Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
The quotations below are for Christians or anyone claiming to be one. I think it is universally accepted by Christians that the Bible is the yardstick used to gauge Christian lifestyle.Originally posted by HENG@:gay-xtian? i can go one better and introduce you to a TG-xtian. but i doubt she'll want much to do with the xtians in EH. she thinks they forgot that Christ never made anyone feel guilty and she also wonders who are the xtians in EH to declare that homosexuality is a sin.
The issue really is not about whether fellow-Christians condemn homosexuality or not.
The issues are:
1. How does one define what a Christian is?
2. How does this Christian view the Bible?
3. What does the Bible have to say on any given subject?
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Purpose of the book of 1 Corinthians: The address conduct for Christians in a city know for its sexual deprivation and the love for human philosophy and wisdom.
Rom. 1-21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Purpose of the book of Romans: An introduction for himself to the Christians in Rome, which he had not visited. He apparently also admonished both the Jewish and Gentile Christians on proper Christian conduct.
So going back to my questions:
1. How does one define what a Christian is?
A Christian is one who believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that the Bible is the Word of God. or a reverse definition: a Christian is anyone who believes in a god - than everyone can be called a Christian.... hmm, but the word "Christian" literally means a "one belong to Christ".
2. How does this Christian view the Bible?
If the Bible is the Word of God, then whatever stated in there must be the truth. or a reverse definiton: the Bible is a book of wisdom, we can choose and pick and bend whatever that suits us, then, really, no need to quote loh!
3. What does the Bible have to say on any given subject?
If whatever that is stated in the Bible is the truth, what would a Christian's response to the above verses. or a reverse definition: everything is irrelevant, there is no yardstick, do whatever you want...
I am not here to state what non-Christians should or should not believe.
It is ok with me for anyone NOT believing that the Bible is the Word of God. I would not call this person a Christian because this person would not have met the minimal requirement of what a Christian is. So to all my atheist/agnostic/other religion/gay activist friends, I am ok with your life and I would not comment/or condemn your choice (and you know I have never done that).
I am here to address the issue of what some "Christians" choose to define their own brand of Christianity.
What's the difference between a practicing gay-Christian or a Christian who is also a practicing prostitute or an active drug dealer and choose to justify their actions using some obscure verses or twisting some verse to suit their intent - like the prosty and the druggie is bring love and joy to the world? -
I would say go back to first principles. Why and to who was the mitzvoh given in the first place? Throughout history, humans have "dropped" (not abolish, but reinterpreted) some of the mitzvoh in the bible. There was one time hor in antiquity, the Romans or some other army attacked the Jewish during the Sabbath. Guess what pious Jews do during Sabbath? They did nothing, and you can guess their fate instantly.Originally posted by HENG@:wot? u can't answer my doubts so u throw a little sarcasm back at me huh? So I'll ask u again, who decides what should be dropped n what should be hung on to? As long as some human decides that, who is to really say if that is right or wrong, accurate or not? How can u answer this doubt? If u can't answer, then don't bother. Don't try being smart alecky.
From then on, Jews declare it is kosher to pick up arms during Sabbath.
Right or wrong, go back to first principles. Rabbi Hillel taught someone the Torah while the latter stood on one foot. Micah summarised the Bible into three points (Christians should be familiar with this). -
I think one fundamental issue we have to resolve, other than the ones Uncle Eng highlighted, is the nature of sin in Scripture.Originally posted by HENG@:she thinks they forgot that Christ never made anyone feel guilty and she also wonders who are the xtians in EH to declare that homosexuality is a sin.
In the gospel, Christ rescued the prostitute from the group of "bloody vipers". Christ never made the woman feel guilty. But then Christ also told the woman not to sin anymore.
So Christ never gan3 anyone doesn't mean some actions are not sins. -
put leh put leh .. I want to read how?Originally posted by Chin Eng:I have my opinions with regards to the points and theology in this website as well as the posting by laosu, but I'd rather not put them here. If you want, we can take it offline.....
-
Hey icey... I am darn impressed with your knowledge of Jewish laws...Originally posted by Icemoon:I think one fundamental issue we have to resolve, other than the ones Uncle Eng highlighted, is the nature of sin in Scripture.
In the gospel, Christ rescued the prostitute from the group of "bloody vipers". Christ never made the woman feel guilty. But then Christ also told the woman not to sin anymore.
So Christ never gan3 anyone doesn't mean some actions are not sins.
I also don't understand the statement about Jesus not making people feel guilty. I have always thought that one feel guilty by one's own conscience. Jesus also never minced his words, condemned the Pharisees, threw out the traders at the synagogue, and told the Roman authorities off.... The idea that Jesus is always Mr Nice Guy is a myth.
Feeling guilty about something does not mean something is done wrong, vice versa, not feeling guilty does not meant that something is done right. It merely highlights one's personal state of acceptance of any given act or experience. I always feel guilty when I overeat.... so whether one feels guilty or not is totally irrelevent in the entire God-experience.
.... all those chim Hebrew words... wow.... sure you are not Jewish? -
Does SIS still think I am?Originally posted by Chin Eng:.... all those chim Hebrew words... wow.... sure you are not Jewish? -
I PM you... better that way.Originally posted by Icemoon:put leh put leh .. I want to read how? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
just speaking on behalf of other gay christians.
I am not here to state what non-Christians should or should not believe.
It is ok with me for anyone NOT believing that the Bible is the Word of God. I would not call this person a Christian because this person would not have met the minimal requirement of what a Christian is. So to all my atheist/agnostic/other religion/gay activist friends, I am ok with your life and I would not comment/or condemn your choice (and you know I have never done that).
I am here to address the issue of what some "Christians" choose to define their own brand of Christianity.
[b]What's the difference between a practicing gay-Christian or a Christian who is also a practicing prostitute or an active drug dealer and choose to justify their actions using some obscure verses or twisting some verse to suit their intent - like the prosty and the druggie is bring love and joy to the world?[/b]
so what other choices do they have? if they are borned gays (as demonstrated by many many articles from neutral and independent sources about how natural homosexuality is within the natural world), what should they do?
change their orientation? they are far too many mental/social health organisational denouncing orientation change therapy. so if change therapy is not going to work for them, and they are stucked with their orientation, what should they do? isnt this one of the biggest dilemma for gay christians?
Receive this from a mailing list
FORMER EX-GAY OUTRAGED THAT EX-GAY GROUP REFUSES TO REMOVE HIS PICTURE FROM WEBSITE
Exodus Presents Failures As Success Stories Out of Desperation, Says Author Wayne Besen
NEW YORK - Exodus International, a worldwide umbrella group for the ex-gay ministries, was accused today by former member Shawn O'Donnell of misrepresentation for continuing to post his picture on the front page of its web-site, even though he is now an out and proud gay man.
O'Donnell is included in a group photo at the top of their web site http://www.exodus-international.org - a photo that has also been used in the group's ads to show that homosexuality can be cured. Exodus Executive Director Alan Chambers was recently contacted by O'Donnell, who politely asked him to remove or airbrush his likeness from thewebsite. Chambers refused the request and continues to have O'Donnell's picture falsely representing the possibility of sexual orientation conversion.
"I am outraged and appalled that Exodus would mislead and deceive potential clients into believing that I have been healed," said O'Donnell, who was a part of Exodus for five years, leaving the group in 2002. "Exodus' arrogant refusal to remove my likeness has been a source of great anguish and pain, because I know it has surely led to further suffering by vulnerable people. I call on Exodus' sense of decency and fairness to restore my dignity by immediately removing my picture from the front page of their web-site."
Although O'Donnell is just one person in a group picture, he
said that his inclusion still has an impact, because it gives people the impression that people can go from gay to straight, which is not what he experienced.
"I can honestly say that in five years, I did not meet one person that I believe had truly changed," said O'Donnell. "What Exodus is doing is damaging lives. They give false hope and when people fail to change they consider killing themselves, as I once did. The harmful work of Exodus almost killed me and I don't want others to suffer."
Wayne Besen, author of Anything But Straight: Unmasking the
Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth, says Exodus has a
moral responsibility to replace their group pictures each year.
"As a result of the astronomical number of defections in Exodus, any group picture representing those supposedly cured is outdated within a year," said Besen. "I am willing to bet that a high number of the people in that 1998 photo are now out of the closet and live openly gay lives. O'Donnell's experience speaks to the desperation of Exodus to find success stories where there are none to be found."
O'Donnell, who currently lives in Chicago, says he will dedicate himself to helping people escape the dead end of ex-gay therapy. This month, he appeared in a documentary, "Fish Can't Fly", which focuses on the stories of people who suffered through the ex-gay experience.
"I am committed to educating people about the destructiveness and depravity of these groups that lie to people susceptible to their false message. From my experience, Exodus is a sham and I wish they would stop representing me as a success story." -
yea. but u can't say for sure that homosexuality is a sin. not even going by the bible can u say that.Originally posted by Icemoon:So Christ never gan3 anyone doesn't mean some actions are not sins. -
it is still the nature vs nuture argument.Originally posted by HENG@:yea. but u can't say for sure that homosexuality is a sin. not even going by the bible can u say that.
let's say it is nuture .. will it be a sin then? -
I guess there are only two ways to define the cause of homosexuality:Originally posted by earthlings73:just speaking on behalf of other gay christians.
so what other choices do they have? if they are borned gays (as demonstrated by many many articles from neutral and independent sources about how natural homosexuality is within the natural world), what should they do?
change their orientation? they are far too many mental/social health organisational denouncing orientation change therapy. so if change therapy is not going to work for them, and they are stucked with their orientation, what should they do? isnt this one of the biggest dilemma for gay christians?
1. Inborn tendency (would this be considered a medical condition?) ie born with the likelihood of diabetic, myopic,..... etc.
or
2. Choice (a conscious decision).
Inborn tendency is tougher to deal with because the ultimate claim is - God created me this way.... so go with the flow. Well, I am born with the tendency to be overweight, am diabetic, and myopic. So do I ignore my condition (because God created me this way) and continue to eat, drink and be merry? Unfortunately I cannot do that, I need to deal with it. Has it been easy - nope, it is actually very tough. Along the same line, is paedophile a medical condition? I really don't know. Maybe it is - some groups of the populations turns you on. I know that some types of women turns me on, others (even the prettier ones) don't. So can I also claim that perhaps it is natural?
Like I'd say, if a person feels that he is born into this condition and is a non-Christian, it's ok. But if one has embrace a faith that denounces such a practice, one can choose to deal with it (abet with difficulty) or leave the faith or as the folks at safehaven has done - start their own version of Christianity. However, with the last option, it does not take away or invalidate the writings of Paul in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Can an individual (or a group )still call himself a Christian when the basic tenets of the faith is changed or modifed to suit it's agenda? What's the difference between such a group compared to racist "Christians" who see the world in black and white, white being the superior race.
I really don't know why we are born with whatever conditions we have. I guess if we are all perfect, we'd probably be the perfect clone. Sometimes the conditions we are in has got to do with the gene-pool, other conditions are probably results of something that was done in the previous generations. Should we then sit around and blame God for our conditions? Well, some will.
Let's not forget that in many of the supporting documents found in gay churches is NOT about DOCTRINE but is about POLITICS.
With regards to your reference on the Exodus article: the issue is not really about gay or non-gay - the issue is about a group who apparently is mismanaging it's information. If the points mentioned in the article is true, then I think it is the responsibility of the group to set the facts right. I just did a search in Exodus International's website and cannot find any reference to any Shawn O'Donnell. There is also no pictures of individual in the homepage, only one group picture. From the organisation stand point, it will be really odd to have one face "airbrushed". The claim that because therapy did not work on ONE person did not work for one does not mean that it did not work for many. Unless a multitude of people is willing to state that it is a sham, it is difficult to accept a claim from one individual. Hey, note that I am NOT supporting Exodus, I am just stating what I know and I don't. In fact, thanks to you, I did not know of this organisation till today.
In this age of hitech information, we can choose what we believe. On one hand, an organisation that purports to help out people with a condition (medical or not), or the other websites that states that it is irreversible. Who'd your choose to believe, and why?
For people who has CHOSEN to be homosexuals - hey, it's your choice...
And you're a Christian? Go join Safehaven, I am sure it will be good for you.
Other Christian ostracise you? well you can't have your cake and eat it too...
But bear in mind, it is not politics, or your rights, or your inclination, or your medical condition - it's about what the Bible says specifically about it.
Non-Christians, don't worry about it - the verses in Romans and 1 Corinthians is written only to Christians. -
so the quotation from Romans and 1 Corinthians is not clear enough?Originally posted by HENG@:yea. but u can't say for sure that homosexuality is a sin. not even going by the bible can u say that.
-
I also want to read. curiousOriginally posted by Chin Eng:I PM you... better that way. -
no. simply because on whose authority do u decide which parts of the bible are to be followed and which aren't, and why must we take something that some man had written to be the word of God itself? Why do we not accept those phrases which speak in support of homosexuality then? why the duplicity?Originally posted by Chin Eng:so the quotation from Romans and 1 Corinthians is not clear enough? -
thats a very big "lets say" isn't it? in fact the odds are looking pretty terrible that its down to nuture isn't it? So let me pose u a hypotheical question myself: Let's say its down to nature, and science proves if beyond doubt, then Xtians would have to face this question: Did they think it was a sin because they had misunderstood the bible, or is the bible simply inaccurate?Originally posted by Icemoon:it is still the nature vs nuture argument.
let's say it is nuture .. will it be a sin then? -
transgenderOriginally posted by F Bunta:What is TG? -
Highlighted - Good arguement.Originally posted by HENG@:no. simply because on whose authority do u decide which parts of the bible are to be followed and which aren't, and why must we take something that some man had written to be the word of God itself? Why do we not accept those phrases which speak in support of homosexuality then? why the duplicity? -
as I had emphasized many times, anyone not believing in the Bible, it's ok... they do not recognise the authority of the Bible, and that's that.Originally posted by HENG@:no. simply because on whose authority do u decide which parts of the bible are to be followed and which aren't, and why must we take something that some man had written to be the word of God itself? Why do we not accept those phrases which speak in support of homosexuality then? why the duplicity?
to anyone else believing in the Bible as the word of God, that authority has already been decided. Can you point out which part of the Bible speaks in support of homosexuality? I like to learn from you.
the passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians were written addressed to GENTILE (non Jewish) Christians, as opposed to many parts of the OT that were written to address JEWS or the HEBREW people.
My entire argument is NOT towards non-Christians (however you define these non-Christians to be whether it's atheist, agnostic, gay activists etc). My argument is towards Christians who profess to believe in the Bible. -
"Give thought to the work of God. Who will make straight what he has made bent?"Originally posted by Chin Eng:as I had emphasized many times, anyone not believing in the Bible, it's ok... they do not recognise the authority of the Bible, and that's that.
to anyone else believing in the Bible as the word of God, that authority has already been decided. Can you point out which part of the Bible speaks in support of homosexuality? I like to learn from you.
the passages in Romans and 1 Corinthians were written addressed to GENTILE (non Jewish) Christians, as opposed to many parts of the OT that were written to address JEWS or the HEBREW people.
My entire argument is NOT towards non-Christians (however you define these non-Christians to be whether it's atheist, agnostic, gay activists etc). My argument is towards Christians who profess to believe in the Bible.
-Ecclesiastes 7:13 -
excatly. u don't seem them avoiding clothing of mixed fibres do u?Originally posted by F Bunta:I agree with Heng@. It's written that God stated that everything in the scriptures are iron laws that cannot be changed, and yet some humans changed them just to suit their own convenience. -
This statement is only partly true. The true part is that humans can and wil interprete anything to their convenience.Originally posted by F Bunta:I agree with Heng@. It's written that God stated that everything in the scriptures are iron laws that cannot be changed, and yet some humans changed them just to suit their own convenience.
The part of something being written that "God stated that everything in the scriptures are iron laws that cannot be changed" is a little dubious. What cannot be changed is the content (think a verse in Revelation supports this). There are very few so-called "iron laws" in the Bible. There are probably ten in the OT (10 Commandments), and probably only two in the NT (Love God, Love others as God has loved us). Things written by the Apostles in the letters pertains to public and private conduct that may apply to certain groups of people, many of these points are actually pretty practical.
Along the lines of homosexuality, why not broaden the scope to include bigamy (which is condoned in the OT), bestiality and paedophiles. So where do we draw the line? I am sure even non-Christians has lines drawn somewhere with regards to these behaviour (natural or unnatural). So happens that the majority of the Christian draw the line at same sex marriage. -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
so maybe they draw the line there then. But there is a duplicity that bothers the rest of us.
This statement is only partly true. The true part is that humans can and wil interprete anything to their convenience.
The part of something being written that "God stated that everything in the scriptures are iron laws that cannot be changed" is a little dubious. What cannot be changed is the content (think a verse in Revelation supports this). There are very few so-called "iron laws" in the Bible. There are probably ten in the OT (10 Commandments), and probably only two in the NT (Love God, Love others as God has loved us). Things written by the Apostles in the letters pertains to public and private conduct that may apply to certain groups of people, many of these points are actually pretty practical.
Along the lines of homosexuality, why not broaden the scope to include bigamy (which is condoned in the OT), bestiality and paedophiles. [b]So where do we draw the line? I am sure even non-Christians has lines drawn somewhere with regards to these behaviour (natural or unnatural). So happens that the majority of the Christian draw the line at same sex marriage.[/b] -
Originally posted by HENG@:
know what? I sort of expected that seeing that it's part of your siggie.... haha
"Give thought to the work of God. Who will make [b]straight what he has made bent?"
-Ecclesiastes 7:13[/b]
So you think the reference is to a "straight" guy vs a "bent" (homo) guy?
The book of Ecclesiastes is sometimes considered a pessimistic and discouraging book. But, it should not be viewed this way. It is true that Solomon devotes most of the book to a consideration of the futility of life (the word "vanity" occurs 37 times). But, this view is approached in the context of life "under the sun" (a phrase which occurs 29 times). In other words, life is only vain if we have a "this world" concept of life. Solomon's conclusion is a
warning against such an attitude. He encourages the reader instead to "remember thy Creator" and to "fear God, and keep His commandments". This God-centered approach to life puts everything in perspective, and gives greater purpose to all that we do.
Extracted from http://www.oconcofc.org/ecclesiastes.pdf.
Nothing in Ecclesiastes is about a gay life style. The writing was ascribed to King Solomon in his later years where he has gone through his life, in his so-called wisdom and realised that everything is empty without God.
Try reading Ecc 7:13 in another language and see if the supposed implication of gay lifestyle is still present.
This is a classic example of taking ONE verse out of an entire passage and reinterpreting it to suit one's agenda. -
in the days where all fibre is natural, it is just practical not to mix fibres because the shrinkage will cause the entire fabric to tear. We do use that much natural fibre nowadays so the purpose no longer exists - common knowledge.Originally posted by HENG@:excatly. u don't seem them avoiding clothing of mixed fibres do u?
AFTERTHOUGHT: my mom, who sews, mentioned once that some cloth just could not be sewn together, so may still apply to some fabric. One need to check with a seamstress or tailor. -
so a line can be drawn - as long as it's not a Christian one????Originally posted by HENG@:so maybe they draw the line there then. But there is a duplicity that bothers the rest of us.
what duplicity? care to explain?