says that God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed, but obtain everlasting life.

You keep talking about Jews just getting rewards, and that Christ died because of the Jews' disobedience as regards following the Law. That's not accurate at all, and you are mislead. The passage I just quoted says "everyone" exercising faith... not just Jewish people. He died out of love for the world (people, in other words).. not just Jews.

The Jews get rewards for following The Law, which is what I said. I never said, nor even implied, that you had to be Jewish to follow Jesus. In fact, I said the opposite when talking about what Paul said.

There was a sect of Christianity which are called the Circumcision Sect, who believed the Goyim had to convert to Judaism in order to accept Christ. He was so upset by this, he went to the Council of Jerusalem for a ruling. Peter told his story about how God showed him that the Goyim are not unclean people (three sheet showings for the three people who arrived) and then talked abou the newly saved Goyim receiving the Holy Spirit. This swayed everyone enough to make a ruling on which portions of The Law the Goyim had to follow. I listed them before.


I think you are just misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying only Jews can be saved (first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles to make the Jews jealous so they want to be saved too - though the hatred of the Christians towards Jews stopped that dead in its tracks), I am saying only Jews are required to follow The Law.

It is an eternal covenant created by God, and God never breaks his promises.

 

[cybrsage]

I'd settle for the loud-mouthed fanatical Christians just to do their best to be Christ-like; Jesus loved all and that's all he really wants Christians to do. Love your G-d, love your neighbor, love yourself. Leave your disagreement with their actions or thoughts at home.

You hit a truth many cannot see. We are to love everyone equally. This does not mean we are to love their actions, but instead love them. God will deal with their actions, not us (though the rule of law is to be kept, so breaking laws requires punishments, but that is a differnt type of thing).

One of my best friends is gay. I love the guy like a brother. He knows I completely disagree with his chosen lifestyle. We have discussed it, and he knows that I feel it is between him and God. It invalidates him to be in a leadership position in a church, for example, but he understands that as well.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. This is what Jesus did.

 

[Retro Rob]

But of course the Jews are still God's chosen people. They did many horrible things and God punished them for it. If you look, there is a cycle which is repeated:

Jews honestly try to follow The Law. God protects and blesses them. These blessings make life good. Jews start to think they earned these blessings on their own. God starts to warn them via the prophets. Jews do not care. God starts allowing other nations to harm them. Jews do not return to God. God allows Israel to be conquered and the Temple Destroyed. Diaspora happens. Jews are subjected to horrible things, slaughtered, etc. Jews return to honestly trying to follow The Law and repent. God restores Israel. The people rebuild the Temple. God protects and blesses them. These blessings make life good...

We are simply in another one of those cycles. God is faithful and just to always keep His promises. God made a promise to the Jews and God is not a liar.

They were instrumental in the death of Jesus. That's what severed that relationship. I know you know that. The Jews called for Jesus' death and God still favors them?

No...

 

[Retro Rob]

Correct, Jew and Gentile alike can receive the salvation offered through Jesus. This does not suddenly mean God is breaking His promise.



Then why did Paul make a huge deal out of the fact that he never stopped following The Law? Jesus did not come to destroy The Law, which is what you are implying when you say it was removed.

All men can benefit without having to remove The Law.



Correct.




The Jews get rewards for following The Law, which is what I said. I never said, nor even implied, that you had to be Jewish to follow Jesus. In fact, I said the opposite when talking about what Paul said.

There was a sect of Christianity which are called the Circumcision Sect, who believed the Goyim had to convert to Judaism in order to accept Christ. He was so upset by this, he went to the Council of Jerusalem for a ruling. Peter told his story about how God showed him that the Goyim are not unclean people (three sheet showings for the three people who arrived) and then talked abou the newly saved Goyim receiving the Holy Spirit. This swayed everyone enough to make a ruling on which portions of The Law the Goyim had to follow. I listed them before.


I think you are just misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not saying only Jews can be saved (first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles to make the Jews jealous so they want to be saved too - though the hatred of the Christians towards Jews stopped that dead in its tracks), I am saying only Jews are required to follow The Law.

It is an eternal covenant created by God, and God never breaks his promises.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, cyber.

 

[cybrsage]

They were instrumental in the death of Jesus. That's what severed that relationship. I know you know that.

So they did not follow what Jesus said to do, which was to forgive them for they know not what they are doing (if God is to forgive, certainly we should follow His example and also forgive). They also did not love others as they loved themselves and they did unto others what they sure as heck would not want done unto themselves.

Face it, Christianity put a HUGE negative onto getting Jews to believe.

They Jews were punished by God for their part in the event. No need for Christians to take vengence also - God can do that all on His own.

 

[cybrsage]

We'll just have to agree to disagree, cybr.

🙂 I assume you are not Jewish, so nothing changes for you anyway regardless of which of us is correct.

I like to say it is like debating the color of the window blinds in Heaven. If I say they are red, and it turns out they are green, I will readily admit my mistake while standing next to them in Heaven.

The core beliefs are all that really matter in the end.

 

[werepossum]

I'd settle for the loud-mouthed fanatical Christians just to do their best to be Christ-like; Jesus loved all and that's all he really wants Christians to do. Love your G-d, love your neighbor, love yourself. Leave your disagreement with their actions or thoughts at home.

A sick and deranged thought and a truly disturbing image that thanks to you is indelibly etched in my brain

Agreed. I think damned few of us are such saints as to have free time to arrange others' lives. Far too often people criticize others just to make themselves feel better. I remained unconvinced that homosexuality is inherently offensive to G-d, but I am absolutely convinced that G-d will not look favorably on those who deny gays basic freedoms in His name.

Sick, deranged and disturbing images - just another service I offer. 😉

😀 I did laugh...and heartily too.

Well, at least my day hasn't been a total waste. 😀

 

[alzan]

You hit a truth many cannot see. We are to love everyone equally. This does not mean we are to love their actions, but instead love them. God will deal with their actions, not us (though the rule of law is to be kept, so breaking laws requires punishments, but that is a differnt type of thing).

One of my best friends is gay. I love the guy like a brother. He knows I completely disagree with his chosen lifestyle. We have discussed it, and he knows that I feel it is between him and God. It invalidates him to be in a leadership position in a church, for example, but he understands that as well.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. This is what Jesus did.

It's hard to be sure though. There's very little in the Bible of what Jesus said or thought about a particular subject.

Sounds like a great religion and great church. /sarcasm

 

[Abraxas]

There are many discussions about the flood. The one I prefer is that God was speaking about "the world of man" when He said "the world". The purpose was to wipe out mankind, specifically the portion which had become horrifically evil in His eyes.

To do this, a very large flood is still needed, but it would not need to cover the entire globe. To support this, we just have to look at what a Roman citizen considered the world - it was the boundaries of the Roman empire. Everything else was simply lands waiting to be added to the world. But this is all theory, the story is too generic to be able to say for sure. It is just a view of it, nothing more, nothing less.

As an aside, the ancient Israelites used the number 40 like we use the number "a million" today. It simply meant "a lot" (like saying there is a million stars in the sky)...so the rain was not for 40 literal days and nights, but a lot of days and nights.

Setting aside that liberals are now telling us we're causing another Great Flood via global warming, it would not have had to flood the entire world to cover the highest peaks. If the civilization were in a basin such as the Mediterranean, a flood of Biblical proportions could have flooded their area to the point of the Biblical description. People in any particular area and era tended to assume that people and conditions in other areas and eras were essentially the same, as witnessed by Medieval artists depicting Jesus in medieval dress and grooming. If people on the Arc could not see land for forty days, they would have assumed that the entire world was submerged.

That's fine, and I'm perfectly willing to accept there was a catastrophic regional flood, maybe from something like a glacial dam breaking or tsunami, that caused enormous destruction and loss of life. However, first, by that point humanity had spread well beyond that one region. We can trace human life in eastern Asia and the Americas to tens of thousands of years ago. If it were to wipe out humanity, it would have had to be much larger than a regional flood. I don't have a problem taking it as a figurative tale describing a bad flood in the same way the Epic of Gilgamesh does, however, taking the bible literally, we have to accept things that simply do not make sense and do not conform to the world as we know it.

The flood isn't even the worst of them though, take the sun stopping in the sky so Joshua can kill better. Do you have any idea what would happen to the Earth if it suddenly came to a screeching halt, stopping all that angular momentum in the crust? The Israelites would be the least of your problems when the entire planet reverts to being a mass of molten rock.

Look, I think there is some good material in the Bible, a lot that can be learned and a lot that still applied to the way we look at the world. In particular I enjoy the dichotomy between the old testament and the gospels and how it informs where we have been as a violent and warlike species and how we can strive to be a giving, compassionate, and peaceful one. It makes for a unique and fantastic mythic history. However, when you take an oral tradition of a tribe of this nature and assume it is inerrant and factually accurate in every respect, especially when you use it as a means to spread hatred, division, and condemnation, we, as a society, have a problem. When you try to legislate that, we have a huge problem.

 

[cybrsage]

It's hard to be sure though. There's very little in the Bible of what Jesus said or thought about a particular subject.

Sounds like a great religion and great church. /sarcasm

True, Jesus did not directly address homosexuality, but Jesus also did not say people should eat food and drink water and breathe air. If He did not talk about it, should we assume He does or does not want us to eat, drink, and breathe?

Over the top, I know, but I am using it to show that just because Jesus did not talk about something does not mean we automatically do not know what His position would have been had He talked about it.

The problem with the religion is not the religion, but the people in it.

 

[cybrsage]

The flood isn't even the worst of them though, take the sun stopping in the sky so Joshua can kill better. Do you have any idea what would happen to the Earth if it suddenly came to a screeching halt, stopping all that angular momentum in the crust? The Israelites would be the least of your problems when the entire planet reverts to being a mass of molten rock.

You are giving God the power to stop the planet and then not giving Him the power to mitigate the effects of stopping the planet. If He can do one, He can do the other - and would know it was needed. 🙂

Look, I think there is some good material in the Bible, a lot that can be learned and a lot that still applied to the way we look at the world. In particular I enjoy the dichotomy between the old testament and the gospels and how it informs where we have been as a violent and warlike species and how we can strive to be a giving, compassionate, and peaceful one. It makes for a unique and fantastic mythic history. However, when you take an oral tradition of a tribe of this nature and assume it is inerrant and factually accurate in every respect, especially when you use it as a means to spread hatred, division, and condemnation, we, as a society, have a problem. When you try to legislate that, we have a huge problem.

The Bible should never have been used to spread hatred. That is a problem with people, not the Bible. I agree on legislating religion, with the exception of in the Land of Israel and during the time of the New Kingdom when Jesus returns.

 

[alzan]

True, Jesus did not directly address homosexuality, but Jesus also did not say people should eat food and drink water and breathe air. If He did not talk about it, should we assume He does or does not want us to eat, drink, and breathe?

Over the top, I know, but I am using it to show that just because Jesus did not talk about something does not mean we automatically do not know what His position would have been had He talked about it.

The problem with the religion is not the religion, but the people in it.

It would make much more sense to say that he had no opinion on homosexuality since there's no specific reference to him saying anything about that subject.

Because, you know, we shouldn't use the Bible to spread hatred; either of people or their actions or thoughts.

Then we should get rid of religion. People can be taught ethics and ethical behavior, no ancient texts of questionable veracity needed.

 

[cybrsage]

It would make much more sense to say that he had no opinion on homosexuality since there's no specific reference to him saying anything about that subject.

No, it would not. Jesus was a devout Jew, which means He believed The Law to have been given directly to Moses to give to the Jews, which means He would believe its dictates on sexual immorality are those God Himself said to follow.

Because, you know, we shouldn't use the Bible to spread hatred; either of people or their actions or thoughts.

Here is where you are wrong. People, yes, actions, no. Wrongful actions should not be considered acceptable. Murder, for example, should not be allowed. We should all be intolerant of murder.

Then we should get rid of religion. People can be taught ethics and ethical behavior, no ancient texts of questionable veracity needed.

No, for then these ethics would not be based on the proper source. Who gets to decide what these ethics should be?

 

[dank69]

No, it would not. Jesus was a devout Jew, which means He believed The Law to have been given directly to Moses to give to the Jews, which means He would believe its dictates on sexual immorality are those God Himself said to follow.



Here is where you are wrong. People, yes, actions, no. Wrongful actions should not be considered acceptable. Murder, for example, should not be allowed. We should all be intolerant of murder.




No, for then these ethics would not be based on the proper source. Who gets to decide what these ethics should be?

It's simple. Your rights end where mine begin. That covers everything and is not subjective, so you should be able to easily digest it.

 

[alzan]

No, it would not. Jesus was a devout Jew, which means He believed The Law to have been given directly to Moses to give to the Jews, which means He would believe its dictates on sexual immorality are those God Himself said to follow.



Here is where you are wrong. People, yes, actions, no. Wrongful actions should not be considered acceptable. Murder, for example, should not be allowed. We should all be intolerant of murder.




No, for then these ethics would not be based on the proper source. Who gets to decide what these ethics should be?

I'm unaware of any direct evidence of him being a devout Jew, unless you're using the Bible which would make it circular proof/logic at best. In fact there's no direct evidence of him ever existing for that matter

Where did I say that murder was an acceptable action? And are you actually comparing murder to sexual orientation.

There are many examples of ethical behavior that don't come from particular religions. It's a pretty good idea to have laws in any society that bar citizens from killing each other, stealing from each other, etc.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm unaware of any direct evidence of him being a devout Jew, unless you're using the Bible which would make it circular proof/logic at best. In fact there's no direct evidence of him ever existing for that matter.

Now you are just getting stupid. Some assumptions must be made to actually hold a conversation about Jesus. These assumptions would be that Jesus existed and that the source of information about Him is correct, at least from a non-supernatural standpoint. There is no need at all to hold a coversation about the specifics of Jesus if you are simply going to say no such man existed.

Where did I say that murder was an acceptable action? And are you actually comparing murder to sexual orientation.

Unless you do not consider murder to be a wrongful act, then you said it here (bolding mine):

Because, you know, we shouldn't use the Bible to spread hatred; either of people or their actions or thoughts.

There are many examples of ethical behavior that don't come from particular religions. It's a pretty good idea to have laws in any society that bar citizens from killing each other, stealing from each other, etc.

So who is going to be the final arbitrator of it? Who gets to decide what the list of allowable actions is?

 

[cybrsage]

It's simple. Your rights end where mine begin. That covers everything and is not subjective, so you should be able to easily digest it.

Then you feel people can have sex on the street corner?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

This thread just won't die. wtf

OK, God made us all, right? Jesus never said being gay is a mortal sin, right? So put 2 & 2 together, and you get God does NOT HATE gays.

What happened to God being a God of love? You people need to stop using the bible to start your personal holy wars. Soddom and Gammorah were destroyed for worshipping false idols and being selfish. Read it for yourself:

Ezek. 16:49 "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Sound familiar?

 

[dank69]

Then you feel people can have sex on the street corner?

I am not certain that public nudity or sex should be illegal. It's not in good taste most likely, but that doesn't necessarily demand outlawing it. I assume you bring this specific example up because you agree it does not hurt anyone?

On a side note, you should work on phrasing your communications better. People can have sex on the street corner. What you should have asked is "Then you feel people should be allowed to have sex on the street corner?" Since I am smart enough to interpret what you meant with that question, it wasn't a big deal this time. Someday though you might run into a pedantic asshole who will grind on about your wording of a comment rather than absorb and address your intent.