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 appreciate your honest journey and your point is well taken. Though I don't necessarily hold your take on the Bible seemingly being open to broad interpretation, I do appreciate your point of the need to honestly seek Christ in all areas of life.
One thing I wanted to mention... you have to remember that not all religions have the same end goal. All religions at their core are exclusive. Additionally, if you believe that truth as a category exists, then truth, by definition, is exclusive, meaning not all religions have the same end goal, and not all are true. Christianity at its very basic foundation is exclusive, and as such it will be exclusive on certain matters of life, whether it be death, resurrection, sin, heaven, hell, etc. When you say sometimes the writings need to be "reinterpreted", on what level? I ask because there is nothing new that anyone will discover after 2000 years of the same information being written down... the message is the same, and it is dangerous business to want to "reinterpret" the message to fit our society. It is not up to God's word to adapt, or change with the times.
One thing that strikes me when reading these message boards... for a book that others have said is "altered", "corrupted" and "unreliable",...it is curious that it is the best selling book of all time. The Bible has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so.
Yes, the Bible is all that you say, but it is a collection of the writings and chronicles of men--- not a divine manuscript dropped straight from the bonds of heaven... When I say "reinterpreted" I mean reassessed, evaluated, investigated further, researched... Sometimes on a case by case basis relevant to the context of the topic at hand. It's been done constantly throughout history. Why can't it be done by even us, as individuals, ourselves?
This is not such a bold or untenable concept. There wouldn't be concordances if even people quite devoted to the Bible themselves didn't need to find a way to translate or "reinterpret" it to fit any argument or situation that they were trying to advance. Correct? The point is--- there is no cut and dry with regard to the Bible. Using a concordance and the Bible I could virtually dispute ANYTHING that you are also using the Bible to prove. Right? This fact is undeniable really, especially when each of us is using our own particular style of creative "interpretation."
You cannot use the Bible to have 100% consistent and irrefutable rules by which to live. This is not possible, which is why the church leaders take, and have taken, it upon themselves to do this for the layperson-- the "flock", the "sheep"... Sometimes this works- sometimes this does not, but I imagine that each time one attempts to do so and gets others on board with their individual interpretation- they mean well and have made an earnest attempt. And if the "rules" then set down by a particular church or denomination work for specific people and they are not harming others- fine.
However, fortunately we as a society have evolved and become educated such that we are no longer at the mercy of the church alone to translate the Bible into the vernacular for us. The early churches decided that they must "interpret"/censor the chronicles of Jesus and the original books which comprised the entirety of the earliest New Testament for us lest we "confuse" ourselves unduly or be "lead astray" willy-nilly by those with access to ALL of the biblical writings of the New Testament (but who were not "ordained" with the "right" to do so...) Hence- The Council of Nicaea and the resultant "Creed of Nicaea" were born and then years later, the canonical books were "chosen", and many “versions” of the Bible were translated, updated, “reinterpreted” and compiled "for" us (with the eventual King James Version of the Bible being what we, as Christians today, are most familiar with) --- all to "help" us know just what to think and how to think it without any of those "superfluous" books or thoughts (or potential historical facts) heretofore part of the writings about or attributed to Jesus confusing us...
At one point along the way people like Martin Luther and John Calvin had the audacity to challenge the Catholic Church and "reinterpret" the purpose and meaning of Christianity and the writings of the New Testament for themselves... In fact, it was due to their staunch denial of the supremacy of the Catholic Church that they began the now Bible-centric version of most Christian based churches since they were desperately grasping at any means to undermine the "sanctity" and sovereign authority of the Catholic Church. I believe that in doing so--- their "doctrine" of bestowing all sovereignty to the words in the much “reinterpreted” Bible by insisting that within it lies the true words of God Himself, became NEARLY as dangerous as the Catholic Church's belief in its own omnipotence.
Get where I'm going here??? The danger lies not in the constant reflection upon and "reinterpreting" of the Bible, but rather--- in the steadfast denial of, and chastising by, those with their own agendas to allow the rest of us to do so at will... Frankly, I believe that (sadly) the Bible, and "organized" religion itself, takes more people away from Christ than it brings to it in many circumstances. I believe more emphasis should be placed upon Christ’s ultimate, yet very simple “command” merely to “love one another”- and to then have an open dialogue as to how we can best achieve this in our individual lives than to constantly waste valuable effort arguing about the merits or validity of two thousand year old, and oft “re (or “mis”) interpreted“, Bible verses… I believe that I can still be a (very good) Christian without believing that the words in a given Bible are the inerrant words of God Himself.
So, "why can’t we all just get along"?????????????????? ;-) Nuff said.
Last edited by js1mom; 05-21-2011 at 03:05 PM..
Reason: Typo
No doubt SOME of them do, yes. Actually probubly most on this forum do. Internet forums really show peoples true colors because they can separate themselves from reality on here and hide behind thier computer screens, but most christians arnt hateful twords homosexuals, they just dont agree with thier lifestyle and that should be ok, afterall we are a free country. As for me, I dont THINK being gay is natural and I have come to this conclusion simply by observing the natural human body, all religion aside However, I have always been sympathetic to the strugles of the gay community and think they should have just as much rights as anyone else. It wouldnt hurt anyone to allow them to get married or anything else.
Since you don't think it's natural, might I ask why it's prevelant in over 450 Animal species in the world like Penguins and Giraffes? Something being unnatural indicates it isn't found in nature. A computer is unnatural. Twinkies are unnatural. How does homosexuality fit that definition?
The problem is that most Christians disagree with a strawman argument, not reality. As you stated here, people don't like "their lifestyle". There is no such thing as the gay lifestyle. Just because some of the stereotypes are more vocal, doesn't mean it's all or even the majority of gays.
Would you think it fair if I said I hated the "heterosexual lifestyle" because all straight guys are promiscuous, and do everything they can to pickup women in bars, sleep with them, and then dump them while they move on to another girl the next night?
On one of my forums, the straight guys in the relationship section have a thread going on if the guys can sleep with a different woman every week. One guy is up to 25 or 30 different women he's slept with since January. That's a pretty disgusting lifestyle, so clearly I should disapprove of all heterosexuals right?
Yes, the Bible is all that you say, but it is a collection of the writings and chronicles of men--- not a divine manuscript dropped straight from the bonds of heaven... When I say "reinterpreted" I mean reassessed, evaluated, investigated further, researched... Sometimes on a case by case basis relevant to the context of the topic at hand. It's been done constantly throughout history. Why can't it be done by even us, as individuals, ourselves?
This is not such a bold or untenable concept. There wouldn't be concordances if even people quite devoted to the Bible themselves didn't need to find a way to translate or "reinterpret" it to fit any argument or situation that they were trying to advance. Correct? The point is--- there is no cut and dry with regard to the Bible. Using a concordance and the Bible I could virtually dispute ANYTHING that you are also using the Bible to prove. Right? This fact is undeniable really, especially when each of us is using our own particular style of creative "interpretation."
You cannot use the Bible to have 100% consistent and irrefutable rules by which to live. This is not possible, which is why the church leaders take, and have taken, it upon themselves to do this for the layperson-- the "flock", the "sheep"... Sometimes this works- sometimes this does not, but I imagine that each time one attempts to do so and gets others on board with their individual interpretation- they mean well and have made an earnest attempt. And if the "rules" then set down by a particular church or denomination work for specific people and they are not harming others- fine.
However, fortunately we as a society have evolved and become educated such that we are no longer at the mercy of the church alone to translate the Bible into the vernacular for us. The early churches decided that they must "interpret"/censor the chronicles of Jesus and the original books which comprised the entirety of the earliest New Testament for us lest we "confuse" ourselves unduly or be "lead astray" willy-nilly by those with access to ALL of the biblical writings of the New Testament (but who were not "ordained" with the "right" to do so...) Hence- The Council of Nicaea and the resultant "Creed of Nicaea" were born and then years later, the canonical books were "chosen", and many “versions†of the Bible were translated, updated, “reinterpreted†and compiled "for" us (with the eventual King James Version of the Bible being what we, as Christians today, are most familiar with) --- all to "help" us know just what to think and how to think it without any of those "superfluous" books or thoughts (or potential historical facts) heretofore part of the writings about or attributed to Jesus confusing us...
At one point along the way people like Martin Luther and John Calvin had the audacity to challenge the Catholic Church and "reinterpret" the purpose and meaning of Christianity and the writings of the New Testament for themselves... In fact, it was due to their staunch denial of the supremacy of the Catholic Church that they began the now Bible-centric version of most Christian based churches since they were desperately grasping at any means to undermine the "sanctity" and sovereign authority of the Catholic Church. I believe that in doing so--- their "doctrine" of bestowing all sovereignty to the words in the much “reinterpreted†Bible by insisting that within it lies the true words of God Himself, became NEARLY as dangerous as the Catholic Church's belief in its own omnipotence.
Get where I'm going here??? The danger lies not in the constant reflection upon and "reinterpreting" of the Bible, but rather--- in the steadfast denial of, and chastising by, those with their own agendas to allow the rest of us to do so at will... Frankly, I believe that (sadly) the Bible, and "organized" religion itself, takes more people away from Christ than it brings to it in many circumstances. I believe more emphasis should be placed upon Christ’s ultimate, yet very simple “command†merely to “love one anotherâ€- and to then have an open dialogue as to how we can best achieve this in our individual lives than to constantly waste valuable effort arguing about the merits or validity of two thousand year old, and oft “re (or “misâ€) interpreted“, Bible verses… I believe that I can still be a (very good) Christian without believing that the words in a given Bible are the inerrant words of God Himself.
So, "why can’t we all just get along"?????????????????? ;-) Nuff said.
Since you don't think it's natural, might I ask why it's prevelant in over 450 Animal species in the world like Penguins and Giraffes? Something being unnatural indicates it isn't found in nature. A computer is unnatural. Twinkies are unnatural. How does homosexuality fit that definition?
I have also wondered the same thing about the animals. I dont beleive being gay is a choice, but have wondered if it might be comparable to a mental imbalance or illness. The reason I dont thinkits a choice is because if it were, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that would cause them so much pain and scrutany from the rest of the world. As I said, I am sympathetic to the struggles of the gay community and think they should be left alone to live thier lives in peace.
Quote:
Would you think it fair if I said I hated the "heterosexual lifestyle" because all straight guys are promiscuous, and do everything they can to pickup women in bars, sleep with them, and then dump them while they move on to another girl the next night?
as I said before, its a free country. Your allowed to hate anything you wish
Would you think it fair if I said I hated the "heterosexual lifestyle" because all straight guys are promiscuous, and do everything they can to pickup women in bars, sleep with them, and then dump them while they move on to another girl the next night?
That immoral heterosexual lifestyle you describe is definitely condemned and held in utter contempt by true Christians who respect what the Bible says about it.
Quote:
Exodus 20: 7 THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
Proverbs 6:32, -"The one who commits ADULTERY with a woman is lacking in understanding; he that does it DESTROYS HIS OWN SOUL."
1 Corinthians 6:18-20, -"FLEE FORNICATION! Every SIN that a man doeth is without the body; but he hat committeth FORNICATION SINNETH AGAINST HIS OWN BODY. WHAT! Know ye not that your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are NOT YOUR OWN? For ye are BOUGHT WITH A PRICE; therefore glorify God in YOUR BODY, and in your spirit, WHICH ARE GOD'S.
Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, ADULTERY, FORNICATION, ....of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, THAT THEY WHICH DO SUCH THINGS SHALL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD."
That immoral heterosexual lifestyle you describe is definitely condemned and held in utter contempt by true Christians who respect what the Bible says about it.
Can I suggest using bold instead of all caps? All caps is akin to yelling and hard on the eyes, not to mention impossible for speech output users to understand.
I have also wondered the same thing about the animals. I dont beleive being gay is a choice, but have wondered if it might be comparable to a mental imbalance or illness. The reason I dont thinkits a choice is because if it were, why would anyone choose a lifestyle that would cause them so much pain and scrutany from the rest of the world. As I said, I am sympathetic to the struggles of the gay community and think they should be left alone to live thier lives in peace.
Yup. No one would choose to live that kind of life. Gays suffer from high depression and suicide rates due to the stigma, many gay teens get kicked out of their home thanks to homophobic parents. In fact, half of all homeless kids are gay. All of which leads to drug abuse and risky behavior. And in places like Iran, since being gay is a capital offense, gays are often forced to undergo sex reassignment surgery to be with their partner.
The notion of millions of people choosing to be the most despised minority on Earth is absurd.
However, I do disagree with your notion of it being a mental illness. Absolutely no evidence indicates that. It's more likely just due to things like hormonal changes in pre-natal development. Take away too much testosterone at a crucial time of embryonic development, and it likely leads to changes in the parts of the brain that control sexuality. Gay brains develop more like that of the opposite sex, than their own sex. I wouldn't call that an illness.
Quote:
as I said before, its a free country. Your allowed to hate anything you wish
My point was merely do you think it's fair to judge an entire group based on a stereotype?
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.
