Obama/Biden versus Romney/Ryan?

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by Renee750il

Something I always find interesting -- and telling -- in our political threads is how they always take a turn for the religious.

Since we're a pretty good cross-section of the public, I have to think that our politics are a whole lot more intertwined with religion than we want to believe.

Of course. Because most religious base their morality off of their religion and non-religious base their morality from themselves. And of course their morality comes into play in politics because they want their morals passed as law... It's a never ending circle.

[RBark]

Originally Posted by Linds

I'm not going to try and convince someone who thinks their religion finds homosexuality a sin that they're wrong. As long as they understand that their belief stems from their religion and don't use that to try and push for laws based off that religious belief then I'm completely cool with them.

I would like to think that people who are religious would have enough respect for their religious freedom that they would fight for freedom from religion in the law.

+1

[RBark]

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

Well... I guess we will just disagree then. The language used there tells me something different than it tells you.

"Unnatural and shameful" is pretty clear to me.

Also, i've read all your links and watched your videos. How about you return the favor? See the case from my point of view.

http://www.reformedonline.com/view/r...ne/homosex.htm

The person you linked uses the Old Testament as a basis for homosexuality being a sin. Which is irrelevant, because in which case, just about everyone in the world (and likely the author himself) is damned to hell.

So the answer to things like that is a simple "get off your high horse until you're good enough to mount it."

Simply asking for forgiveness is not enough, one must change, and strive to do so. Which, while I am most definitely not advocating you to take such an action, for as long as you are remarried, you have no basis for what you say.

So no, it's not clear to you. You're merely picking and choosing what you want to follow and believe.

[Barbara!]

Originally Posted by RBark

The person you linked uses the Old Testament as a basis for homosexuality being a sin. Which is irrelevant, because in which case, just about everyone in the world (and likely the author himself) is damned to hell.

So the answer to things like that is a simple "get off your high horse until you're good enough to mount it."

Simply asking for forgiveness is not enough, one must change, and strive to do so. Which, while I am most definitely not advocating you to take such an action, for as long as you are remarried, you have no basis for what you say.

So no, it's not clear to you. You're merely picking and choosing what you want to follow and believe.

Good post.

[sparks19]

Originally Posted by RBark

The person you linked uses the Old Testament as a basis for homosexuality being a sin. Which is irrelevant, because in which case, just about everyone in the world (and likely the author himself) is damned to hell.

So the answer to things like that is a simple "get off your high horse until you're good enough to mount it."

Simply asking for forgiveness is not enough, one must change, and strive to do so. Which, while I am most definitely not advocating you to take such an action, for as long as you are remarried, you have no basis for what you say.

So no, it's not clear to you. You're merely picking and choosing what you want to follow and believe.

But he can't DIVORCE me so... he's stuck with me forever.

if it came to be that we couldn't be married anymore he would still always be my very best friend

[RBark]

I'll just post something that was written by someone I know.

Biblically, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality anyway. It's not a concept or subject that is covered. Every verse used as evidence is taken out of context.

The most quoted verse is Leviticus 18:22, "..man lie with another man is abomination." But nobody quotes 18:21 to get the context. 21 speaks about child sacrifice and mentions somebody named Molech. Seems like a rather odd lead-in to condemn homosexuality, huh? However, if you know the actual history here, Molech was a Canaanite god that many of the Israelites kept going back to worship.

His fertility ritual included a parent sacrificing one of their children, and then having ritual sex with a temple prostitute. Since many of these shrine prostitutes were men, the father would have anal sex with them. Indeed, the word 'abomination' used there is the Hebrew tow`ebah, which means a detestable thing, but has heavy implications of idolatry. It doesn't make sense to say that homosexuality is idolatry, but it does to say taking part in a fertility ritual to worship Molech is idolatry.

Another popular verse is Romans 1, where it mentions that man had become so wicked that God gave the people over to depravity, to where they abandoned their natural desires for unnatural ones. Also, there is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. I mention these both because they are actually related.

Take Romans in context... here Paul is giving the Romans a history lesson, of how mankind back in the beginning turned against God and worshiped other spirits and became depraved. This is going all the way back to when God first turning against mankind with the great flood during Noah's time. Now go back and read Genesis 6 to see what lead up to the flood. It speaks of mankind's wickedness, but it specifically mentions something else... that the "Sons of God" lusted after the "daughters of men." This is referring to angels procreating with humans, creating the race of giants, the half-angelic/demonic race known as the Nephilim.

Now let's look at the story of Lot's guests while he was staying in Sodom, used to say that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. Two messengers from God come to visit Lot to deliver a warning. While there, some men outside demand that Lot turn these men over to them so they can have sex with them. Lot refuses, because it is a big taboo in Hebrew culture to dishonor your guests, so he gives the mob his daughters to rape instead (what a great dad!) Those who are anti-gay say that the men wanted to have sex with Lot's male guests therefore they were gay, but that doesn't make sense because they happily raped his daughters instead. Others try to defend homosexuality and say the issue was that they wanted to rape somebody. The real truth, however, is that Lot's guests were ANGELS. God doesn't really care about homosexuality (or sadly, rape for that matter, a few shekels will cover that) but he does get really pissed when humans have sex with angels. Pissed enough to flood the entire world.

Now, is this a fluke that I'm making a huge leap to connect, or is there some other evidence to show that I'm correct in asserting that this is the actual context, and both these are linked? Well, if you look at the apocryphal book known as the Testament of Naphtali, it says:

"25 The Gentiles went astray, and forsook the Lord, and charged their order, and obeyed stocks and stones, spirits of deceit.

26 But ye shall not be so, my children, recognizing in the firmament, in the earth, and in the sea, and in all created things, the Lord who made all things, that ye become not as Sodom, which changed the order of nature.

27 In like manner the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, whom the Lord cursed at the flood, on whose account He made the earth without inhabitants and fruitless."

Again, we have the same language Paul used in Romans 1, how mankind turned against God and worshiped spirits and idols. Then it uses the same language of 'changing the order of nature', and it specifically links the events of Sodom and the flood. 'Watchers' here refers to angels. Both men and angels changed the natural order by lusting after each other. So, this isn't a modern interpretation of linking these events, but rather something that made sense to the people back when Romans was written.

So, to recap:

1) God hates idolatry. This is one of the most common themes in the Bible.

2) God also apparently hates interspecies sex between men and angelic beings.
Maybe we need a godhatesnephilim.com?
Diablo 3 is an abomination! (Not specifically because of the demon stuff, because of the main character being a halfbreed!)

3) God doesn't seem to care about homosexuality (or masturbation for that matter) enough to really write about either one. Knock yourselves out!

Oh, and later...

I did mention the hospitality aspect, but the Naphtali text does link the Nephilim issue to Sodom, and the guests were angels, so I think it fits.

Still, your main point is right when it comes to Lot's character. The idea of handing over your daughters actually being the moral thing to do, or that passing on the family line at any cost - including incest - is considering the best choice, or that even having to worry about sexing an angel... all of these come from a culture and a morality that are so very far removed from out modern culture.

There are some timeless lessons in the Bible that are still great, but trying to use every single part as a guide for living today is just insane.

[Puckstop31]

RBARK,

I have to admit, that is some stuff I have not seen before. You are making me do some homework. I promise to do my best to offer a thoughtful responce to it.

I appreciate the challenging stuff. Is there a link to the entire work you posted parts of?

[RBark]

That is the entire work, so to speak. This person is highly educated in such matters, and he posted those as a response. So it's not a part of a whole, but rather, they are both responses to people who were quoting short verses as proof.

EDIT: I should note, I do have permission to share her comments posted above, but she would very much rather stay out of this issue. She did not respond because she wanted to involve herself in the subject of homosexuality being OK or not.

However, despite the harshness of what she wrote, and how it portrays the Bible in a poor light, she is a believer in God and while I do not speak for her, my impression has always been that she is more concerned about the message, not the details.

[Puckstop31]

Originally Posted by RBark

The person you linked uses the Old Testament as a basis for homosexuality being a sin. Which is irrelevant, because in which case, just about everyone in the world (and likely the author himself) is damned to hell.

So the answer to things like that is a simple "get off your high horse until you're good enough to mount it."

Simply asking for forgiveness is not enough, one must change, and strive to do so. Which, while I am most definitely not advocating you to take such an action, for as long as you are remarried, you have no basis for what you say.

So no, it's not clear to you. You're merely picking and choosing what you want to follow and believe.

So this is what it feels like? (Inside joke)

Did you miss or ignore the section about The New Testament confirming the teachings of the old?

I agree that just simply asking for forgivness is not enough. I have changed, because of Christ's work on the cross. A new covenant came with his death and resurrection. Something, by His grace, I strive to be worthy of. I'm not perfect.

My first marriage was an act of rebellion, I know that now. MANY obstacles were placed in my way that I should have heeded. But I didn't. I suffered for it. I came back to Christ, admitted I needed salvation and asked to be forgiven. Because of His grace, I was. Now I move forward, tying my best to live the way He shows us.

Talking down to people never wins anybody over to your side. Lord KNOWS I learned that lesson. LOL

[RBark]

Originally Posted by Puckstop31

So this is what it feels like? (Inside joke)

Did you miss or ignore the section about The New Testament confirming the teachings of the old?

I agree that just simply asking for forgivness is not enough. I have changed, because of Christ's work on the cross. A new covenant came with his death and resurrection. Something, by His grace, I strive to be worthy of. I'm not perfect.

My first marriage was an act of rebellion, I know that now. MANY obstacles were placed in my way that I should have heeded. But I didn't. I suffered for it. I came back to Christ, admitted I needed salvation and asked to be forgiven. Because of His grace, I was. Now I move forward, tying my best to live the way He shows us.

Talking down to people never wins anybody over to your side. Lord KNOWS I learned that lesson. LOL

No, I know that many do believe that the New Testament says that all the rules in the Old Testament applies. Many do not, as well, but that is an entirely another debate.

My point was, and is, that if one is going to cite the Old Testament as a basis that homosexuality is a sin (there are a LOT of compelling arguments that even the Old Testament doesn't particularly care about homosexuality, but that is besides the point here.)

Anyway, if it is the basis for homosexuality being a sin, then you must first explain all the other sins you are committing without remorse. See the picture Fran posted earlier in the thread.


In regards to this;

My first marriage was an act of rebellion, I know that now. MANY obstacles were placed in my way that I should have heeded. But I didn't. I suffered for it. I came back to Christ, admitted I needed salvation and asked to be forgiven. Because of His grace, I was. Now I move forward, tying my best to live the way He shows us.

That's all fine and good, however how is that any different than a person saying, with just one word replaced;

My homosexuality was an act of rebellion, I know that now. MANY obstacles were placed in my way that I should have heeded. But I didn't. I suffered for it. I came back to Christ, admitted I needed salvation and asked to be forgiven. Because of His grace, I was. Now I move forward, tying my best to live the way He shows us.

How, then, would that be any different? In both cases, you and the homosexual person are continuing your sin, even if it was forgiven.

Talking down to people never wins anybody over to your side. Lord KNOWS I learned that lesson. LOL

And this quote here, is an even more strange thing to say from where you are standing. You are speaking here, condemning a large group of people (possibly myself included, depending on how my relationship with my SO fits in) to eternal suffering in Hell, in the name of God... and you're concerned whether I am talking down to you?

I mean, that's kind of really backwards logic. Every single post you've made here is the very definition of talking down to people. It is difficult for me to understand how you would not see that, if you're so concerned with treating people respectably while pondering their eternal suffering.