In order to know if I am a bigot I would have to have become conscious of every source of irrational prejudice that was ever inculcated into me, a difficult think to do. As I said, prejudice never calls itself prejudice but hides behind some assumption or other that I would just assume to be true. But the kind of bigotry that I ascribed to you is that based on religious faith where good and evil are determined by text and tradition without real rational thought. For what it is worth, I don't believe that God disappears just because somebody questions the Book. I think that the notion that it is the exact word of God was put in there by men, men who had little trust in real faith. To me to have faith is to trust in love. How much you love God is how much you know His love for you. All the rest is just jargon.
In order to know if I am a bigot I would have to have become conscious of every source of irrational prejudice that was ever inculcated into me, a difficult think to do. As I said, prejudice never calls itself prejudice but hides behind some assumption or other that I would just assume to be true. But the kind of bigotry that I ascribed to you is that based on religious faith where good and evil are determined by text and tradition without real rational thought. For what it is worth, I don't believe that God disappears just because somebody questions the Book. I think that the notion that it is the exact word of God was put in there by men, men who had little trust in real faith. To me to have faith is to trust in love. How much you love God is how much you know His love for you. All the rest is just jargon.
As to the notion of who defines hateful, that is a difficult question. The only answer that occurs to me is that what the Lover does is Love and the lover needs no answer.
You have a wonderful point, and I agree with you 100%. Faith is to me a belief in things which are hoped for, but not seen. That I think we probably have in common. We also both believe that love is an essential part of faith. But faith is not only composed of love. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to feel that gay marriage must be a good thing because it promotes love and that God is a god of love, so me must approve also. But just because something promotes or involves love does not make is ok. The story of King David would be a perfect example of that. Just because we find something that will make us happy or because we love it does not require God to provide it for us.
I also agree that we can just believe everything we read or hear through our religion. Christ himself taught that and Peter was a great example. Even after being with Christ for almost two and a half years, the reason he believed in Christ was not because of what he had seen, done, or even heard. It was due to his prayer to God being answered. He didn't just accept anything. He prayed to know that what he heard was correct. I have done the same, and THAT is why I feel the way I do. Not because I was "brainwashed" into believing this or that, but because that's how I've felt after my prayers.
So call me a bigot if you must, that is your choice. Christ has been called many things worse than that and I would feel I was way off track if people didn't call me names too. But since you feel so strongly about love, how do you feel that you are promoting or displaying love by calling someone else a bigot. Sorry, but I'm just not feeling the love.
You have your belief, and I respect that. I'm not trying to change it, just to express my beliefs and reasons for them. You may not agree with or like my ideas. As shown, many don't, for their own reasons. The end result, we'll all find out on day whether it is right or not. Until then, it's all just opinion anyway.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
lol right. lincoln just waited until the polls showed enough civil rights support and then he declared war on the southright....
and right... black people before freedom and civil rights could "vote" but their vote wouldn't be recognized by the states or federal government
but they could still vote!!
as for forcing people to recognize things, it has nothing to do with that. just because the government recognized the right of couples to marry people of other races didn't violate the rights of others who still believed in the need for antimisegination laws to keep the races pure. those people still had the right to NOT engage in interracial marriage. its like saying letting blacks vote was a violation of the rights of racist whites. its absurd. personal rights and freedom take precedent over the comfort of bigots and their need to impose by force their beliefs on others. gays only want free access to marriage as heteros do. its a free choice. they aren't forcing heteros into gay marriages.
for an "engineer" you should think more logically
Are you serious??? The Civil War was not fought completely over slavery! Slavery was a secondary issue. The Civil War was fought because southern states left the union due to high import taxation and the desire of the Union, at that time, to close down trade with European countries in an attempt to become self sufficient. This was happening because of much larger representation of northern ideal due to a much higher population in the north. South Carolina succeeded in 1860, two years before Lincoln even drafted the Preliminary Proclamation.
Second, I never said blacks could vote and have it not counted. I have no idea where you pulled that one from. Blacks, before voting rights, would have in most places been shot, north or south. And even after the change from the voting rights act of 1865, they had to be able to pass a literacy test. And due to the treatment of slaves, few of them knew how to read. So what are you even talking about?
And personally, I do plenty of "logical thinking." You however, may want to start with the basics, like just "thinking," and you can work your way up from there.
thats pretty sad, you don't even read your own posts apparently.
your civil war bs post
and your post on 2nd class unrecognized marriage being just as good. which is basically the same as a fantasy vote i brought up for blacks.
Sorry Oroo Oroo, but do you know what you're talking about? Because it makes no sense.
To quote a movie called Tommy Boy that might help you. "It's called reading. Left to right, top to bottom. Group words together into sentences. Take tylenol for any headaches. Midol for any cramps."
If anyone else though would like to help this poor individual out, you might want to pay the enrollment fees for a history class. It's pretty obvious he's never had one. But for now, here's your first lesson. The Civil War was fought in the place we call today the United States of America. There were two main sides, the North and the South. Now you can get the rest on your own. Let us know when you finally know what you're talking about.
To quote a movie called Tommy Boy that might help you. "It's called reading. Left to right, top to bottom. Group words together into sentences. Take tylenol for any headaches. Midol for any cramps."
If anyone else though would like to help this poor individual out, you might want to pay the enrollment fees for a history class. It's pretty obvious he's never had one. But for now, here's your first lesson. The Civil War was fought in the place we call today the United States of America. There were two main sides, the North and the South. Now you can get the rest on your own. Let us know when you finally know what you're talking about.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Unfortunately it is not just opinion because opinion gets translated into thought and action and bigotry hurts other people. And what kind of religious experience can you have had that tells you that homosexual acts are sin? What about Christ tells you he doesn't like the act of homosexual sex? And the fact that I criticize you and others criticized Christ is a pretty ineffectual defense if you ask me. One could get a real complex thinking like that. And because of the nature of self deception I cannot simply accept that you are clean of brainwashing simply on your own say so. Everything seems to conveniently fit with your past indoctrination. But I too am expressing my opinion. I believe that bigotry is an anathema to the human race.
Sure, I'll be happy to explain where and how I got my religious belief that homosexual acts are sins.
I think we would both believe that faith is the combination of two things, an idea and a conviction that the idea is true. The idea that homosexual acts are a sin comes from Leviticus, chapter 18, of the Bible. This chapter covers almost all possible sexual acts, including adultry, incest, and homosexuality. Verse 22 and 23 are the two that specifically relate to homosexuality. This would be where the idea of homosexual acts being a sin comes from. As for the conviction, that came through prayer. I prayed to know whether or not the things I read where true, and I felt they were. You may not, and obviously don't, agree with the conviction I've received. But I would have to ask you as well, where and how did you receive your conviction that it was ok?
The idea that people critisize Christ and others critisize me was not meant or used as a defense, but an observation. I also would never assume that I am clean of brainwashing. I would imagine it would be rather difficult for a brainwashed person to ever realize they are brainwashed. However, the probability is just as high that you are the one brainwashed, and not me. However, I like to think that neither of us are brainwashed but that we simply don't agree. And actually, my indoctrination came through study by myself and then listening to the leadership of my church, not the other way around. So to say I was indoctrinated by a religion wouldn't be quite accurate. I learned and studied on my own and then compared what I had understood to what I was taught. Therefore, my religion confirmed my belief, it didn't indoctrinate me with its own beliefs.
I absolutely agree with your last statement. Nobody likes to be called a bigot, in case you haven't noticed.
And it also seems to be a characteristic that nearly everyone has in some way, shape, or form. Maybe one day we can all just get along. If you would be so kind as to show me exactly what I have quoted that does not mess with something else, that would be great.
So far you've accused me of making a post about the Civil War not starting until Lincoln had enough civil rights support. Here was my actual quote
Now, if you can find the words "Civil War" or "declare war on the south," as you put it, I would love to know about it. You also stated that I claimed blacks could vote but that their vote wouldn't count. Again, if you could show me that, I would love to know about it.
You seem to have a problem either misquoting, not reading, or you're simply delusional. I await your response with actual proof that I said any of the things you accuse me of saying.
good to see another Christian on the forums, don't let these guys bring you down too much. my favorite passage for citing homosexuality as sinful according to the God of the Bible is 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Here Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, lists off a number of various kinds of people who are caught up living in sinful lifestyles, including drunkedness, idolatry, and numerous sexual sins such as fornication (sex outside of marriage), adultery, and homosexuality. Paul simply tells the church that the unrighteous (those who are not right with God) will never see God's kingdom, b/c their sins put them at war with God. The thing that people fail to note when they quote 1 Cor. 6 about homosexuality are the 6 wonderful words of hope Paul includes in vs. 11: "And such were some of you." many of the christians in the church at corinth were theives, and liars, and drunkards, prostitutes, and even homosexuals, but they had been called out of darkness and into a life-changing relationship with the risen Lord.
so yes, the Bible does condemn homosexuality along with any and all sin, but it also reminds us clearly that God's grace abounds over it as well.
so yes, the Bible does condemn homosexuality along with any and all sin, but it also reminds us clearly that God's grace abounds over it as well.
That's wonderful. The Bible also subordinates women and condones slavery.
And Christianity has nothing to do with the US government and marriage policy.
Really? Where? I would love to see where the Bible says slavery is good and that women are to be mistreated.
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Sure, I'll be happy to explain where and how I got my religious belief that homosexual acts are sins.
I think we would both believe that faith is the combination of two things, an idea and a conviction that the idea is true. The idea that homosexual acts are a sin comes from Leviticus, chapter 18, of the Bible. This chapter covers almost all possible sexual acts, including adultry, incest, and homosexuality. Verse 22 and 23 are the two that specifically relate to homosexuality. This would be where the idea of homosexual acts being a sin comes from. As for the conviction, that came through prayer. I prayed to know whether or not the things I read where true, and I felt they were. You may not, and obviously don't, agree with the conviction I've received. But I would have to ask you as well, where and how did you receive your conviction that it was ok?
The idea that people critisize Christ and others critisize me was not meant or used as a defense, but an observation. I also would never assume that I am clean of brainwashing. I would imagine it would be rather difficult for a brainwashed person to ever realize they are brainwashed. However, the probability is just as high that you are the one brainwashed, and not me. However, I like to think that neither of us are brainwashed but that we simply don't agree. And actually, my indoctrination came through study by myself and then listening to the leadership of my church, not the other way around. So to say I was indoctrinated by a religion wouldn't be quite accurate. I learned and studied on my own and then compared what I had understood to what I was taught. Therefore, my religion confirmed my belief, it didn't indoctrinate me with its own beliefs.
I absolutely agree with your last statement. Nobody likes to be called a bigot, in case you haven't noticed.
For me faith needs to make some sort of rational sense. It is sinful to Kill, to bare false witness, to steal, etc., but how is it sinful to have sex out of marriage or to have homosexual sex? Maybe homosexuality is sinful because it take place out of marriage and the Supreme Court may soon fix that. It is so obvious that the two categories of sin and so called sin I list here are very very different. One class makes sense and the other has all the smell of traditional bigotry palmed off as facts by antiquated authorities. So how did you come to have faith in this homosexuality thingi other than just buying in hook line and sinker? Where in homosexuality do you actually see any real sin? Not in the Bible, not in Paul or whatever, not in your faith in the rest of the doctrines or Christ, but where do you see it in you? What possible sin can there be in two men or two women living together with sexual love and spiritual love for each other just like two straight people. I can see it nowhere and that's why I think the Bible on this matter is full of crap. I don't think you can be truly spiritual and believe in the absurd. As I said, the bias against homosexual love deprives people who love of a love that you can have. I do not know how a person can have a faith that is selfish. I do know that if you call a group of people evil over and over again they will eventually oblige you. My prayers, if you can call them that, led me to the conclusion that everything I had ever been taught about everything in the world was all a big fat lie. For me God is what is left when everything that can be taken is taken away.
I see the sin in homosexual sex in this fact. Again, I am assuming that we agree on the fact that sex serves two main purposes, first is enjoyment/unity/togetherness, whatever you want to call it, and second, procreation. If the act of sex is not capable of producing these two outcome, with physical illnesses or restrictions aside, how can it be right? If a man or a woman has a physical problem, that may or may not prevent procreation. But if you believe in a resurrection, where the body will be cleaned of all impurities, then it no longer becomes a problem. However, even a resurrection will not change things for a homosexual couple. They still will not have that ability. So how can it be right?
My question though is how can you take part of the Bible and not the rest? You say you believe in some sins, but not others. The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Either everything listed is a sin, or it isn't. The Bible isn't a cafeteria where you just take what you like or what looks good and leave the rest. It either is the word of God or it isn't.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
Easy enough from my point of view - some things that the Bible calls sin are 'wrong' because they infringe on others, and some are not.
There is no such thing as sin.
ee: I see the sin in homosexual sex in this fact. Again, I am assuming that we agree on the fact that sex serves two main purposes, first is enjoyment/unity/togetherness, whatever you want to call it, and second, procreation. If the act of sex is not capable of producing these two outcome, with physical illnesses or restrictions aside, how can it be right?
M: That isn't the question. I want to know how it can be wrong? This is just another example of the restrictions you are about to list. Homosexual couples can't have children with each other because they are the same sex, just as if one on them was sterile. You don't call it a sin, do you, to have sex if you are sterile?
ee: If a man or a woman has a physical problem, that may or may not prevent procreation. But if you believe in a resurrection, where the body will be cleaned of all impurities, then it no longer becomes a problem. However, even a resurrection will not change things for a homosexual couple. They still will not have that ability. So how can it be right?
M: We are talking about sex on earth here, not in heaven.
ee: My question though is how can you take part of the Bible and not the rest? You say you believe in some sins, but not others. The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Either everything listed is a sin, or it isn't. The Bible isn't a cafeteria where you just take what you like or what looks good and leave the rest. It either is the word of God or it isn't.
M: Why? Why can't the Bible be part right and part wrong. And it is ridiculous to say that if one part is wrong it is all wrong. A thing written by men can't self purport to be the word of God. The letters would have to glow or something for that to be clear. No, it's just brainwashing from old time Christians to ensnare the mind of believers and keep them from questioning. They had no real faith in God so the pretended to be absolute. They wanted people to think they'd be lost if they didn't believe every word. But what kind of a religious teacher ties his followers in a mental straight jacket allowing them to question nothing. It just creates fanatics and people with no flexibility of thought.
Of course you have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. An evil mind is always looking for a way to rationalize doing evil. He wants to see thou shalt kill when he feel like murdering somebody when it says thou shalt not.The only safety is in sincerity and deep introspection and, of course, love. And in the ban on homosexual acts I see no love, only ignorance. I know a few homosexuals and I don't see them as evil any more or less than anybody else.
M: That isn't the question. I want to know how it can be wrong? This is just another example of the restrictions you are about to list. Homosexual couples can't have children with each other because they are the same sex, just as if one on them was sterile. You don't call it a sin, do you, to have sex if you are sterile?
ee: If a man or a woman has a physical problem, that may or may not prevent procreation. But if you believe in a resurrection, where the body will be cleaned of all impurities, then it no longer becomes a problem. However, even a resurrection will not change things for a homosexual couple. They still will not have that ability. So how can it be right?
M: We are talking about sex on earth here, not in heaven.
ee: My question though is how can you take part of the Bible and not the rest? You say you believe in some sins, but not others. The Bible is either true or it isn't. There is no middle ground. Either everything listed is a sin, or it isn't. The Bible isn't a cafeteria where you just take what you like or what looks good and leave the rest. It either is the word of God or it isn't.
M: Why? Why can't the Bible be part right and part wrong. And it is ridiculous to say that if one part is wrong it is all wrong. A thing written by men can't self purport to be the word of God. The letters would have to glow or something for that to be clear. No, it's just brainwashing from old time Christians to ensnare the mind of believers and keep them from questioning. They had no real faith in God so the pretended to be absolute. They wanted people to think they'd be lost if they didn't believe every word. But what kind of a religious teacher ties his followers in a mental straight jacket allowing them to question nothing. It just creates fanatics and people with no flexibility of thought.
Of course you have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. An evil mind is always looking for a way to rationalize doing evil. He wants to see thou shalt kill when he feel like murdering somebody when it says thou shalt not.The only safety is in sincerity and deep introspection and, of course, love. And in the ban on homosexual acts I see no love, only ignorance. I know a few homosexuals and I don't see them as evil any more or less than anybody else.
The discussion is about a legal union and not a religious one. So what exactly is your argument?
http://quinnell.us/religion/reasons/slavery.html
Women are constantly treated as subordinates to men in the Bible.
As stated in the remainder of my quote, no, I do not see it as a sin.
Do you somehow think that the principles that exist here do not exist in heaven also? I mean, how loving would it be of God to give some people the ability to have children and deny others? If they can't have the children on earth, where else would they have them if not in heaven?
Who are you to say they have no faith? Did you know them? If some of it is all just brainwashing, how do you know the rest isn't all just brainwashing too? And just because everything is true doesn't mean that people aren't allowed to question anything. The Bible leaves many questions. And chances are, we won't find all the answers here. Some answers will have to wait till heaven.
I don't recall having ever called homosexuals evil. As I stated in my very first post, my best friend from high school is homosexual. My beliefs didn't bother him and his didn't bother me. And we remain friends even today. I will never, ever, hate him or think evil of him for what he does. That doesn't mean that I'll like or approve of what he does though.
"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money." (Exodus 21:20-21)
That's nice to know.
Then it looks like slavery is okay in your beliefs, huh?
When I workout at my parent's YMCA, there's Bible quotes on each machine. Just think of the reaction if those quotes were posted.
Actually, the correct translation of the word is "servant," coming for the hebrew word "abad." Any man who is paid for his service should of course abide to the principles you have referenced. This is, of course, the translation in the King James version. Being that the King James version was translated directly from the manuscripts and most others where simply reinterpretations of the KJV, I'd say it would be the most accurate. Also, what version of the Bible does that come from? I notice it's not mentioned.
As for women being subordinates, try reading 1 Cor. chapter 7. A mans wife is to be regarded as the most important, love, and priviledged part of his life. She is not property and she is not to be abused. A man eternal progression depends more on his relationship with his wife than any other aspect of his life. Therefore, treating ones wife as a "subordinate" would be quite a bad idea.
If parts of the Bible have been corrupted in translation, then I don't see how you can take anything from it seriously without the original.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter