Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lets just say I've studied many of his arguments at length and they are harder to dismiss than I once thought. I'm not certain how much I agree directly with his actual "theology" since I don't consider myself a Messianic Jew, but I am somewhat of a progressive non-denominational Christian and I don't automatically dismiss an argument as a "garbage argument" until it is proven without a doubt to be garbage. When it comes to this topic, I'm not entirely decided but I consider context very important because the entire Law hangs on the two Greatest Commandments and I consider "why" something is called a "sin" as being more important than "that" it is called a sin. The even most conservatives I talk to agree that understanding the intention of the law is more important legalistically follow it word for word. This approach helps alot when dealing with the more violent verses of the bible especially. I also look at scripture as being more "inspired" than "inerrant," though I do consider the possibility that they were inerrant in the original manuscripts.
The issue of homosexuality is one that conservative Christians are currently losing very badly on the logical and scientific fronts because they cannot prove how it always violates the Royal law of Love (especially when any denying 5-10% of the population any real hope of sexual intimacy is arguably unloving in itself) and there is now ample evidence that it this orientation starts in the womb. When Scripture appears to conflict with something that seems this questionable, alternatives need to be investigated. In this case, there are possible alternatives because every instance where homosexuality is directly related to either rape or idolatry.
The only potentially non-rape/idolatry argument is where Paul says it is against "nature," but since recent research has shown homosexuality is very common in the animal kingdom and may even serve a natural evolutionary or ecological role, this becomes quite questionable and we may want to consider that Paul was referring to the individual idolaters own "nature" since God gave them over to these passions based on their idolatry. Something tells me most children who realized there was something different about them didn't worship some animal statue just before it I know it doesn't sound like a perfect argument, but when faced with certain scientific realities that appear on the surface to contradict tradtional understandings of bible verses, reunderstandings may be the best option rather than throwing the bible in the "garbage." Is it better to set the bible on the pillar of inerrancy when a simple breeze an push it off into the abyss or is it better to set it on top of the mountain of inspiration where a breeze will only push it down to the next ledge?...whoa thats deep lol.
I don't trust Science all that much unless I have done research myself....
As for gathering sticks, God gave a specific command to the nation of Israel not to do any work on the sabbath and that man broke that command, so God ordered him to be stoned to death.
I cant remember the rape part you are talking about.
Clothes in mixed material is a ceremonial type of law and all ceremonial laws are no longer in effect.
As for eating shellfish, we really shouldnt be eating them because they are full of toxins. Unclean foods made a person unclean until evening, but no one was ever stoned for eating uncleaned foods back then. Yes all things created by God are clean, but all food isnt meant to be food. If alot of folks didnt eat pork and shellfish all the time, im sure the sick and shut in prayer list wouldnt be as long at many churches.
Wrong. Jesus didn't make any distinction between ceremonial and moral laws, nor do Jews. There is no such thing in Judaism. That's a fabrication of Christians to remove the less convenient laws.
And fish and shellfish are actually quite healthy. And considering most religiously devout eat processed garbage all day long, they're clearly hypocrites anyway.
As an Episcopalian, I am very open-minded and accepting of GLBT. It's their choice and it is not my place to judge them.
However, I find Queen James Bible to be very disturbing if it is actually true that they are trying to create one. Again, it is not my place to judge because in the end, God will sort everything out.
I don't trust Science all that much unless I have done research myself....
I understand. I'm not a scientist myself so all I can do is logically analyze the initial argument made and then check the quality of responses to the argument.
I will say this in general though: for anyone assume that the regular researchers have a greater agenda to prove a genetic or prenatal cause to homosexual than conservative Christians (or Christian researchers employed by a Christian organization) have to disprove it is logically quite absurd. And yet, so many people (including me at one point) think like this as if every regular researcher is a kitchen appliance of the devil. We all need to realize that there is no contest in comparing agendas here because one group thinks their religion is at stake. If every regular researcher was gay, then you might have a good contest of agenda, but who seriously wants to make that claim?
Sure you do. And there are also people who claim to be abducted by aliens.
It's impossible to voluntarily alter one's attractions. It's an instantaneous chemical process in the brain, not a drawn out analytical determination. One can choose their behavior, but not their attractions.
If you are a heterosexual, did you have some big internal struggle or major life question regarding which gender you were attracted to?
Most likely no.
Most likely it arose naturally, as it does in the vast majority of the population, be they homosexual or heterosexual.
I bet you most homophobes actually do majorly question which gender they're attracted to, which is why they tend to attack gays. It's a scientifically supported defense mechanism against that which they hate within themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know it doesn't sound like a perfect argument, but when faced with certain scientific realities that appear on the surface to contradict tradtional understandings of bible verses, reunderstandings may be the best option rather than throwing the bible in the "garbage." Is it better to set the bible on the pillar of inerrancy when a simple breeze an push it off into the abyss or is it better to set it on top of the mountain of inspiration where a breeze will only push it down to the next ledge?...whoa thats deep lol.
