Post Reply
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Gay Guy Came to Church - A Puzzle
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 12:06PM #11
Kimrdhbsms
Posts: 181

And, actually, Paul sometimes "had love."  I think he was a split personality, or "his" writings were actually from more than one person.  Or perhaps, Paul the person was a true Christian, full of love, but he was possessed of a demon who popped out in many of his writings.....


(And, no, I don't literally believe in demons -- this is meant to be metaphoric.  Paul really sounded like he sometimes "had love" and other times was focused on fear and punishment and bitterness and rules. Not to mention self-hatred.  Many have postulated that his self-hatred and some of his pronouncements were because he was a self-hating homosexual, who joined the Christians because they accepted him anyway, but then couldn't accept himself.  Poor guy.  But, he did lasting harm to Christianity, not to mention murdering James.  It seems logical that if there really were such a thing as an "anti-Christ" it would be within a few years of the Christ.  Why wait thousands of years?)

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:20PM #12
DaLight
Posts: 18

May 29, 2009 -- 12:06PM, Kimrdhbsms wrote:


And, actually, Paul sometimes "had love."  I think he was a split personality, or "his" writings were actually from more than one person.  Or perhaps, Paul the person was a true Christian, full of love, but he was possessed of a demon who popped out in many of his writings.....


(And, no, I don't literally believe in demons -- this is meant to be metaphoric.  Paul really sounded like he sometimes "had love" and other times was focused on fear and punishment and bitterness and rules. Not to mention self-hatred.  Many have postulated that his self-hatred and some of his pronouncements were because he was a self-hating homosexual, who joined the Christians because they accepted him anyway, but then couldn't accept himself.  Poor guy.  But, he did lasting harm to Christianity, not to mention murdering James.  It seems logical that if there really were such a thing as an "anti-Christ" it would be within a few years of the Christ.  Why wait thousands of years?)




Just curious, do you even know what love is? Is it a fuzzy feeling that sexually attracts whomever you see? By your definition we should marry or sleep with everyone we "love" right? Marriage has lots of prerequisites, just one of them being love.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:25PM #13
leguru
Posts: 167

Love is NOT a prerequisite to marriage. It is not on the marriage application. In most cultures marriage is arrainged by the parents. AND love is not a warm feeling, despite the media's attempts to show it as such. Love is a series of actions which prove that someone else's happiness is more important to you than your own happiness. That warm feeling is LUST. Nothing wrong with lust, mind you, but it is not love. Dr. Laura Schlessinger recommends you date seriously for at least a year and a half so you can see if you can both develop love for one another. A one-night-stand is not love, never has been. Wink


If you search the Greek words for love, you'll find they used three different words to show what was really meant. Eros was used to show selfish, pleasure inducing "love", more correctly translated as lust (root of the english word erotic). Philia indicated "brotherly" love, love of family, also somewhat selfish, but a little more altruistic (Philadelphia). Agape, no english equivalent (maybe compassion), was love beyond oneself, basically what I defined above. Agape was the type of love that Jesus tried to teach. Not an easy task.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:31PM #14
DaLight
Posts: 18

May 27, 2009 -- 5:19PM, Kimrdhbsms wrote:


DaLight -- Be careful whom you believe.  St. Paul was the anti-Christ.  Jesus left his brother James to be in charge of his church.  Paul murdered James and took over, and subverted Jesus' gospel of love and inclusion. 


Jesus would be fine with gay marriage, or anything else based on love.




I'm sorry but this comment just makes me want to laugh. A better self-respecting answer would be "I dont believe in Jesus or the Bible" than try to come up with unfounded statements to fit one's own opinion. You're saying Paul is demonic because I quoted him. What else would you say if I quoted Old Testament Leviticus 18:22-23?


18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a  male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman;32 it is a detestable act.33 18:23 You must not have sexual  intercourse34 with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an  animal to have sexual intercourse with it;35 it is a perversion.36


So now Jesus came between Leviticus and Romans, so since he didnt state the change of attitude about homosexuality from Leviticus, we can by default assume his views are the same as the rest.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:39PM #15
leguru
Posts: 167

So now Jesus came between Leviticus and Romans, so since he didnt state the change of attitude about homosexuality from Leviticus, we can by default assume his views are the same as the rest.



YOU can "by default assume his views are the same as the rest." Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He did condemn adultery.  Laughing

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:51PM #16
DaLight
Posts: 18

May 29, 2009 -- 9:39PM, leguru wrote:


So now Jesus came between Leviticus and Romans, so since he didnt state the change of attitude about homosexuality from Leviticus, we can by default assume his views are the same as the rest.



YOU can "by default assume his views are the same as the rest." Jesus never condemned homosexuality. He did condemn adultery. 



Neither did he condemn incest...whats your point? He didnt need to because he was quoting everything from the Old Testament. He said he didnt come to abolish the law but to make it even stronger...so not only are you not supposed sleep with your own gender, but you cant lust about it in your heart either.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 9:55PM #17
DaLight
Posts: 18

May 29, 2009 -- 9:25PM, leguru wrote:


Love is NOT a prerequisite to marriage. It is not on the marriage application.


 




Your are correct .. prerequisite was not a good word choice .. maybe a privilege..


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 29, 2009 - 11:14PM #18
clyde5001
Posts: 3,501

He said he didnt come to abolish the law but to make it even stronger...


Just a point of fact:


The "Law" refers to the covenant God has with the Jewish people. It does not apply in any way, shape, or form to gentiles - including Xians. So you are not required to follow anything in the Jewish bible - not even the "10 commandments". Gentiles must follow the Noachide Covenant...but there is nothing about homosexuality in that.


Which is why we (Jews) generally do not get bent out of shape over homosexuality, and will ordain gay people to the rabbinate, and perform same-sex marriage. We look at conservative Xians as if they are from another plant - and why intermarriage with Xians is a far greater sin than being gay (which is not).


 

Shema Y'Israel Adnai Eloheinu, Adonei Echad.

Am Y'Israel Chai!

23,298 posts as of 2/27/2009

3,208 after the transition.

A 20,090 difference.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2009 - 1:18AM #19
Kimrdhbsms
Posts: 181

Dalight -- First of all, you have a bad translation of the Bible. 


Beyond that, Jesus did cancel the old testament laws.  He also contradicted himself, as you quoted.  That's one of the many contradictions in the Bible, showing that it's very flawed. 


Knock yourself out.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  May 30, 2009 - 4:07AM #20
DaLight
Posts: 18

May 30, 2009 -- 1:18AM, Kimrdhbsms wrote:


Dalight -- First of all, you have a bad translation of the Bible. 


Beyond that, Jesus did cancel the old testament laws.  He also contradicted himself, as you quoted.  That's one of the many contradictions in the Bible, showing that it's very flawed. 


Knock yourself out.




I dont even think you are reading it, let alone translate one. There is a difference between entrance to heaven and running the good faith for rewards. Salvation is not by works but reward is. NO CONTRADICTIONS. Just because God lets us in heaven for His Son's sacrifice doesnt mean He is ok with us swimming in sin.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook