Gays Thread.

[Toppa]

Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.

2 Peter 1:20, 21

20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

 "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)

 "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."—1 Corinthians 1:10.

[lefty]

Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.

2 Peter 1:20, 21

20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

 "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)

 "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."—1 Corinthians 1:10.

loosely translated ....,lets all all read this book like mindless zombies............. hah lawd aye

[kaliman2006]

This thread has certainly stirred up some powerful responses.

In the midst of all of this passion, we should always remember to respect each other's opinion. Remember, for all the Christians out there, that the Eternal Creator gave man the gift of free will. Thus, people are free to live and believe as they want.

As a believer in a Supreme Being, yet not as one who follows any structured religion (Christianity, Roman Catholicism, etc.), I would never try to "convert" anyone to my belief system. Everyone has been blessed with an intellect and common sense and need to come to their own understanding of the world.

Thus, if one wants to homosexual, well so be it. I am not going to be a hypocrite and say I agree with the lifestyle, but people can do what they want because everyone is big and have sense.

[Bakes]

All these years I here thinking Christianity and Roman Catholicism wamore or less the same... the one being a subset of the other?  Ah well...

Toppa, that Corinthians quote eh really saying nutten... not trying to nitpick, but dat was really just Paul making sure all the disciples (spread out as they were by now) stay on message.

[kaliman2006]

One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm


So yes, I think my distinction has merit.

[Toppa]

All these years I here thinking Christianity and Roman Catholicism wamore or less the same... the one being a subset of the other?  Ah well...

Toppa, that Corinthians quote eh really saying nutten... not trying to nitpick, but dat was really just Paul making sure all the disciples (spread out as they were by now) stay on message.

Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.

[Toppa]

Blah, blah, blah, Pecan. These scriptures might help you out cos I really don't know what kind of 'Christianity' you referring to. And it is VERY true that MANY people who claim to be Christians are not really Christians. On that we certainly agree.

2 Peter 1:20, 21

20 For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

 "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19, 20)

 "I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you should all speak in agreement, and that there should not be divisions among you, but that you may be fitly united in the same mind and in the same line of thought."—1 Corinthians 1:10.

loosely translated ....,lets all all read this book like mindless zombies............. hah lawd aye

What is loosely translated?

[Bakes]

One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm


So yes, I think my distinction has merit.

The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ.  Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman  Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians.  I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism.  But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.

Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.

Paul wasn't arguing nutten about de Bible... the Bible was still 300 years away... the bible as we know it... 1300 years.  Paul feel he was de only cipher of Christ's teachings, even though he never walk with the man.  He was even beefing with Peter and Mary Magdalene, who actually knew Christ and walked with him.  Most of that is an aside though... yeh he wanted Timothy and Titus and them to not stray.  He served a very important role in that capacity... which is one of the reasons I still love him, warts and all. 

My larger point is that we tend to look at the Bible as though it was composed in a vacuum and came out one complete unit.  It wasn't... was written over God knows how many years and yes there's synchronicity throughout the collected works which justify us treating them collectively as a unit, but because they're not, it makes sense (in my mind) follow the spirit, and not the letter of the words.

[Toppa]

One important difference between the two is that priests cannot marry and their counterparts (i.e. Reverends). Another important difference is that Catholics believe in praying to Mary, saints, etc. This link explains it even better than I could:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a19.htm


So yes, I think my distinction has merit.

The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ.  Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman  Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians.  I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism.  But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.

Right, meaning that people should not depart from what the Bible teaches or try to put their own 'spin' on it - but the message should be truthful and united.

Paul wasn't arguing nutten about de Bible... the Bible was still 300 years away... the bible as we know it... 1300 years.  Paul feel he was de only cipher of Christ's teachings, even though he never walk with the man.  He was even beefing with Peter and Mary Magdalene, who actually knew Christ and walked with him.  Most of that is an aside though... yeh he wanted Timothy and Titus and them to not stray.  He served a very important role in that capacity... which is one of the reasons I still love him, warts and all. 

My larger point is that we tend to look at the Bible as though it was composed in a vacuum and came out one complete unit.  It wasn't... was written over God knows how many years and yes there's synchronicity throughout the collected works which justify us treating them collectively as a unit, but because they're not, it makes sense (in my mind) follow the spirit, and not the letter of the words.

Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?

But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.

[kaliman2006]

Quote from Bakes,

The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ.  Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman  Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians.  I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism.  But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....

Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...

P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..

[Bakes]

Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?

But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.

Honestly... I don't know.  The letter seems to condemn it... but not sure what the 'spirit' says.

There is language, primarily in the OT that clearly indicates that homosexuality is wrong.  There is language in the NT, largely from Paul, which condemns male-male unions.  If this is enough for you and others to say that "God" condemns it... then won't be upset with that, I think that's a reasonable interpretation.  For me personally though, I think that Christ is the final arbiter of how we should live our lives.  From what I know he hasn't said anything specifically against gay unions, or even homosexuality itself.  I doh know de Bible inside out like I used to, so perhaps he did somewhere.  So that gray area for me is where I'm kinda stuck.  I personally not in favor of homosexuality, I still have reservations about gay marriage... but I'm not sure that I have enough for me personally to say "God doh like that, bun dat".

[Bakes]

Quote from Bakes,

The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ.  Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman  Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians.  I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism.  But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....

Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...

P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..

I dunno why you feel you have tuh tell we what yuh doing off de board nah fella, lol  If yuh moving on juss move on.

[kaliman2006]

Quote from Bakes,

The simplest, most functional definition of "Christianity" is a belief in the deity of Christ.  Roman Catholics share in that belief therefore one cannot legitimately argue a distinction between "Christianity" and "Roman  Catholicism," all Roman Catholics by definition, are still Christians.  I believe what you are referring to as "Christianity" is really Protestantism.  But anyways... doh study this "insufferable know-it-all", lol.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Borse man, I have already moved on eh, but it seems as if you in some sort of pedantic kick so good luck with that....

Anyway, I going back to enjoying USA vs Brazil...

P.S. I edited because I put the wrong team. Please doh hold it against me counsellor..

I dunno why you feel you have tuh tell we what yuh doing off de board nah fella, lol  If yuh moving on juss move on.

For no reason borse, it's what one calls "a throw-away remark." However, knowing your penchant for honing in on parenthetical material (exhibit a: I try to restore same sanity to an increasingly overheated discourse on this thread, and all you can focus on is some semantic technicality in parentheses; then again you truly are a lawyer, lol) and not focusing on the substance of posts, that is why I made my remark and why I anticipated this response.

You have been taking the bait for a few days now.

This internet thing of yours (it cannot be what one classifies as a "personality) really have me thinking that I should conduct research on certain internet personality disorders.

See, you have been a guinea pig and you have not really realized it...

Anyway, I hope you get treatment.

Over and out.

[Preacher]

Yes, which was one reason why Christ was at odds with the Pharisees...but does the spirit of the law run contrary to the 'letter of the law' with regards to homoesexuality?

But the principle I was taking away from the Corinthians scripture was that of consistency and unity amongst the congregation - there can't be one version of this and that but staying to the truth of the Bible.

Honestly... I don't know.  The letter seems to condemn it... but not sure what the 'spirit' says.

There is language, primarily in the OT that clearly indicates that homosexuality is wrong.  There is language in the NT, largely from Paul, which condemns male-male unions.  If this is enough for you and others to say that "God" condemns it... then won't be upset with that, I think that's a reasonable interpretation.  For me personally though, I think that Christ is the final arbiter of how we should live our lives.  From what I know he hasn't said anything specifically against gay unions, or even homosexuality itself.  I doh know de Bible inside out like I used to, so perhaps he did somewhere.  So that gray area for me is where I'm kinda stuck.  I personally not in favor of homosexuality, I still have reservations about gay marriage... but I'm not sure that I have enough for me personally to say "God doh like that, bun dat".

Well that's fair.   

Ey just a passing stat. allyuh. MN now has more gays the San Fran.

[Bakes]

Well that's fair.   

Ey just a passing stat. allyuh. MN now has more gays the San Fran.

Oho... is dat what have yuh paro so? 

[pecan]

Blah, blah, blah, Pecan.

typical response when you take issue with others and don't have a meaningful response other than to quote the Bible or ask one word questions. I tried to wrap this up on a civil note and you respond in a condescending fashion.


Perhaps if you opened your mind and read more,your would understand what type of Christianity I am talking about and  you might have an appreciation that we all have different interpretations of the Bible not withstanding that yours is the correct one. (not a very Christian like response but then again, I am not Christian to quote you)

I take the Bible too Seriously to take it literally.  You take the Bible literally.  Best of luck in trying to observe everything in the Bible, especially all passages from Leviticus, including the ones on the women.

Here is the Christianity I am talking about (cut and paste from Wikipedia) for your convenience since you have not taken the time to understand what others believe.

Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada

2004 synod resolution

In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue and to:

    affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, scientific, psychological and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons...to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.[10]

The resolution concluded that the Synod:

    Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."

Yes, the debate on homosexuality continues in the Anglican Church and not everyone agrees.  In your world, you are right and everyone who disagree with you are wrong.

If you want to live in an insular world, fine.  But recognize that:

• your arguments are recursive - you quote the bible to prove that the bible is right - that is akin to saying "I am right because I said so"
• there are many who don't agree with your interpretation and that does not make them un -Christian.

In closing .... that is the type of Christianity I am talking about. But you have the right to reject it - I have no problem with it but don't try to force other to accept it by denying them the right to marriage - the topic of this thread to begin with.

blah, blah, blah

[D.H.W]

Court: Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional for denying same-sex married couples federal benefits

(AP) BOSTON - An appeals court ruled Thursday that the heart of a law that denies a host of federal benefits to same-sex married couples is unconstitutional.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, discriminates against married same-sex couples by denying them federal benefits.

The law was passed in 1996 at a time when it appeared Hawaii would legalize same-sex marriage. Since then, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, led by Massachusetts in 2004.

The appeals court agreed with a lower court judge who ruled in 2010 that the law is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right of a state to define marriage and denies married same-sex couples federal benefits given to heterosexual married couples, including the ability to file joint tax returns.

The court didn't rule on the law's other provision, which said states without same-sex marriage cannot be forced to recognize same-sex unions performed in other states.

During arguments before the court last month, a lawyer for same-sex married couples said the law amounts to "across-the-board disrespect." The couples argued that the power to define and regulate marriage had been left to the states for more than 200 years before Congress passed DOMA.

An attorney defending the law argued that Congress had a rational basis for passing it in 1996, when opponents worried that states would be forced to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere. The group said Congress wanted to preserve a traditional and uniform definition of marriage and has the power to define terms used to federal statutes to distribute federal benefits.

Since DOMA was passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on same-sex marriage, while eight states have approved it, including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, Maryland, Washington state and the District of Columbia. Maryland and Washington's laws are not yet in effect and may be subject to referendums.

Last year, President Obama announced the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend the constitutionality of the law. After that, House Speaker John Boehner convened the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57444462/court-defense-of-marriage-act-unconstitutional-for-denying-same-sex-married-couples-federal-benefits/

[Toppa]

Blah, blah, blah, Pecan.

typical response when you take issue with others and don't have a meaningful response other than to quote the Bible or ask one word questions. I tried to wrap this up on a civil note and you respond in a condescending fashion.


Perhaps if you opened your mind and read more,your would understand what type of Christianity I am talking about and  you might have an appreciation that we all have different interpretations of the Bible not withstanding that yours is the correct one. (not a very Christian like response but then again, I am not Christian to quote you)

I take the Bible too Seriously to take it literally.  You take the Bible literally.  Best of luck in trying to observe everything in the Bible, especially all passages from Leviticus, including the ones on the women.

Here is the Christianity I am talking about (cut and paste from Wikipedia) for your convenience since you have not taken the time to understand what others believe.

Homosexuality and the Anglican Church of Canada

2004 synod resolution

In May 2004, the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada passed a resolution on homosexuality, urging the church to continue dialogue and to:

    affirm the crucial value of continued respectful dialogue and study of biblical, theological, liturgical, pastoral, scientific, psychological and social aspects of human sexuality; and call upon all bishops, clergy and lay leaders to be instrumental in seeing that dialogue and study continue, intentionally involving gay and lesbian persons...to prepare resources for the church to use in addressing issues relating to human sexuality including the blessing of same sex unions and the changing definition of marriage in society.[10]

The resolution concluded that the Synod:

    Affirm the integrity and sanctity of committed adult same sex relationships."

Yes, the debate on homosexuality continues in the Anglican Church and not everyone agrees.  In your world, you are right and everyone who disagree with you are wrong.

If you want to live in an insular world, fine.  But recognize that:

• your arguments are recursive - you quote the bible to prove that the bible is right - that is akin to saying "I am right because I said so"
• there are many who don't agree with your interpretation and that does not make them un -Christian.

In closing .... that is the type of Christianity I am talking about. But you have the right to reject it - I have no problem with it but don't try to force other to accept it by denying them the right to marriage - the topic of this thread to begin with.

blah, blah, blah

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

[FF]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.

[Toppa]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.

I am asking him to provide evidence of different interpretations that can be read into the scriptures.

For example - the Bible says 'You must not lie.' How many other ways can that be interpreted? Isn't it simply that you must not lie??? And even if you use different words for 'lie' - you know, synonyms - does the meaning not remain the same?

That is the point I am trying to illustrate.

When people bring the argument of 'different interpretations' of the Bible, usually at the heart of the matter is their trying to inject their own meanings into the scriptures.

[kaliman2006]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I just reading and observing the debate but Toppa you real disappoint with this argument. It flimsy too bad.

I am asking him to provide evidence of different interpretations that can be read into the scriptures.

For example - the Bible says 'You must not lie.' How many other ways can that be interpreted? Isn't it simply that you must not lie??? And even if you use different words for 'lie' - you know, synonyms - does the meaning not remain the same?

That is the point I am trying to illustrate.

When people bring the argument of 'different interpretations' of the Bible, usually at the heart of the matter is their trying to inject their own meanings into the scriptures.

For the most part, your argument is valid. There are some texts which are beyond disputation. However, you should be mindful of the fact that the current English language version of the bible differs from the original language in which it was written and as such has been the subject of much debate and division amongst biblical scholars. A very good friend of mine, who happens to be a Jewish rabbi, has bemoaned some of the shoddy scholarship in terms of translations of biblical texts, and has even gone as far to argue that the current state of the bible misrepresents the true character and nature of the Almighty.

With that said, he is unequivocal in his denunciation of issues such as homosexuality, and has echoed the same argument that I have made concerning homosexuality. However, this represents his and my view, a view which should not be imposed on others.

Concerning gay marriage, I am sure I have made my views on the matter clear. For those who may have missed it, I have no problem with marriage as government-sanctioned practice, as long as religion is left out of it, as it would violate the separation of Church and State.

[pecan]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.

That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.

I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg,  You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.

Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?

Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible. 

I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.



Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

or this on virginity

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

or these

Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".


 

I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English.  If only language was so clear..

[lefty]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.

That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.

I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg,  You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.

Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?

Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible. 

I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.



Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

or this on virginity

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

or these

Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".


 

I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English.  If only language was so clear..

dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be

[D.H.W]

Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
 It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.

[D.H.W]

You keep saying 'different interpretations of the Bible.' but you do even know what that means?

If a sentence says: "The boy is sad." How many interpretations can there be for that sentence? What other meaning can be derived? I would think that everyone would read that sentence and come to the same understanding - that the boy is sad, melancholy, morose...but all meaning sad, no?

So give me an example of a 'different' interpretation of the Bible cos I really don't think you are making sense. I believe what you say is interpretation is actually being selective about what you choose to acknowledge and what you choose to reject because you think that in some regards the wisdom of man is superior to that of God?

You quote some article where an Anglican group supports something that is contrary to the Bible and still try to pass it off as Christianity?

Try that line of reasoning with someone who is less intelligent.

I have provided ample evidence, you just refusing to see it.

That "Anglican group" you so readily dismiss if the Anglican Church of Canada (the 3rd largest Christian denomination (yes I said Christian) in Canada. From your reply, you hardly bothered to go to the source to see where it came from.

I referred you to "The Heart of Christianity". Marcus J. Borg,  You dismissed that as blah, blah, blah.

Then you have the gall to presume that your intelligence is superior to the academics, scholars and the leadership majority of the entire Anglican Church of Canada?

Face it Toppa, you have your own opinion about the Bible but don't presume to judge the intelligence of others who have different interpretations of the Bible. 

I also see you avoid addressing all the examples I make regarding the literal interpretations of the Bible. I have re-posted several examples and I pray to God that you do not interpret them literally.



Exodus 21:17 states: "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."

or this on virginity

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 states: But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you

or these

Leviticus 12:2. NIV
"Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period.

Leviticus 12:5, NIV
If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

Leviticus 15:19 NIV
"'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.

I mean, do you stay indoors the entire time during your period? After all you are UNCLEAN becasue if anyone accidentally touches you they too shall be unclean. btw, how do you interpret "unclean".


 

I am beginning to think you belong to the same group of people who come knocking at my door trying to sell their version of Christianity and refuse to engage in a well balanced debate because you insist that there is a single interpretation of a book that has been written over hundreds of years, by different people and translated into English.  If only language was so clear..

dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be

Lefty boy, I reached a stage a few years ago where I started questioning things. Then my eyes were open. After growing up on a strick Roman Catholic diet, I could not be blinded anymore by the Christian hypocrits.

Edit: the worse is to hear somebody say I am a christian then do wickedness to somebody after.

[pecan]

dread u simply not goin and get through all dat "hardcoding" yuh hands will get tired.............. prejudice is many things but rational it will never be

LOL. same ting Mrs. P just tell me.  She unless I am being entertained by this, I just wasting my time. She say "same ting I just told you except he more succinct." The 'he' is you.

She also said that Toppa cannot admit to anything I say because that means she will have to re-think everything she has been thought to believe in and that is not a likely scenario.

[pecan]

Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
 It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.

According to some, there is but one way to interpret the Bible. The right way. 

On the other hand, if the whore has been stoned to die, that is not actually killing as God has given them permission to kill her. So, the message may not be mixed at all.  (and for those who don't understand, my comment was laced with sarcasm).

[Preacher]

Pecan nice post. Religion is a dangerous thing depending on how a person interprets the writings.
 It would have plenty dead girls from stoning if those writings were taken literally. But yet the bible says not to kill. Talk about mix signals.

Well DHW to be honest the signal isn't mixed at all.  That is why it's not enough to use the OT alone to support or denounce the topic.  Signals will be mixed if OT implies one thing and NT implies something else.  As we know that's not the case concerning the topic.  DHW, understand this, the world view of the laws we are criticizing were state laws/tribal laws etc.  It was societal codes.  And as extreme as they were they were all tried.  I can't articulate the role of government for societies but it is a fabulous study.  Not sure if you understand that a trail validated who really got stoned.  The bed rock of these laws and codes which in my opinion,  were of mixed origins (some were from God and others were from men),  were based on the 10 commandments.  Again,if you look at the historical context and you'll understand the laws.  Check this, if God speaks to you through a burning bush, turns your rod into snakes, part the Red Sea, Mana from Heaven, talking to you, give you ten commands for the people etc.   And you see and experience this with your own two eyes and it's entrusted to you to raise up a society.  Mind you, knowing how God hates sin.  And He had already threatened to kill everyone and raise up an new people that would trust Him.   I feel you ain't gonna turn a blind eye to people playing the ass.  And if you experience all that and still wanna act the fool then you deserve what you get.  Obeying God wasn't a casual thing.  He was their King.  Obeying God was linked to the survival and success of the people.   So against that backdrop you can understand the language against homosexuality.  In the new testament Jesus reinforces that marriage is between a man and a woman but he didn't Stone the woman caught in adultery.  See?   He just told her to stop doing that.  I believe that God's heart.  Stop doing that.   

[lefty]

Stop doing that.   

but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more

[D.H.W]

Stop doing that.   

but preacher stop doing what.........if we saying dat god responsible for everyting dat here now, yuh ent tink he did know it would have homosexuals ......he see all knows all and is d creator right.........so what yuh tryin to say......god eh know what going on on he own production line.......free will simply doh apply here it have enough physical if not solid biological evidence dat homosexuals born dat way..... so what dey suppose to do with dey self.....go some where and dead....all dem tryin to do is settle down with d security and benefits dat marriage affords dem...dias all ....equality in the eyes of the law of the land. tank god dat eh d bible in dis instance because all d various crusades and inquisitions done rack up ah monumental body count aready and we doh need more