|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 28, 2012 11:01:44 GMT 1
I'm a romantic soul myself, so i'm happy for whatever happy couple even if they happen to share the same gender. One of my former schoolmates has a happy relationship with her girlfriend (Now Fiance) for like years. I can see why people like Clint do not like the idea of gay marriages, but i'm open minded here myself. I think most of Europe is, or should be.
Look..Clint, i like you man. Hell i love all of you guys (Except you Buch, you limey bastard) but please dont let this tear apart the forum? Sort of leave it here on this topic, burry it and do the epace pipe thing?
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 28, 2012 11:03:58 GMT 1
That's a good idea.
Clint - as with the Chick Fil A people, I'm not exactly surprised by your homophobia and your judgement of me. It's just that because it's you, I'm insulted. And telling me that "it's cool because I'm a sinner too" does not make it any less so or help in any way. My sins, Clint, which are numerous, do not include kissing men. I'm insulted when you say that they do.
Now do me a favour - throw me one, scripture-heavy, evasive, impersonal, substance-free rebuttal -- and then leave it alone.
|
|
Aerecura
Commander
Calliope Queen
Posts: 244
|
Post by Aerecura on Jul 28, 2012 16:52:45 GMT 1
And I still don't understand the 'immoral' and 'wrong' about being gay... is bisexual condemned by the same knife? For example - I myself have a boyfriend. I am in a straight relationship, and very happily so - I love Linders, and we're happy together. However, before he and I got together, I was not limiting my seeking of a relationship to just men - and the reason I am with Linders is not just because he is a man, he just happens to be the person I fell in love with. There have been times I have been very attracted to certain women, and if I was not with Linders, I might be dating a woman. Does that make me immoral? Or is the fact that I am in a straight relationship now 'exonerate' me? This is a good point, and I often find myself wondering about it. In addition...Clint, I don't want to insult your intelligence, because I'm sure you've heard these arguments before. I also don't want to start anything - I genuinely want to know the answer to this. I have posed this question to several Christians who do not approve of homosexuality and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. However - there are several verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality (and the Leviticus codes are really the ones I'm thinking of here) but then go on to state other laws, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, not eating shellfish, not charging interest on loans, etc. etc. (I believe there are about 610 in total, although don't quote me). So - and again, I really am asking this out of curiosity - do you find eating pork or wearing mixed fabrics immoral? If not, why not? In other words, what I suppose I am asking is this - why is it permissible to take some sections of the Bible literally but not others? And now I am going to try to extricate myself from this thread and not let my personal views get any more involved in it, because I'm a silly pacifist and all.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 28, 2012 17:22:01 GMT 1
And I still don't understand the 'immoral' and 'wrong' about being gay... is bisexual condemned by the same knife? For example - I myself have a boyfriend. I am in a straight relationship, and very happily so - I love Linders, and we're happy together. However, before he and I got together, I was not limiting my seeking of a relationship to just men - and the reason I am with Linders is not just because he is a man, he just happens to be the person I fell in love with. There have been times I have been very attracted to certain women, and if I was not with Linders, I might be dating a woman. Does that make me immoral? Or is the fact that I am in a straight relationship now 'exonerate' me? This is a good point, and I often find myself wondering about it. In addition...Clint, I don't want to insult your intelligence, because I'm sure you've heard these arguments before. I also don't want to start anything - I genuinely want to know the answer to this. I have posed this question to several Christians who do not approve of homosexuality and have never gotten a satisfactory answer. However - there are several verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality (and the Leviticus codes are really the ones I'm thinking of here) but then go on to state other laws, such as not wearing clothing of mixed fabrics, not eating shellfish, not charging interest on loans, etc. etc. (I believe there are about 610 in total, although don't quote me). So - and again, I really am asking this out of curiosity - do you find eating pork or wearing mixed fabrics immoral? If not, why not? In other words, what I suppose I am asking is this - why is it permissible to take some sections of the Bible literally but not others? And now I am going to try to extricate myself from this thread and not let my personal views get any more involved in it, because I'm a silly pacifist and all. I was told that the Leviticus stuff is all outdated... or mostly outdated... and is not necessarily valid anymore... because some Church Edicts (or edicts in general, religious or otherwise) used to be done for health reasons - for example, the thing with pork and shellfish was originally verboten because it used to be an unclean type of food, because of certain bacterias that were present in those foods and were not originally as easy to clean out as they are today... and, because it used to be verboten due to health, the easiest way to get the masses to obey a law was to have the Church declare it (because people used to fear for their 'immortal souls' a lot more than they do now, and now it's just a thing in the bible but the health reason is no longer valid. And I think I rambled a bit there - did I just make any sense? ;D Though I do find it amusing that so many people pick and choose their religious beliefs; they latch on to one part of the bible and ignore another... I knew so many people in my old hometown like that... self-righteous wankers... I am never going back there again.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 28, 2012 17:42:38 GMT 1
I dont think you should believe everything the bible says, if only because of the trivia you said there Lily, it;s also because a lot of it was ripped out. Such as the book of Eve which from what i heard, was quite raunchy.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 28, 2012 17:54:52 GMT 1
Also, I could be wrong, but... the Bible was written by men... not necessarily by God Himself, so how do we really know that it all is what God intended? And, again, I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the Bible was written in a way to downplay women's roles in Biblical history.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 28, 2012 17:58:38 GMT 1
Well, there were loads of guys who had an entr in the bible, so someone fucked up somewhere i'm sure. And yeh, again the censorship later didnt help women;s rights either. although some movements in england in the Renaisance did believe women deserved mroe respect.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on Jul 28, 2012 19:06:46 GMT 1
Exactly. God is holy. No sin can approach him. Before Christ came, the only way to be near him was through the imperfect system of blood sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice of his life on the cross made it not about the legalese. AKA It’s not about how many lambs one sacrifices or if one says just the right words to the priest. Another verse in Romans (10:9) says that “If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
A brief clarification of sin: We have all sinned. From the time we have understanding of our actions (I think that varies from person to person) we have all screwed up somehow. There is no hierarchy of bad sin v. good sin. Sin is sin. Therefore we are all separated from God. Unless we accept the free offer of God’s Grace. So to answer the final question on your post: No. Nothing we can do exonerates us. I’m not focusing on your bisexuality or anything specific. We cannot get to God on our own terms. This is what makes Christianity unique among religions. Every other religion (at least all I know of) is about a progression of accomplishing goals to reach paradise. Christianity throws that out. We CAN’T reach paradise. Not on our own steam. Which is what makes it all the more amazing that this implacable God died for us.
To be clear, I’m not against Gay Marriage. See my posts above on that point. And I have no wish to cause any more conflict. As soon as I have answered the honest questions here, the topic is done for me.
I owe you an apology then. I honestly thought you said you were Gay. Hence my wording. I did judge you then. I am sorry.
No I do not. In Acts 10, the very Jewish disciple Peter was given a vision where he was shown all the forbidden things of Leviticus, and told “take & eat.” Peter of course said no. “Do not call anything unpure that I have made clean” Shortly thereafter, Christianity was no longer limited to Jewish people. A very simple allegory is overwriting a file. Before Christ’s sacrifice, the only way to achieve a resemblance of knowing God was live a blameless life. Since we as sinful creatures cannot achieve that, God created a system of rules to make it clearer. Paul & Peter were both very clear on the point that the faith is not about rules and procedures, but about a relationship with Jesus.
Aarecura/Lily – To pick and choose the passages they like in the bible was wrong. The fact that this put you off from their faith is proof enough of its falsehood. It’s all or nothing, which I think is why a lot of churches today are tripping on their own feet.
I won’t get into this too deeply, but I don’t want it to appear that I’m ignoring it. Throughout the first through the third century, Christianity was a lot tighter than it is now. It had to be, as to mention it got you a front row seat at the lion show. Therefore, it was very important that the source material be kept pure. The source materials we have on the New Testament are more verified than the Illiad of Homer. I’m not scholar enough to tell you what their names are. But I do know that multiple conferences (Like, 20) were held in various cities to determine the New Testament Canon. Only a few books that were removed held any sort of Godly inspiration. The Gospel of Thomas for example, focused on the Coptic sect and was propaganda. The Gospel of Jesus contains contradictions with multiple other canon texts. The Book of Enoch (from the Catholic Apocrypha) was excluded because it was super long and didn’t apply to the other sections. I challenge anyone who thinks the bible was a conglomeration of people working individually with no deity overseeing it to read it and find any serious contradictions.
I hope I’ve not offended anyone here. I think that since this topic is causing issues, any replies with questions you want me to answer should be PM’d to me. That’s not to leave me with the last word, so feel free to go on here, but I’ll stay out of it unless contacted, that way to cause less problems.
|
|
|
Post by Lily Ariel Linders on Jul 28, 2012 19:46:54 GMT 1
So to answer the final question on your post: No. Nothing we can do exonerates us. I’m not focusing on your bisexuality or anything specific. We cannot get to God on our own terms. This is what makes Christianity unique among religions. I see. But my question about exoneration was not because I felt I 'needed' to be exonerated... or wanted you to say I was... I am actually quite satisfied with who I am. I was actually trying to prove a point. If nothing we can do exonerates us, then what is the point of trying to 'get Christ's forgiveness' and 'get into Paradise'? It’s not about how many lambs one sacrifices or if one says just the right words to the priest. Another verse in Romans (10:9) says that “If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” I see. But, are there not priests at deathbeds who absolve dying people of their sins? So that if a dying person said "I am sorry for all the horrible things I did and I pledge my soul to God" but they don't really mean it for whatever reason, how would the priest know not to absolve? Also, if you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead just means that you're saying "I'm sorry for doing bad things, and I believe God raised him..." but, while you might believe the raising, you still might not truly be sorry for doing horrible things. That was my point. I am sorry for all my questions... but... I just don't see homosexuality or bisexuality as a sin and I was hoping to get a straight answer as to the "Why" in my original question. I have been asking that for years and have never gotten a straight answer. All anyone ever says is "Because God says so" and then a lot go on to spout the whole procreation BS. Those are not answers. Well, not answers that actually tell me "Why". And maybe I should back off so as not to inflame people's rages, I really don't want to make anyone mad at me... I just felt I had to throw my two cents in...
|
|
Aerecura
Commander
Calliope Queen
Posts: 244
|
Post by Aerecura on Jul 28, 2012 22:56:26 GMT 1
To both Lily and Clint - thank you for your answers. It still doesn't completely answer my question, but it certainly clarifies.
And now I'm really truly not going to post in this thread anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 28, 2012 22:57:09 GMT 1
I owe you an apology then. I honestly thought you said you were Gay. Hence my wording. I did judge you then. I am sorry. It's my wording that's at fault - I'm bisexual. When I said that kissing men was 'not one of my sins' I meant that it's something I do, but it's not a sin.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 28, 2012 23:17:35 GMT 1
Clint makes a damn good point about PM's --- I'd appreciate it if we stopped here and carried on in private. Yeah, I know I started it and I was the most personal. Hypocrite.
--
So yeah. Please try to either let this business dry up, or move to private.
|
|
|
Post by Warhammer Gorvar on Jul 29, 2012 10:12:32 GMT 1
Reply videos.
I know, bitching on them is the same as bitching about youtube comments...but seriously! Most of the time said person is annoying for the sake of being an annoying asshole and they dont even reply to the video they were supposed to reply to!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Jul 29, 2012 12:27:13 GMT 1
I once saw a fifteen minute video of a guy responding to a guy who criticised HIS video of him explaining that he disagreed with the Angry Video Game Nerd's decision to ask for money to make his movie.
I couldn't understand what kind of life would give somebody fifteen minutes' worth of care about that.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Buch on Sept 15, 2012 14:16:10 GMT 1
Behold: the stupidest piece of film I've ever seen, by far and away.
Remind me never to move to America.
|
|