The bible and homosexuality: Round 3

REad all the history books. It is a well known fact the Jesus is a pivot point in history, and is considered the center of history by many. Then so is every doctor. Unless we are talking about slaves in the bible. Big deal. I have done that. I have also predicted 20 years into the future about certain things. Others have predicted 150 years into the future. Try predicting 2000 years, then I will be impressed. Also your predictions will have to change the whole world. Don't just tell me that computers will be faster in 10 years. While Jesus was alive, he had to obey the law, so they wouldn't have a valid reason to kill him. But amoung his disciples, he was changing the way people think, and paved the way for how the future would be. Do you honestly think for one second unless Jesus did this, and his disciples followed him after he died, that the world would have changed? It was the same way for 1000's of years. It is because of Jesus that you can enjoy the life you have today. You are now forgiven of your sins through him. i.e. If you do something against God's will, and your family member is not happy with it, based on his/her religious beliefs. It is better for you not to do it.

say that, you did. His fascination is with the health and proper function of the model he made. He has given guidelines on how to perpetuate good health. These are being mostly ignored.

---

"Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit!"
2 Cor. 7:1

Homosexuality...our original topic, is a volatle subject. Itis my personal belief that people are born predisposed to be attracted/emotionally bonded to one sex or the other. The factors which lead to a person "becoming gay" are more than merely biological, however. We may not choose our attractions yet we most certainly do choose our eventual actions. Culturally, same sex unions are becoming accepted. The problem from an orthodox Christian perspective is NOT that gays will "burn in hell" because we all are sinners to one degree or another and no sin is worse than any other/ The issue is that many militant homosexuals place more importance on their right to be with another man OVER their responsibility to love Jesus first. Trust me...if you love Jesus first, everything else works out a lot better....no idolatry, no lust, and a healthy passion.

"Militant homosexuals?"The thing about the people you seem to think are "militant" is that they're pretty sure that the Christians started it, first. After all, if rightist conservative busybodies would just butt out, there wouldn't be any problems, and everybody could get back to putting Jesus first, or whatever.But when someone's got their boot on your face, Jesus is going to understand when you set overthrowing oppressive religous tyrrany as a slightly higher priority.I don't think any "militant homosexual" would mind if religious conservatives started "putting Jesus first" and just got the hell out of other people's business, you know?

Men gave those guidelines, because men wrote the Bible.The reason they're being ignored is because many of them in fact have no relationship to health. We're supplanting those guidelines with science, and the new guidelines are better.

.....

We've been over this. There's no historical references of Jesus's existence. Also, christianity is considered the center of history by only people in Europe back then. Nothing to do with other parts of the world. No, doctors recommend that women who have recently given birth should stay home for health issues. In other words, the reason is concerning the welfare of the women.However, you and leviticus think that women who have recently given birth are unclean and should not enter church solely because they are unclean. In other words, the women are allowed to go elsewhere and thus put themselves in danger. Therefore, leviticus has nothing to do with women's health issue.You are simply saying anything you can to defend your position, even though your comment has nothing to do with following leviticus. Huh? Please explain. Sure! I predict that 2000 years from now things will be very different from now. There. What are you talking about? First you said that he changed the law. Now, you are saying that he followed them. Can you be at least consitent about your own belief?Christianity did not destroy the roman empire. The barbarians did. However, let's try to stay on topic, shall we? ......... What you just wrote isn't even a complete sentence. Please explain what this has to do with what we are talking about?

---

The Laminator

​

Just an observation from someone who has given birth herself...No doctor told me to stay home, stay in bed, or stop doing anything that I felt up to doing. A little bit of extra rest is great but many women do not have this option and do just fine.As for sex, yes it is better to wait but there is no hard and fast rule as to how long. An no...you do NOT have an "open wound." Your uterus is not much different post-childbirth than it is post-period.

---

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

Lam writes:

quote:

---

There's no historical references of Jesus's existence. Also, christianity is considered the center of history by only people in Europe back then.

---

Yes and no. You're correct in that you seem to be saying that there is no reliable historic record of Jesus' existence. However, the bible itself does provide historical reference to the existence of Jesus; the question is whether or not the bible is accurate.Whether real or imagined, the life of Jesus was most definitely a turning point in history, not only of virtually all western nations but of many eastern ones as well. Had it not been for Jesus and the advent of Christianity world history would have been quite different than it has turned out to be.Please understand, I'm not correcting so much as I am clarifying. God forbid I should be seen as endorsing anything RraT has said.

Lmao. I must have missed that one, but now because you can't find Jesus in a history book, there is no historical reference of him? Lol. I do believe there is more written text on Jesus and what he did than another figure in history, yet he is the one that is fake to you. It doesn't say that, you say that, because you don't want to accept it.
Truth- Women are unclean after giving birth
Truth- Women should rest for 40 days, that means stay home.Untruth- Woman in Leviticus can't go to church soley because they are unclean.
Untruth- They can go were ever they want.You made up that stuff.
The truth's from Leviticus are all good suggestions on how to live, based on moral principals and health concerns, you take it to another level. Where you there? Do you really know what it was like to be a slave back then that had a righteous master. Since all those things were commanded, people may have not had a problem with it. Therefor it wouldn't go against people's will. The meaning of the word slave has changed possibly over the years. I guess this statement is the pinnicle of your intelligence? Why can't you understand what I explained? Do you have a banana in your eye or something? I would just normally say to go and read the bible, but from what you have demostrated, it seems you miss God's word all the time.From the scripture, it means that if you sin, and it causes your brother to be upset about it, it is better not to sin. so if having gay sex was a sin, and it upset your brother, or other family member, it would be better to not be that way. That is the suggestion. I find nothing wrong with it.This message has been edited by riVeRraT, 07-12-2004 02:54 PM

Do you read the Bible? It certainly doesn seem so.

quote:

---

Leviticus 12 1-5

​

1: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3: And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4: And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5: But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

---

Once again it is amazing that you seem not to have even read the things you're talking about.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok, your right.
But I still stand by what I said, and include that it is a good idea regardless.The life is in the blood, and this makes sense to me.

Base on your logic, fairies must be real, because there are more references to fairies than any real historical figure like King Kufu. Read the freaking bible again. It doesn't say that women should stay home. Here is it again. I'm beginning to think you have a reading comprehension problem. I could easily make the same claim about homosexuality, that the reason it was not percieved as ok because people didn't really love each other.If your good book is devine, it should have put the future into consideration. No. I am eating a lot of banans lately to replenish my potassium supply.The reason I can't understand what you are saying is because you are a hipocrit. You are picking and choosing certain parts of the bible to justify your prejudice, and I see no difference between this action and those of the KKK, southern slave owners, and every ultra-conservative in history that have tried to block possitive social changes, like women's right and civil right. Considering I'm an atheist who is willing to argue on your own battle ground.... I could very easily come out and say that I don't believe in your god, therefore your moral guidance has nothing to do with me. In other words, if my brother is not upset about it, sinning is perfectly ok? Aren't you making quite a leap in your interpretation there?Can anyone else who is more literate with the bible explain this to me?

---

The Laminator

​

His interpretation was wrong. The bible quote means you should not do something that causes others to fall into sin. It has nothing to do with being offensive.

You say that there is no evidence for Jesus. In response, check out this article:Origins of Christianity | Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
As for homosexuality, same sex attraction is a reality. The issue is whether or not society is better off condoning or condemning it. If honest, however, we had best condemn organized gambling, prostitution, and adultry if we dare condemn hopmosexuality.
So what does Jesus have to do with any of this? Spiritual guidance and morality.