Dok And Peppy's Mass Debate

Jesus loves us, even if we do mass debate

 

Ok now back to the excitement:

from the bible "it is not by deeds but by faith alone"... "faith shown by deeds"
unchristian? its straight from the bible, Jesus died that we may be forgiven of our sin.

another jesus quote sorry it is paraphrased "if you aren't sick you don't go to the doctor, i have come to help those that need my help and are willing to accept it"

i personaly get pissed off by alot of the holier than though bullshit that goes on, i don't quite understand the "looking at sinners as an example of how to live my life" please explain the examples i should be living by.

i don't sit in church being "spiritual" as you put it, i am part of several social action and comunity service projects, none of which by the way are about preaching the bible in any way, they are simply trying to act in a true christian mannor in loving my neighbours and helping out where i can.

i haven't been spoon fed religion, and beleive that some one who simply beleives in a faith without putting in due thaught and contemplation to be very niave. i learn alot about my beleifs every day and in the same way as i learn something new about the world around me every day so i uncover something more of myself and my beleifs. i will never finish learning new things. and there is no church round me that even acepts any of my rastafarian, punk or hippie veiw points so sorry no i'm not following the church i am following christ. at least trying to.

and no not an evangelical phase this thing started off me defending myself when some one warned others, in a jokeful manor, that i was christian. it then grew into a debate about my beleifs.

saying that evangalism really shouldn't be just "a phase" it is an important part of christianity what with "the great commision" at the end of most of the gospels.

 

don't worry i've been enjoying this just hoping i don't upset any one, when it comes down to it i'm just typed words and so please don't no one be getting offended if i say something you disagree with, type up here what you are thinking, in all its glory if you say something harsh don't worry it is how you feel i won't take it personaly and i hope you won't mind if i do the same.

 

wow it's like toy story, when i'm not here this place comes to life, but then i sign on put up a post and everyone plays dead, that is spooky.

 

I donlt get that.. does it mean that even if I lived by the bible but just didnt beleive in it that God would hate me?

Do my deeds not speak louder?

You see this is it... I think its more important to help others than to not smoke or have sex etc etc as I said before

So dosnt that mean that you are just like the rest of us? Someone that agrees with a lot of the bible but disagrees with a lot too?

To me to be a christian you have to believe in it all, or you aren't one.

and you still havent commented on my quotes about homosexuals... it took me ages to find them today

Love Clairexxxx

 

To jog your memory



""Nowhere does the Bible actually address the idea of persons being lesbian or gay. The statements are, without exception, directed to certain homosexual acts. Early writers had no understanding of homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation. That truth is a relatively recent discovery. The biblical authors were referring to homosexual acts performed by persons they assumed were heterosexuals.""



also


""A chief text used to condemn homosexuality is the Sodom story (Genesis 19:1-29), often interpreted as showing God's abhorrence of homosexuality. In the story, two angels, in the form of men, are sent to the home of Lot in Sodom. While they are there, the men of the city “both young and old, surrounded the house - everyone without exception” and demanded that the visitors be brought out “so that we might know them.” (Genesis 19: 4-5) Lot begged the men to leave his guests alone and take his daughters instead. The men of the city became angry and stormed the door. As a result, they were all struck blind by the angels.

There are several problems with the traditional interpretation of this passage. Whether or not the intent of the men of Sodom was sexual, the inhospitality and injustice coming from the mob, and that generally characterized the community, were “the sin of Sodom.” (Ezekial 16:49-50, Isaiah 13:19, Jeremiah 49:18; 50:40) Jesus himself refers to the inhospitality of Sodom. (Luke 10:10-13) If the men were indeed homosexuals, then why would Lot offer them his daughters? What is threatened here is rape. The significant point, then, is that all rape is considered horrible by God. The story deserves another reading.

It should be noted that not all of the men of Sodom could have been homosexual or there would have been no need to destroy them. If they had all been homosexuals, they would have all died off leaving no heirs. Quite likely, they were a mixed group of evil men attempting to be abusive to people who were different. Ironically, lesbian and gay people are often the victim of that same sin.""

and

""Although the traditional interpretation of the Sodom story fails as an argument against homosexuality, there are several other Old Testament passages that do condemn homosexual acts. Again, it should be noted that these passages do not deal with same-sex orientation nor is there any reference to genital love between lesbian or gay persons.""

(Matthew 19:10-12) Jesus opposed divorce in opposition to the abuses experienced by women. It is in the context of marriage that Jesus said “some eunuchs were born so; others had been made eunuchs and still others choose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom's sake.” Jesus' remarks about celibacy and castration are clear, but a male child being born without testicles is a rare birth defect. It is only in our day that the Kinsey Institute has demonstrated that sexual orientation is likely determined prior to birth. It could well be that those to whom Jesus refers as being “born eunuchs” are the people we call lesbian or gay.

and

Episcopal priest Dr. Tom Horner has written that the Gospels imply in two places that Jesus' attitude toward lesbians and gays would not have been hostile. (Jonathan Loved David, p. 122) The first is found in the story of Jesus healing the Centurion's servant. (Matthew 8:5-13) The word used for the servant is “pais,” which in the Greek culture referred to a younger lover of an older, more powerful or educated man. Clearly, the story demonstrates an unusually intense love, and Jesus' response was wholly positive

Maybe christians could read this and reconsider their view of homosexuality, or at least see that the issue is not black and white.

 

helping othres is really what it is all about yeah,

none of my beleifs go against the bible i beleive the bible to be true from begining to end, just don't agree with some of the modern interpretaions.

it is very true Jesus treated everyone with love including homosexuals and that is exactly how i am to act what with being a christian being a follower of christ.
and it is simply the acts that were seen as wrong the leviticus quotes about men lying with men as they would a woman.

as for the faith and the deeds thing, it is a very dodgey topic but my understanding is that with faith that jesus died for your sins you obviusely want to show love to jesus and to show love is to obey his comandments and so deeds must follow. and if you do not beleive in christ as your saviour then you are to be judged by god for your sins, and your deeds.

 

Just to add my two cents, I think it's possible to call yourself a Christian without adhering to every letter of the Bible. Certainly there are some boundaries that really shouldn't be crossed (and invariably they are - George Bush - though if he wants to discredit Christianity by claiming to be one then that's fine by me) However ideas are not static, they are constantly evolving. The Bible was written thousands of years ago, new opinion and fact has developed since then. For example, the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. Plenty of Christians have incorporated these factual theories into their beliefs (the ones who haven't are quite scary!) Yet these theories are not contained within the Christian creation myth. Some have chosen to see this story as a metaphor instead of fact. To me this is perfectly acceptable. Ideas change and can be adapted, whilst core principles remain....

 

yeah, i think with things like creation as i see it there is nothing contradictive with creation and evolution as the order of things coming to be is the same in both and there is scripture saying "to god 1 day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a 1 day" so i think alot of new theories really do still fit in with the bible although saying this i'm not entirely on top of the theory of evolution other than the basics you learn in secondary school science, (haven't gotten to it yet in my college biology class)

some one before was saying about cross dressing and how people don't pick that up and again i think your point is very valid here. the scripture was written at a time and place where both men and women were wearing robes and shalls much as they still do in the area, and i'm not sure but if i were in a hot country i wouldn't be wearing trousers and i don't know but i don't think they were invented then. so cross dressing meant something pretty different, i'm going to check on the exact scripture in a few of the translations i own to see if i can find as close an interpretaion of the truth behind the text so i will post about it again later.

 

Yeh I agree with that. You have to take the bible completely in the context of the time it was written.

I dunno though, I often think with the bible that half of it is God and Jesus' true word and the rest is just stuff the person writing it down decided to throw in for good measure.

I know this sounds flippant but it isn't. There are so many petty things in there that don't seem to tie in with other parts of the book.

 

i know what you mean, there is one guy, some one else was talking about how much a fool he is, any ways, Paul.... i get really pissed off when i read some things by him and really struggle with it, like "men can't have long hair" and "women must wear hats in church" it's crazy talk,
although at the same time some of the letters from paul are really good stuff and seem so god inspired, but i guess there must be some reason for crazy bits, as i said one of the things i'm trying to get my head round at the moment.

 

well i'm off to bed (and if my toy story logic is true i guess you are all just about to sign on again and start this off again) but thanks today for people being more open minded (including myself) been cool descusion.

 

Indeed

 

caught you, i knew if i said good night a few minuets before i acutaly left one of you would move, now i'm off up stairs to see if i have managed to fool the teddies the same way

teeheehee

 

Hi Peppy, back again...

first I should apologise about the hostile vibe of my first thread, I shouldn't post this stuff when I'm tired and I've had a bad day so sorry about that, also sorry for being very unclear at the same time, all said, I'm just one sorry individual!

anyway, on to the main event...

This isn't really a biblical justification that following Jesus will give you free access to heaven, if Jesus died that we may be forgiven our sins then lets sin man, we'll be forgiven and it's damned good fun!

But seriously I would like to know if you believe that accepting Jesus gives you a free back stage pass and if so how you justify it (I'm not after something that'll suddenly make me see the world in a different way, just what makes sense to YOU as it's something I can't understand it at all)

I've sent you a link to someone who explains it a lot better than I ever could, hope you find it useful...

What do you do with these projects?
also, ever heard of Shane Clayborne? He's a pretty interesting guy...


You mention that you believe the bible from beginning to end and also mention that it has to be taken in the context of it's own time, how do you accept the contradictions and downright narrow mindedness as part of the bible which teaches good will to ALL men? Also, with the idea of homosexuals needing to repent or be cast away into what you seemed to describe as purgatory earlier (after death nothing) I would wonder how this fits in with the all accepting view?

also...

Ok so the act itself doesn't make you homosexual but you can't really be homosexual without men lying with men as they would a woman. So every time a gay man (not sure about biblical stuff on gay women...) has sex he needs to repent his 'sins'. This doesn't exactly strike me as being very all accepting of even nice, fair enough I'm straight myself so it has not effect on me really but I still can't see how this can be justified, nor can I see how being straight helps you to be a christian...

 

1. PMT was just a joke.
2. Nobody can understand how out of order it is because...... well, because it isn't! It's no big deal. Get over it.
3. Have you ever been in a properly moderated forum? Mods are expected to tidy up off-topic threads.
4. It was my thread that was fucked with, but I don't have a problem with it. Yes, it's a bit of a mess, but it's hardly the end of the fucking world, is it? Why not just send Sal a PM saying you weren't happy with what he'd done? Why the freak-out?

Genius!!!!!

So you're selectively taking one law from Leviticus and using it to justify homophobia? Do you live by the rest of Leviticus too? And what about Deuteronomy?

Except evolution and creation took a lot more than 7000 years. Seems to me you're trying to change the rules to suit your agenda. One minute the bible's all true, the next you're twisting it to fit.

Ahhh. So what you're saying is that Leviticus has to be interpreted in the context of the society of the time? In which instance, the law against homosexuality was quite possibly a product of its time also?

Oh please. Typical wanky christian bollocks. You're effectively choosing bits of the bible to suit you. You can't have it both ways. Either the whole thing is the divine inspired word of god or it isn't. If it is, then you have to accept what Paul says. If it isn't, then you have a choice whether to accept Leviticus or not.... in which instance you are choosing to be homophobic. Don't try blaming god for your prejudices.

 

man i've already said i am not homophobic, i beleive it homosexual intercourse is a sin but i don't in any way hate gays. as for the rest of liviticus and deutoronomy i try to keep to the law yes, but just like everyone else i sin.

i didn't say i don't beleive the bits from Paul i said i'm struggling to understand them i'm no way a perfect christian and so my own ego is going to come up against all sorts of things in the bible that i don't want to beleive or struggle with understanding. i don't twist the bible the twisting side would be on the evolution theory side not the biblical side.

 

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, if you think homosexual intercourse is a sin then you're a homophobe. Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it.

If you say that homosexual intercourse is a sin in the eyse of god, then you're also saying that homosexual love is not natural and not part of god's plan. That might not equate with homophobia in your mind, but it sure as hell does in mine.

More specifically though, it's homophobic becuase you choose to take that particular biblical passage literally. St Paul states that women shouldn't spek in church. Do you believe that part of the bible? Why are you singling out homosexuals?

Well I'm glad to see that you take Leviticus so seriously. I mean after all, if you were just choosing to acknowledge the passages that deal with homosexuality, then you'd be a homophobe, right? So can I assume that you're planning to sacrifice an animal sometime soon?

6: And the priest shall sprinkle the blood upon the altar of the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and burn the fat for a sweet savour unto the LORD.

And I take it you only eat Halal meat?

12: Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.

I'm also alarmed to find that you actually have homosexuals as friends. I mean, doesn't Leviticus say:

29: For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

I hope you only plan on marrying an English virgin.

14: A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife.

I take it you're not keen on cripples coming to Church?

16: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17: Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.
18: For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,
19: Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,
20: Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken

Or perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions and you don't take any of this shit in Leviticus any more seriously than I do. But then that would leave us with the possibility that you've just singled out the passage related to homosexuals because you're a homophobe. Wake up to it and stop blaming god. Or even better, get over it and stop hating queers.

See above. You twist it by choosing the bits that suit you. You're using god as an excuse for prejudice.

 

ok i know you are gonna say, all your shit about "old testament new covanent" but with things such as sacrafice it is no longer necisary as jesus was our atoning sacrifice once and for all. and in the same way because of his death he took on all the punishment meant for us we should no longer be practicing the punishments of the breaking of Gods laws such as the burning of homosexuals and cross dresser and all of whoms "blood is apon their own head"

i try to eat ital foods which is prety much the same as halal only most meats that would need special preparation instead i don't actualy eat them at all.

homosexuals as friends ties up with the "no longer be practicing the punishments" and treating everyone with love. i don't outcast any one.

this really is fucked up since you took my quote from a thread where i was defending homosexuals from a bunch of very concervative christians who probly would rather have them burning on stakes, and then created a misconception that my beleiving that the act is a sin, therfore makes me prejudice towards them.

if a Muslim were to tell me that something i was doing was a sin to mohamed and they beleived i was therefore sinning against god, then i would simply say, "sorry i don't beleive it to be a sin as i don't beleive in the teachings of mohamed but (depending on the "sin") fair enough if it ofends you so i won't do it while you're around. rather than think they were being prejudice. and go off on a mad one about how fucked up they are.

 

Peppy, from this statement it does sound like you're being spoonfed christianity if you feel that although you don't believe or agree with some parts of the bible you feel you should. A lot of the statements are quite straightforward regarding prejudices (see doks thread above) and if you can't accept them then you don't need to force yourself to.

But I would like a direct answer to some of the points I asked in my earlier post (http://hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=486349&postcount=101) as I genuinely am interested in your opinions...