A conversation on faith (riVeRraT and arachnophilia)

exactly. all this other stuff, most of the crap they spew in churches these days, reeks of following false gods.i don't really talk about it much here, because it's not something i can really explain or quanitify. but i rarely feel alone, spiritually. i may think god is out of the realm of our understanding, but i can feel that he's there -- i've never doubted my faith in that regard. there's only one place i can't make that connection: church. it's like god doesn't go there. it just feels lonely and empty to me. i removed myself from that guilt cycle long ago. it's nothing but self-destructive. i think it has to do with the way christianity is taught today. we're all sinners, we all deserved death and eternal punishment. but god loves us, so he put all of our sins onto someone else, and all we have to do is believe and they're forgiven.well, what happens when we sin? does jesus die a little more? suffer more? do we have to signup again, start from the beginning? we're told we should feel guilty, and we have no idea what to do with this guilt. so it builds amd builds until we can't take it anymore, and go through that revival thing, confirming our faith again.what it really does is strengthen a cult-like mentality -- devotion to a group, and cheapen the faith.the way i look at it now is a little different. i think that christ's sacrifice was a grand gesture on the part of god, saying that he just doesn't care anymore. he's not holding it against us, because he understands and accepts our flaws, and loves us anyways.i don't think god expects us to be perfect. i just can't see him as rigging the game like that. if the standard is perfection of acts, then it should mean something. if the standard is faith, then sin shouldn't matter. it's silly to try to have it both ways. what i think god really cares about is what's in our hearts. that we try to represent him, and show his love to others who don't know. i think that's what jesus was trying to say all along. do we really want to change, though? be honest, and think about it. if we did, we would. it is humanly possible to be perfect in the eyes of god. jesus did it. the difference with us is that we have human wills, and human nature.but don't listen to those folks who tell you to surrender your will to god. that's kinda culty, if you ask me. i don't think god wants puppets, really. god wants people with wills for good, and for love, but the whole thing with going to church 5 days a week and studying and praying doesn't mean a whole lot when god defined his will for us as "go tell the world" and "love one another."if you want do that by giving up your life and living as a missionary, maybe that's one thing, but this half-assed love-the-church stuff isn't what he meant. if our wills were REALLY there maybe we would all be working for charities, and giving away our stuff and money to feed the poor.nobody ever really totally surrenders, and i don't think god asks that we do. submission isn't the same as ceasing to exist as an individual. is it any of your business whether or not they sin? that's between them and god. i often get a lot of respect from people when they find out that i'm christian. i don't really tell people much, or shove it down their throats -- the best message is a sublte one these days. but i've had a number of gay friends, too. one knew i was a christian, and asked my why i treated her differently than every other christian she knew, and what exactly the bible did say about homosexuality.i told her that it doesn't say a whole lot about lesbianism, but that it does say male homosexuality is a stoneable offense, at least 3000 years ago in israel. i quickly balanced it with the statements of jesus: i told her that jesus said we shouldn't judge others, and that we should love and have compassion for everyone, regardless.i think she was fairly impressed with that answer, and wondered why no one had ever put it like that before. i tend to avoid a lot of standard religious cliches, so none of that "we're all sinners (you're a sinner!)" stuff. i like my way better. i think it gets the message across better, in more understandable and down-to-earth terms, and kind of makes people people realize that it's not christianity that's crazy, just some christians.(added in edit by AdminNWR: initiating this as a continuation of a discussion that began on another thread. The most recent posts in that thread were Message 49 by riVeRraT and Message 50 by arachnophilia)This message has been edited by AdminNWR, 12-09-2005 07:35 AMThis message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-09-2005 05:35 PM

---

אָרַח

hmm, two great debates. i dunno, this doesn't really feel like a debate (the other doesn't much either)brenna expressed interest in joining. i think she'll play nice, but i'll leave it up to riverrat. it's quite nice to actually talk to other reasonable christians on this board, instead of fighting with the unreasonable ones. i'm glad that rr is more open than when he came here.

---

אָרַח

well, neither of us seem like the gay-basing type, so i think we're ok.brenna has mentioned that she'd like to join in. we're pretty close in ideology (and good friends) so i don't suspect it'd turn into a "jump on riverrat" fest. but i'll leave the decision up to you. (we can always throw her out if she gets obnoxious. ) well, we really should be out there living the life, you know? i guess "building the kingdom" is what i mean, but i'm still not fond of christian cliches. but we should be trying to live christ's teachings, and his love.i see church as often in the way of that (isolationist types) and often in the way of other spiritual things. people like to be safe in their faith. but like you said, i'd rather believe in something real than something easy. my personal journey has been very inwardly difficult, full of doubt. though never about the existance god, generally about everything else. it hasn't been easy, and it's still not easy. i've found that the more you look for answers, the more questions you find, and i'm up to some pretty big ones.brenna and i had a mutual friend. i don't mean to speak badly of her, but maybe it's a good example of what i mean to say. she's still my friend, but she doesn't talk to brenna anymore, and we have a sort of unspoken agreement that we don't talk about anything religious anymore. but she's the church-going type, and by "going" i mean a lot. i'm not sure how much time she has for it right now, but it used to be a few nights a week, 3 services on sunday. she pretty much only hung out with church people. church was her only real social life. i wouldn't say her church was a cult, but sometimes she acted a bit like it was.occassionally, she would just cut me out of her life entirely, and forcefully. i think i was challenging to her faith, and she saw me as temptation. we had a kind of on-again off-again relationship for a while (the back and forth was not my choice, just her uncertainty, really). she would decide from time to time that i basically wasn't christian enough (two yoked unequally, and all that). so she'd just turn into the church, withdraw, and i wouldn't hear from her for a few months.it was heartbreaking, really. not so much for me, but because i knew what she was doing to herself. she's still kind of doing the same thing, though not as bad. i think she's starting to come out of that "young christian" phase. we're a little nutso when we start out. her heart is in the right place, but she was just caught up in the dependency of it, and that guilt cycle.brenna and her mom say it's a lack of guidance in the church. they're ALL young christians there, no matter how old they are. most everyone has only recently been saved, and the older ones simply haven't grown out of it. and they think they have all the answers, and the outside world is going to eat them or something. it's like the blind leading the blind. i'm bright enough to know that i don't know very much -- if i have a question, it'd be nice if there was someone there for real wisdom in guidance.they had a question and answer session one night when a service ran short. i stumped the pastor. that shouldn't really happen. it's like trying to take a class at school, and having to explain the material to the professor. i think we all have a point at which we stop questioning, out of fear of what the next answer will be. i think i might be at my point, actually. i've been stuck on one for two years or more now. i know god exists, but i'm starting to think there's less to it than we know. like the wizard of oz, smoke and mirrors, with a regular guy behind the curtains. it kind of feels empty in the center, like if i think to hard, and i search to much, i won't find anything at all.it's kind of hard to explain, really. i'm not losing my faith. but i'm starting to think i'm chasing something that isn't there, at least anymore.some say that for god to even exist rules out free will. maybe he really did sacrifice himself for us? or maybe he's just hiding really, really well so we can never really know and we just have to believe. i dunno, but answering this question kind of scares me. ok, i think i understand what you mean. it's kind of like failing an exam, which i might have just done last monday. i'll feel bad -- and maybe next time i won't put my self in the position i was in, and actually study ahead of time.i think the point of what i mean to say is that we should avoid the nerve-racking guilt for what god's counting against us, because he's not anymore. a little bit of disappointment can be good, if it brings change, but the standard christian mode is just self-destructive. it doesn't actually bring any change for the better, just slingshots someone around like they're a manic-depressive.change never comes quickly -- anyone who changes overnight is just lying to themselves or others, and the consequences are often bad. our relationship in christ is one of growth, not radical revival. not sure what you mean here (i mean, i agree, just not sure how it applies)but, comparing to what i just said above, faith brings good works. and it does this because we want to try to do better, not because we're trying to fulfill a law. i think a good section of christianity treats paul's epistles as the "the new law" and tries to follow them to the letter, which defeats the whole point jesus was trying to get across with his life and his death. jesus wanted our hearts in the right places, and the right actions would naturally stem from that.god's not sitting up there with a score-card: "ok, johnny gave two cans of food to the poor today, 1 point." we should have compassion on our fellow man, and giving to the poor will come because we care -- not because we have to. it's changed for an ultra-specific legalistic duty, to a way of thinking and feeling.acts on their own don't mean anything. faith on its own does not exist. we should help people, and not judge, and those kind of things not because we have to but because we want to, and because they are the right things to do. i don't know. depends really, but i'm going to guess probably not. do we think we're wrong when we eat a ham and cheese sandwich? technically that's a sin too. actually, two sins. three, if the bread isn't flat and it's passover. i mean, we outright ignore god's law on a regular basis. we get our hair cut, we eat the wrong things. me, i'm an artist. i make photographs, which are technically chemical etchings -- graven images. i break the first or second commandment (depending on how you count) on a pretty regular basis. do i feel it's wrong? no, not really. i don't think god cares -- i'm not worshipping my pictures. but surely this infraction, part of the ten commandments, the laws that god himself wrote down for us, is more important than a lowly sexual law a book or two down the line.so, what do i do? do i repent and never take another picture? or do you think this is ok, because it's not what god meant? or do you think it's ok, as long my heart's in the right place?see, i can come up with a pretty weighty argument against myself. i mean, commandment 1 or 2. who am i to make a judgement about a "lifetsyle of sin?" i could probably make more serious allegations, really, but we all could. i chose this because it illustrates a point in biblical application, and because it's kind of silly, but really true (orthodox jews can't take pictures on saturdays). yes, i think that's a good attitude. honestly i haven't been to church in a long time because i'm so disgusted with the churches around here (well, everything around here). everything's fake. a significant portion of the churches i went to held fundraisers -- FUNDRAISERS! -- not for the poor. not for charity.for building a bigger church.the pastor i mentioned above, i talked to him once about it. i cornered him, and asked him why they were spending money like this when it could be going for, you knowm, christian purposes. his answer is that god had blessed the church so much with such large congregations that they could no longer fit in the building they were in.i'm a firm believer in the fact that a church is not a building. go hold service outside -- god created a whole world for us. why have such huge numbers? whenever two meet in his name... why have a stage? it's not about who sees you.maybe i'm just impractical. but if they're basically wandering the desert anyways, why not give the water to the people who need it, not the people who have it. well, that'd good. i'm all talk, really. still bumming with my parents, broke myself. i'd be careful of that. this was something i dealt with a few years back. i found out that i was basically deluding myself, the hard way. reality can be quite nasty. not much, unless you solve the mysteries of the universe and write it down for posterity. but not everyone can do that. mostly, the good is done in our day-to-day lives. well, it's really a hard question. i don't think i have an answer: i don't know what god really considers ok, or not. does someone literally come out and ask you "is it ok if i'm gay?"i think a good answer, for them, might be that "god loves everyone, no matter who they are or what they do." too often we're quick to present the wrathful and just face of god, and not the compassionate and forgiving face. i think, really, at the end of the day, it doesn't actually matter. i dunno, i've kind of always been confused by the notion of christian leadership. we're not really one above the other, and we're not really leading anyone anywhere (or at least we shouldn't be). christ is the head, but i don't see a heirarchy below him.it's not really up to us to make rules, or (spiritual) laws. i don't think it's encouraging sin, really, to say that it doesn't matter. especially if you're talking about children in the church. kids and young christians screw up, it's what they do. the important thing to note there is that it's not the end of the world when they do. god's not holding it against them.far, far too often i've seen the backlash against adults who did not "encourage sin." if you don't let the kids do it, they never learn why not to. and at some point, they rebel, and it just goes crazy from there.did you know the amish have a policy where they let the teenagers go away for a period of time into the modern world? they see it as sin, of course, so the analogy plays, i think. they encourage them to go out and do whatever they want. we're talking illicit drugs, strip clubs, prostitution, drinking, and all kinds of modern pleasures the amish simply forbid. the kids go crazy, and they don't have to come back. but almost all of them do.you kind of have to let people do what they're gonna do, and learn their lessons. i think that's why sin and temptation exist. they're learning experience, like we were sayign with the disappointment and change above. in that case, it can actually be something of a good thing. it's like learning to handle good relationships in a mature way by screwing up a few in immature ways. only here, the relationship's with god, and he forgives a lot better than any human. now, if you mean LAWS as in "the us government" i think that religion should relaly stay out of that. even jesus was a separationist: give unto ceasar what is ceasars, give unto god what is god's. it's really not our position to tell people what they can and can't do based on morality, legally. our morality actually abhors that kind of thing. god makes the spiritual laws, but it's not up to us to enforce them, or condemn the people who don't follow them. so i think that making laws strictly based on religious reasons doesn't hold up religiously (not to mention constitutionally). well, i was being generous. i really don't think the radical fundamentalist movement represents all christians everywhere. and certainly a lot of people grow out of the bad tendencies.

---

אָרַח

alright, no prob. i think she lost interest anyways. i'm going to break this up into a few discussions so it's a bit more coherent.

---

אָרַח

i think they really lack meaning in any context. most people, when pressed on it, can't define a fair percentage of the cliches. that, and i think they're just kinda tacky. i don't like this whole testimonial thing. i know shopping for products online that testimonials are usually next to worthless -- unless they're bad. you judge the worth of the product by the seriousness of the problems, and how frequently they're reported, but NEVER the good stuff people say.i think a lot of christian experiences are highly questionable in nature, too. i'm not going to share too many details, really. but this is one i'm kind of still working through, and have been for a few years. i believed for a while that god would talk to me, in a manner of speaking. and i had thought he told me a few things that frankly didn't work out.so the question is, basically, am i making it all up? does god lie? is one of us just telling me what i want to hear? (although not everything was what i wanted, really.) is it something else at work here; am i being tested?there was some new information provided just the other day that's leading me to believe that i might have screwed it up myself. so the question right NOW is all of those old ones, plus some new ones. is this confirmation bias? when it works out, it's god, but when it doesn't it's my fault? does going back and forth like this make me crazy?there's no real easy answers for these.and it's pretty weighty. if it's all in my head, well, that's pretty damaging to faith, isn't it? i'm not sure it is a bit more extreme. sounds pretty similar, although she tended to go back and forth. oh, trust me i did. another friend and i were actually talking about this the other day. we were talking about the very few times that i'm ever actually really mean and spiteful, and how the claws came out one time, regarding this. i'm almost never pointlessly mean, but i'd been holding a lot in and there was a lot she needed hear. but not from me, from the bible. it's only really mean in the aspect of taking a person's choices down with their own supposed beliefs.i don't think we've really talked religion since. probably better that way. i'm not going to convince her, and it's only gonna cause problems between us. sometimes the best thing to do is to just shut up about your beliefs and try to do what's best between yourself and others. see above. i'm not sure about this whole "holy spirit" business. i believe in god, singular. i don't follow the whole "trinity" thing because it stopped making sense to me at a certain point. i know who i feel, at least i think i do. i wouldn't say that christian "changed" me. i think i mentioned this last time. i don't think it's overnight change. but it's definitally affected the way i've grown. too many churches are obsessed with change this and change that. burn your books, break your cds, avoid anything ungodly (including people).i mean, so what if i listen to secular, or even anti-christian music? so what if i pick up a copy of the satanic verses and read them? so what if my friends aren't christians?i don't think those are important, because the whole "purity" and ritual cleanliness ideas should have really gone away with christ. our salvation does not rest on those things. it was a more gradual process with me. but yes, it does get more difficult. well, this one was an easy one, really. i asked why matthew and luke listed different fathers for joseph. he hadn't even noticed. it's a little tricky to explain, actually. i kind of look within myself and what i believe, i look out in what i guess i would consider the external spiritual realm, and i look at what the bible says, often very closely.i've heard that romans verse dozens of times. usually, it's to justify avoiding the rest of the world and getting more involved in church activities. i don't think god wants us to be cut off from the world, but i don't think he wants us to be the same either. we are to be better, and by influence and example make the world better as well, even if in small doses. i've heard the "giant quantum computer" idea. god knows everything, including the results of any and all choices we could make. the choice is still ours, but the paths are all chosen. (remember "choose your own adventure" books? sorta like that, but much, much bigger) oddly enough, i'm listening to a record right now as i write this. i dunno if it's a good model, really. we can manipulate records a lot more than we can god's will. we can spin them at different speeds and in different directions, mix them, select what plays at what volume -- often creating something entirely new in the process. can you honestly say you've never been part of this process i'm describing? it ate me alive for years. they say change this or that. you try, you fail, you beat yourself up for a while or fall out of the religion, and then come back just as strong at some revival. i'm sure this is inherent to almost every evangelical/fundamentalist church, but not so much the more mainstream denominations. "practically." i dunno, i suppose it does happen occasionally, but i don't think it's common, nor is it usually an indication of healthy progress. well, it helps to know a little hebrew custom, i think. "the law" is "ha-torah." he's saying that we're not starting over, basically, but that what he's saying is the extension of judaism. if you look, part of it are. a lot of the stuff people say about him, though, is not.i'm not sure if it's really about prophecy. i don't think there's prophecy in the torah that is not fulfilled in the torah (or one of the books directly following it). jesus did compare it to adultery, yes. and it could certainly cause problems with marriages in a similar way, too.i kind of look at like alcohol or drugs. it's not really healthy, and not really to be encouraged. it can cause serious problems if it gets out of control. i think if we could only keep one verse from the bible, that would have to be it. those are the two most important things. i'm not even usre god cares about the rest to any real degree.as a side note: i've seen the "all your heart" part used to tell people to get rid of a lot of things. everything from televisions to spouses (think celibacy). i think that's a bit extreme. does god really want 100% of everything? or am i allowed to like doing some other things too? yeah, i saw that. i just meant to point out that there is a legitimate religious group that reads that particular commandment as forbidding one of my hobbies.i don't really agree with circumcision anyways. i mean, the jews gave up animal sacrifices. why should god require that covenant, when the covenant that came after it has been partially abolished? and we're the covenant after that one. actually, i understand. i think "the bad" exists for a reason. you can see in my other great debate that i am defending the position that god creates evil as well as good.as for creation, well, that might be the reason i argue against creationism so fervently. i'm pretty certain that the bible is not a written literal history direct from god himself. but his creation certainly is. like you said, i'd rather believe in something real. and i appreciate god's creation for what it actually is. i find that thinking of the universe as extensive and us a little speck, and seeing the earth as 4.5 billion years old to be much more awe-inspiring than the creationist's paltry 6k.we have the benefit of living near the coast. when i want to be alone with god, or pray, or when i'm really upset or depressed, i tend to go there in the middle of the night, or for the sunrise. it kind of reminds me of how small and insignificant i am in the universe, which makes my knowledge that god loves me all the more meaningfull. and the sunrise reminds me that every day is a new one, and there is hope for the future. plus, the sound of the waves is quite calming.god built a wonderful church for us, it's a pity we hide from him in buildings. i guess that's true. but i'm sticking to my position above. god already built us a church. i suppose that's valid, but that's also providing shelter for those who need it, not building an extravagent new church here for people who don't. not so sure right now. i think that's probably right. i think i've been avoiding him for a while. but sometimes, yes. yes. i think a little a guidance goes a long way, as long as you allow them freedom and curiosity. i know too many christian parents who have made their children feel forced or trapped.

---

אָרַח

well, the question is, like the other issues we've discussed, why is it our place to say? it doesn't affect me if two men or two women get married -- but it does affect them negatively if i say they can't. i don't think we should be about creating negative effects, just positive ones.and i think as a society we are really moving past gender roles. so "who's the father?" isn't really a valid question. that's sort of my point. it's not even GOOD ot thinking. a proper jew follows the law because they love god. they do it out of respect and duty, not guilt. (they get enough of that from their mothers...)why should a christian feel in the wrong for one abomination, but not another? that doesn't no. but i think the ideas of having love and compassion on people who are different does. it's not something that's harmful to other people, and it's not something that affects us, so i think they should have the right. i'm not sure i understand how that's the same? it's not even so much that it's a sin or anything (there are curses in the bible, as well as sexual euphemisms), but proper behaviour in front of children is a little different. there's a lot of other stuff that just wouldn't be appropriate for sunday school, either. that's a little different than law, imo. for instance, gay sex in fron of children in sunday school wouldn't be appropriate, but doing it at home doesn't really affect the children at all. well, i guess the issue is that my most important moral is "love others." as a moral, i don't think it's right to push personal morality on others, especially not in the form of legislation. if we were asked to vote on the issue here, i would definitally vote in favor of allowing full marriage rights to gays.because it's not so much "vote ofor your morality" but voting in a way that you think is right. well again, i ask you, do you have any intention of giving up haircuts, ham and cheese sandwiches, or lobster? do you have any desire to change your love of seafood or pork or having short hair? do you admit you are sinning when you go to subway or red lobster or the barber?i know i don't. what makes one abomination an issue, but the others overturned by christ? i think that might be a bit far. what relation does sexual orientation have to belief in god? i'm sure there's lots of religious gay people. i actually saw a bit of a documentary about hassidic/orthodox gay jews (now THERE'S a guilt complex lol). well, it's alright. it's a legitimate issue in christianity today, and one that people usually word in a lot more offensive ways.

---

אָרַח

riverrat,i haven't forgotten about this discussion, but my computer's shortcircuited again. i have access to another computer, but it's not mine, so i'm a bit hesitant to start typing out long responses at the moment, but i'll try to get back to you in a few days.

---

אָרַח

ok. well, remember the crowd that jesus hung out with: tax collectors and prostitutes. he preached to the undesireables, those excluded from the temple. the people who needed it, not the people who didn't. was jesus a hypocrite for helping these people? well, that really sucks. hopefully things work out a little better for you. but that wasn't what i meant, really. right, but what's to say that two men couldn't raise a perfectly happy and healthy child? is breast-feeding really neccessary? i was never breastfed (due to medical complications). i want to cut you off breifly here for a second. paul is not jesus.

quote:

---

Mat 9:10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

​

Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw [it], they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

​

Mat 9:12 But when Jesus heard [that], he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

---

quote:

---

Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

---

it seems to me that this is the very idea that jesus was challenging: excluding people.

quote:

---

Mat 21:31 Whether of them twain did the will of [his] father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.

​

Mat 21:32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen [it], repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.

---

maybe jesus was just trying to provoke a reaction here. tradition says that the woman who washed his feet was a prostitute, but i don't think that's anywhere in the text. (same deal with mary of magdala)i don't think jesus shied away from the sexually immoral. my parents don't understand why i'm getting a degree in art. one's a doctoral mathematician or pretty high regard in the academic community, the other is a house-wife with a masters in classical greek literature. that might affect them financially in the future, and certainly would affect what kids i have in the future.am i doing anything wrong?being gay can put tension on relationships, sure. but it doesn't need to. is it the fault of the person who's gay, or the fault of the person who doesn't accept them? what i'm saying, and what i think jesus was saying, is that we should accept everyone, regardless. we had a pastor disappear once at one of my churches. right after a woman in the congregation gave birth. she also disappeared, from what i heard.the problem, i think, is that we in the christian church try to set up our leadership as representative of god, when no man can ever represent god. we make mistakes, we mess up, and we sin. so what if the sunday school teacher breaks the law of god? we all do.the other problem is that the christian church places WAY too much emphasis on homosexuality, like it's the gravest of all sins and nothing else even comes close. i would put "idolatry" in that slot -- we're not even given sexual commandment until a whole book or two later. it's nowhere in the ten commandments, let alone first. but when the christian church becomes the anti-gay platform, a priest coming out of the closet causes a big stir.we shouldn't be the anti-anything platform. we shouldn't be discriminating, or judging, or anything except accepting, caring, loving, and compassionate. no no, there was a subtle grammatical shift there. it's not voting for WHAT you think is right, but voting HOW you think is right. voting to deny rights based on religion is wrong. i've had a few gay friends. one of them i just learned recently was gay. it was one of those "now that you mention it..." kind of things. i think that's a pretty rare sort of thing you described. most gay guys i've known don't try to push themselves on anyone. so this is a feeling you had before conversion? keep in mind that being a christian is supposed to help us grow, changing us from how we were. i think part of that change is acceptance of others. well, you can't say that someone can have the freedom to do what they want if you're for withholding one of those freedoms. or, maybe gay people just take marriage more seriously, because it's more precious to them since they're not often allowed to do it. i bet if we universally legalized gay marriage, we'd see a divorce rate abotu on par with straight marriage.i'd also like to take this opportunity to remind you that jesus is against divorce:

quote:

---

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

---

why is divorce legal? and why do gay "sexually unclean" people keep jesus's teachings better than straight people? ok, sure. but does everyone need to breed? as paul says, he thinks we should avoid sex all together. and if everyone in the whole world were women, it'd also be the last generation. are women evil? should we hate our neighbors if they're women? the world is filled with a variety of people, and we are to be loving and accepting of all. well, i think that's the important part. if you feel that being gay is wrong, don't be gay. but it's not up to us to tell our neighbors what to do, or how to live. that's between them and god. jesus > paul.
the second greatest commandment > the first epistle to the corinthiansthat's how i see it, anyways. if jesus and paul disagree, i side with jesus. paul's just a man, jesus is my lord and saviour. jesus also fails to mention homosexuality. they are however sins according to god's law, which jesus said he did not come to change. it's not "ok" in the sense that we should do it, but it's "ok" in the sense that god has forgiven us. but really, though, do you feel you're doing anything wrong when you have that ham and cheese on unlevened bread? do you think a sandwish warrants fire and brimstone?it's not an easy answer. either the law applies to us, or it does not. paul often argues that it does not. jesus seems to argue for a reformed position on the law (intent, versus letter). well, lust is a thought. we can't police thought. it's against our privacy laws, and just impractical. rape, however, we can and do police. jesus was arguing that we should be pure in thought and mind, and intention, not just action.we as a society draw the line at the rights of others. someone murdering me takes away my natural right to be alive. someone lusting after me might creep me out a little (especially if it's someone i'm not interested in) but it neither breaks my bones or picks my pocket. two people i've never met getting married doesn't affect me at all. don't you think we'd be a better example of christ's love for us by accepting them? showing them that we care, like god cares for us? i realize we can't be perfect, but shouldn't we try? instead of pushing them away, and telling them they're sinners, and advocating taking away their rights and generally making their lives the hell we think they deserve?what would jesus do?

---

אָרַח

well, when jesus said "he who is without sin may throw the first stone" he was in the position to do so himself. we are not in a position to judge. but is reproduction all there is to life? i mean, if 1 guy were alone on a desert island, he wouldn't be able to reproduce either. should we outlaw being single?there's lots of things we do in life that have very, very little to do with making babies. i'm an artist -- what purpose does that serve on a desert island? would i be drawing pictures in the sand? i doubt it. right, but he never said that he wouldn't accept us the way we are. if jesus excluded people based on their continued behaviour, we'd ALL be out. well not recognizing a gay marriage is really sort of similar to saying you don't accept them. well, exchange "religion" for "personal preference" or whatever it may be. the point i was trying to make was that we should not vote for our own personal opinions of what is right and wrong, but in a way that is right: not forcing those opinions on someone else. sounds like the problem is with some men not gay men. i don't think i agree with that. the problem with being gay is that it's not accepted. the more it's accepted, the more we hear about it. but that doesn't equate to there being more or less gay people. many closetted gay people hide it, and are even married to women. you find higher ang higher percentages of this the less and less homosexuality is accepted.all that does is create unhappy marriages between men and women. i think we'd do better as a society to have more happy relationships between men and men, or women and women, than more unhappy ones between the two genders. fair number of straight people, too. depends on what source you're looking at. i think this a great problem with pauline christianity. paul basically defines marriage in that passage as a "get out of hell free" card for having sex. i think a better way to look at it is that a marriage is a legal commitment between two people, a union expressed out of love. sex, in the context of such a union, is a bonus, another expression.if you look at the jewish interpretation of marriage and sex, they view it as a blessing, something holy in the right context. even an act of worship. completely different than the christian reading... right, but the point stands. if we divide all of humanity into one group and exclude all others, it fails. humanity thrives on its diversity. gay people, on their own, cannot reproduce. but neither can straight men on their own, or straight women on their own. lack of reproductive ability doesn't make a group evil, or not part of humanity.there are lots of straight couples that do not want, or cannot have children. legally, yes. and morally, i feel we shouldn't tell people they can't do something. ("consent" implies that the other part is older than the legal age of consent.) if we feel something is wrong, we can avoid doing it. but we can't go tell someone else that they shouldn't be allowed to do it, unless it violates the rights of another. observer bias in psychiatry says the same thing. but us observing them affects them, too. and probably too much a greater degree. we don't hid our lifestyles and preferences for fear of not being accepted, or fear of being killed or harrassed. they do, and often to disasterous results. well, that's good. what defines a marraige? legally, i mean, excluding the bible? well, i'm trying to change your mind the right way.

---

אָרַח

i've chosen to post this here, instead of the gay marriage thread, because i think it better fits our discussion.

quote:

---

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

---

quote:

---

Rev. Bob Arthur, author of Homosexuality and the Conservative Christian, a former professor of linguistic studies at Bob Jones University, has written the following:

We all know that Jesus spoke Aramaic during his life on earth. Aramaic was the popular language of the Hebrew people at that time. Hebrew and Aramaic are very close to each other linguistically and much of the vocabulary is the same.

​

Most commentators have traditionally thought that the word Raca was from the Aramaic word reyqa’ or reyqah in Aramaic which means empty one. The Greek of Matthew does not translate the Aramaic word in Greek, but rather transliterates it into Greek letters: raka.

​

Now, if the commentators are correct in their surmise that the word is from reyqa’ or reyqah in Aramaic, that is a derivative from the verb riyq which means to be empty, thus making the modern translations of “empty-headed” or “foolish” appropriate. However, since the Greek transliterates the word raka, not reka (the closest Greek could come to the Aramaic reyqa’ or reyqah), I suspect it actually is a transliteration of the Aramaic rakkah. Rakkah comes from the Aramaic verb rekak, which is the same as the Hebrew verb rakak, which means to be tender, weak or soft. That in itself does not have any special significance . However, what makes this interesting is the fact that raka is the feminine form of the adjective used to describe the word “brother.” We have no other Biblical example of this adjective used in the feminine form to describe a masculine noun. This in essence makes it have a very derogatory significance. In a patriarchal culture where the Hebrew man praised God every morning that he was created a man and not a woman, to have someone call him weak in the feminine sense was a great insult. About the closest we can come in the English idiom would be to call someone who valued his macho image a sissy . Now, whether the Aramaic use of this term has the same homosexual undertones as the English epithet sissy does is unclear. However, the calling of such derogatory names is condemned by Jesus in Matthew 5:22.

http://www.freeingthespirit.org/Homosexuality&Bible20.htm

---

just thought it was kind of interesting, and might add to the debate.

---

אָרַח

my debate. not yours.

---

well, it's not so much that it's ok. just that it's no worse than anything else we humans do. the portray of human in the bible is sinful by nature -- even the perfect job is dirty next to god. there is commandment after commandment that we break everyday as christians. we submit ourselves to abominations -- heck, our national symbol, the eagle, is an abomination, not to mention that it could be considered a graven image.these things aren't "ok" either. but why do we ignore them, and focus on the gay issue? we have no intent on changing. i don't see christians petitioning to change the national bird because it's unbiblical. why is homosexuality so important?i suppose you could say that the second story in the bible defines marriage. but the FIRST story in the bible defines the sabbath -- and we ignore that. my problem is that people are picking and choosing what to condemn or speak out against, when they have many faults that ae equally as serious themselves. that verse is directly preceded by:

quote:

---

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

---

jesus is telling us the consequence of judging: we will be judged in the same way, with the same standard, and the same harshed that we judged other with. the fair bit is that we are judged by our own standards. i prefer not to condemn anyone based on choices they make -- because i do not want to be condemned myself. whether jesus is talking about judgement day, or just putting yourself in the other man's shoes, i think the message is pretty clear: treat others how you want to be treated. and it would also be perfectly valid for me to accuse you of eating seafood. i'm sure you do. one abomination for another. but does it make sense to do this? christ came so that we could all be saved. we are all sinful, and we all need forgiveness. why should we sit around accusing each other of our own sins -- if we've been forgiven of them by the person who matters? why? that was jesus speaking against divorce. according to jesus, divorce is tantamount to adultery:

quote:

---

Mat 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

---

and the punishment for adultery is death:

quote:

---

Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

---

so really, why aren't christians campaigning for laws against divorce? it's straight out of jesus's mouth, literally in the bible. it is desecrating god's holy union of marriage -- at least as much two guys getting married. so why is divorce legal? i think he was being ironic, there. and also right: how many wars have been fought in his name? how many families divided by religion? yet nowhere in jesus's entire teaching does it tell us to take up the sword that jesus said he was bringing. i would call that prophecy, not commandment. remember, jesus died for his beliefs. so did some of the apostles. and so did many, many christians in the early church. in jesus's case, it was for fighting the religious establishment -- one that said that certain people were unclean, and not welcome in the house of god. jesus died for these people. jesus died for us.i think it is a mistake to practice the very ideology that christ gave his life to overturn. i side with jesus too, to the best of my ability. and i'm not worried about what the christians think of me as a result. but we, however, to treat people in the ways that we wish to be treated. and we are to have compassion, and accept people, regardless of their sins. it's not about what they think of us at all. it's how we pay back the compassion god has shown for us. and it's what they think of jesus, not us. we are his representation on earth. but only because of christ's sacrifice. without him, we are all lost. right, but i think it sells marriage short to pretend it's just about screwing. cause, well, ask any married couple how often they bump uglies. when marriage is first defined in genesis 2, it's for companionship, not sex. adam is lonely, because there is no other like him. god makes woman to keep him company, not so they can have kids. right, but what does it have to do with squeezing out some offspring? why do i do it? why do you do it? just to get chicks? cause, well, it sure isn't working for me. through many bad relationships, i've found that you either love someone for what and who they are, or you want them to change. i think you're still missing what i'm trying to say. i'm saying that we shouldn't vote to outlaw things that we think are wrong, personally, but rather we should vote in a way that represents the way we'd want to be treated. it's not voting for you morality: the WAY you vote has to be moral too.legislating religion and personal opinion is wrong, any way you look at it. it is damaging to both religion and government. farbeit from me to make an argument that sounds feminist, but that's a little sexist. people come in all different sizes and shapes, and some men are more macho than others.and, uh, the macho ones are quite often gay. curious point, that. honestly? i'd take two of my father over my mother and father any day. but then, you don't know my mom. and what's wrong with adopted parents? sorry, i wasn't clear. sex within marriage. that's on a sliding scale. the rights of the fetus are weighed against the rights of the mother to control what goes on inside her body without government intervention. as the pregnancy goes on, the rights of the baby have more and more rights. what about it? do i have a right to not have my loved ones die? no, it could happen at any time by sheer accident, or biology, or act of god. did you mean assisted suicide? personally, i don't see why it's not legal. congratulations, you do. welcome to america.you do not have a right to not be disgusted, nor do you have a right to not be offended. two men kissing neither breaks your bones, nor picks your pocket, nor kills your dog. if it offends you, go somewhere else.think about this. suppose christians reading the bible in public disgusts me. should we make a law that you can't read a bible in public? or should i suck it up and just ignore them? like what?[edit brenna caught a typo]This message has been edited by spidey, 02-03-2006 05:33 PM

---

does that mean that you think, legally, gays should be allowed all the same opportunities and rights as everyone else?

---

well, i'm going to illustrate this point with your next one: which is it? do we have to follow the law, or not? because it's really one or the other. we're either held to the law, or we're forgiven and it doesn't matter. if we're held to the law, don't expect forgiveness for eating seafood, ham and cheese sandwiches, and cutting your hair. if those things are ok, so is teh buttsechs.but it is a double standard to say that you "do not expect laws allowing your favourite sin[s]" when you are clearly picking and choosing which laws you think apply. and the first half of that statement was that jesus did not come to change the law. according to jesus, we are still held to it. according to the bible, woman is a derivative of man. god makes woman because she is like man, to provide company for man. marriage is defined when there are ONLY two people on the planet -- one male and one female. shelak: why are christians campaigning for laws against anything, if we are not justified by works, and not subject to the law of god?and why give up on divorce? or the national symbol? these are also clearly against the law of god. yes. what you said was jesus being ironic. do you think jesus means to cause fights and families to fall apart? you don't see how one can lead to the other? a difference in faith between abraham's two sons is still tearing apart the middle east today. god works in mysterious ways. i personally think god tries to reach in obvious ways and we ignore him. maybe he brought you to me. it's not that we are to encourage sin. we're not. we're supposed to have nothing to do with it entirely. the sins of another is none of our business; it's between them and god. jesus could say "go they way and sin no more" for the same reason he could say "your sins are forgiven." he was in a special position that we as followers of christ are not in. perhaps this is the problem. a lot of christians seem to see homosexuality as self-destructive. and they get the self-destructive idea from the idea that it's a sin, and all sins are self-destructive.but is that ham and cheese from subway self-destructive?if my brother was homosexual, and part of an underground subculture like in the 80's, one filled with lots of promiscuous and unprotected sex and drug use, yes i would say something. but if he was gay and in a healthy and monogamous relationship, i wouldn't say anything. interchange "homosexual" with "heterosexual" and the point is the same. because it's about the behavior that actually IS self destructive.it's the difference between really caring about a person, and loving them for who they are, and telling them they're going to hell for the way god made them. we make distinctions between loving someone and encouraging their sin -- but they do not see it that way. all they see is us condemning them for something they cannot change about themselves.if their sin is causing real, earthly problems like emotional issues, drug abuse, physical harm, risk to exposure of infectious disease, alcoholism -- yes, say something. help them. but if it's just where they're going when they die, that's between them and god. we do not control whether or not they are forgiven, and it's not our job to go around telling them that god does not approve. which is why we have real, secular standards that dictate how we make laws. the one i gave you, that your rights extend exatly as far as the next person, is basic driving philosophy of modern law. no hun that's just morning wood. it's caused by circulation differences during sleep. no. pregnancy is not always intentional, either. sometimes birth control doesn't work, sometimes condoms break. welcome to the real world. that's hardly realistic. recently married couples can do it all they want no matter how you look at it, but most want to hold off having a baby until they are financially secure enough to support one. are you saying "never have sex except to make babies?"

---

that's paul, not jesus. paul also says that the purpose of marriage is provide an "out" for screwing, so we don't go to hell. i would not call paul's attitudes to sexuality or marriage healthy.i don't think it matters WHERE the sin occurs, or WHO you sin against. god forgives sin. period.

---