/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Welcome, brother.

I do have to ask, how do you reconcile your spiritual beliefs with the life you've chosen? It would seem to me that there could be some conflict between being transgender and Christian, though I suppose that's also a matter of what course of action you choose to take.

>>1973

hey

well, there wasn't much reconciling, at least not for me anyway, it took me quite some time to come to the conclusion that "I'm transgender" for several years I thought I was gay, but the more I tried to make that "identity" fit, the more I saw that didn't make sense with me. And even after I discovered transgender, it still took me 5 years before I actually "did something" about it.

it's interesting that so many think of it as a "choice" because in a way it's not; obviously, I must chose to act as opposed to inaction, but with this type of thing, at least for me; inaction is equivalent with being terminally ill, but not obtaining/taking the medication because other people have told you the medicine is "evil" or something of that sort.

But really; I will refer you to this page, which helped me alot.

>http://www.transchristians.org/

My biggest problem problem is people not wanting, or even attempting to understand this sort of thing, so many Christians (like my mother) immediately jump to trans=gay=sin/disgusting

I don't consider myself a homosexual in the slightest; but even the arguments against homosexuality are weak at best; at least from my point of view.

>>2006

Well, that's an interesting website, though I have the same problem with it than I do with the majority of its kind; that s that it attempts to reconcile modern liberal philosophical thought based of neo-marxist critical theory and enlightenment principles, rather than take the Bible alone (or at least CC, OC materials or something of that nature alone) and draw conclusions exclusively from it.

I will attempt to understand you, then, thought I'll admit that your mother has a point in that from what the Bible tells us homosexuality is a sin. How you choose to deal with it, however, is what speaks more to one's character as a child of God.

Why do you consider the arguments against homosexuality to be weak? Indeed, why do you consider there to be an argument at all? This isn't Republicans vs. Democrats, its simply what the Bible speaks plainly. What is your opinion on this, brother?

>>3222

>If anything, it is a mental illness.

I think for some people it is, but for some I think its just social conditioning orchestrated by Liberals and Jews. Not that they expressively set out to create trannies, that only started recently, I mean that they created the conditions for trannies to be a more frequent bi-product when they'd normally be very very rare.

I also wouldn't discount demonic possession/influence and Alium head-touch induced breeding prep via womb-desire .

>Pope Francis telling it like it is

I need to see that, for real. Do you have a source for that?

>>3224

>Nope.

Ugh, I know. Never though I'd actually want some faggot to show up and defend heresy, but its not so fun when all of us here are correct on this particular subject.

Thank you for the links, friend.

I feel sorry for you OP

>>3234

Patience and wisdom, brother.

No problem. Pope Francis is actually fairly based.

b8 plz leave

>>3237

no you leave pls

I really really dont think sexuality is or should be so important that theres need for a "lgbt christianity"

i still dont know how to feel about sexual identity and sin, but none the less, I can asure you that God loves you.

>>3249

> "lgbt christianity"

Its in the nature of of stuff like critical theory and gender theory (queer theory) to try and view everything through the lense of homosexual culture. They do this openly and without any thought to how ridiculous it is.

The Scriptures are pretty clear that any sexual relation outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful; specific sex acts within this context are controversial.

>>2006

There are churches that welcome the lgbt, particularly online or in Europe. When I was in Canada the first question my father asked a minister after a sermon at a church was if there was a law that banned condemning homosexuality. He answered, "Yes. Even though its in the bible." It bothers older Christians a lot.

I'm personally inclined to think the mainstream stance will be revised just like with slavery or divorce. You simply need a few gay theologians in the Catholic church to come on board and start finding biblical passages that support them, while refuting or diminishing others.

As a non-Christian I would like trans to have the right to cross-dress, allowing male fashion to become more interesting, and otherwise making certain people feel uncomfortable in my boring city. I do think most of them would be healthier trying to accept their body, rather than mutilating their organs and taking drugs for the rest of their life. But I believe in enabling personal liberties, even self-destructive ones, and if science were more advanced it would be fun to change my sex midway through my life just for fun. I also consider real trans a form of "mental illness," like schizophrenia and think many of the trans you meet on the internet have deluded themselves and simply have fetishes (autogynephilia.)

>>3262

>you mean like all of them?

They don't really, and that's why many LGBT are starting their own churches. My father is also a homophobe. He mainly quotes Deutronomity 22:5 from the old testament when trying to justify his dislike of crossdressing, (which in his mind also covers homosexuality.)

>What is it?

I didn't mean to say it's in the bible, but that the minister thought the bible condemned homosexuality, despite Canada's new law. But to answer the question, wikipedia has a list of passages that deal with homosexuality in the bible. I've experimented with these passages before to test how easily they can be revised or reinterpreted. Some are easy because the original passages have obviously been overextended or misinterpreted by theologicians looking for extra ammo against homosexuality. (Others are more difficult.)

Many of the commonly used passages are ambiguous in certain translations about whether homosexuality, prostitution or lewd behaviors are the sin. (This implies the original also has ambiguous language.) I think a gay church, or a clever theologian with a gay agenda could do a better job than my own work, and expect it to happen once the majority of Christians want to condone homosexuality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

>demonic influence; cancerous ideology

I personally believe alleged cases of demonic possesion have been misdiagnosed mental illness. But for a good read on the need to be honest about collecting data on autogynephillia there is this blog.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2015/06/11/what-kind-of-woman-is-caitlyn-jenner-part-one-of-a-qa-on-autogynephilia-with-michael-bailey/

>>3307

Yeah, I think OP realized what kind of board this is, which is why he never came back after I said >>2026

Needless to say, that entire page is awful.

>>3304

>Explain more about this new law.

Well it turns out it's been amended and neutered since my visit to Canada. And my father was probably wrong about it being a new law, since it appears to date back to 1977.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/hate-speech-no-longer-part-of-canadas-human-rights-act

>(don't use Wikipedia, first of all. Can't be trusted)

I always follow up with biblehub and external sites. But wikipedia had a good list of relevant gay or anti-gay passages that may even be comprehensive.

>despite the fact that there is clear evidence (which you see) that it is at best undesirable

Not convinced of this due to certain studies. Also I have anecdotal experiences with decent people who identify with the LGBT. And even if homosexuality is suboptimal (undesirable), it may never become curable short of a brain transplant.

>and at worst a sin that will land you in Hell?

My father would believe I'm already going to hell for rejecting God, and so I'm not afraid to commit another lesser sin to better understand the history of religion. It's easier to do research on contrarian viewpoints when you do not believe that hell exists.

>You aren't supposed to go to the Scriptures with a preconceived agenda

And yet certain unrelated passages are tapped with a preconceived agenda against homosexuality in the first place. It's not difficult to argue for or against almost anything if you just know where to look in the scriptures.

>>3310

>Well it turns out it's been amended and neutered since my visit to Canada.

Praise God. I was about to start wondering if the people of Canada had any judgement whatsoever.

>But wikipedia had a good list of relevant gay or anti-gay passages that may even be comprehensive.

This is a bad way of looking at it.

> Also I have anecdotal experiences with decent people who identify with the LGBT.

Experiencing same-sex attraction doesn't make you an inherently irredeemable and monstrous human being. Its all about how you handle it. God gives clear instruction as to how alternative individuals are to live their life in devotion to Him.

> it may never become curable short of a brain transplant.

And herein lies the issue with this entire school of taught. You see temptation and desire as an excuse to sin. "If the desire exists, then it can't be bad!" "If they are born this way, then it *has* to be natural and good!". God wills it that people are born as they are. God also wills it that human beings burn with desire and passion for each other; but, He also says very clearly there is only one correct way to go about this.

Homosexual desires aren't an excuse for sin, homosexuals are meant to either marry like everyone else (to an opposite sex partner) or live their lives in celibacy. Same sex marriage is, simply, not an option, and I can guarantee to you as surely as I can promise the sun will rise tomorrow and organized jewery will be the death of me, that you will *never* find a Biblical passage that says that homosexual marriage is a good thing.

>t's easier to do research on contrarian viewpoints when you do not believe that hell exists.

Indeed. Even if I'm coming off harshly, I at least appreciate how you are honest about the fact that you only see Christianity, the Scriptures and God as tools to advance your political agenda.

>And yet certain unrelated passages are tapped with a preconceived agenda against homosexuality in the first place.

The condemnation of homosexuality exists in the Scriptures because of God, not due to men and "the prejudice of their time" or anything like that. There is a nice, catchy word that gets thrown around here a lot to describe any claim to the contrary.

>>3311

> I can guarantee to you as surely as I can promise the sun will rise tomorrow and organized jewery will be the death of me, that you will *never* find a Biblical passage that says that homosexual marriage is a good thing.

Mark 10:9 could enable gay marriage. If a man and a woman once joined are not to be separated (divorced), then God might believe a man and a man once joined should also not be separated. So long as the purpose of the passage is only to condemn divorce and adultery.

Certain public speakers cite the same passage to claim marriage is only between a man and a woman. But the passage doesn't actually condemn homosexuality bonds, or gay marriage. The same goes for a careful reading of many of the citations on that wikipedia page.

>>3313

Friend, that is extremely flimsy. All it does is offer someone who is looking for any reason to justify his sin a very shitty excuse. You gotta look at it this way: you already have these ideas about fagottry, and they are not likely to be changed or influenced by anything you come across in the Scriptures. You have to read these things as if nothing else existed, this is your bread and water, your sole source of knowledge. With that in mind, you'll find that nothing here can be used as praise or blessing of homosexual unions, all you get is weak "maybe's".

You are an atheist, you do not understand this, but in theology a "maybe" is playing Russian roulette with three bullets or more in the chamber.

The Bible quite clearly condemns homosexuality, and it seems weird to me that you cannot see this. Best case scenario, homosexuality is clearly and palpably inferior to heterosexuality, because God praises one over and over, while the other gets a few mentions in the NT, always associated with wicked things, and CLEAR CONDEMNATION in the OT. At the very least, and that's already stepping into heresy, they are simply unequal forms of human sexuality in which the more common is morally superior to the abnormal one.

>>3314

Well, there are laws against homosexuality in the OT, but the accepted wisdom is that the new covenant is supposed to supplant the archaic laws of the OT. (Although Jesus himself said he didn't come to abolish the laws - Matthew 5:17). It's up to every new church to interpret how many of the old laws to follow, if any.

I don't even think there will be much need to reinterpret the bible, or to even make a strong case. Once most people want to believe otherwise, they'll jump on the first authority figure who offers an alternate view without investigating it critically. Sure the remaining minority will complain, but the younger generation won't see a problem and will simply absorb the more palatable position. In this way the controversy will be quickly forgotten and buried.

Slavery is an example that was pretty strongly supported throughout the bible, and for the last 1800 years. Both sides of the civil war found passages to cite for and against slavery. But ever since public sentiment turned against it people have quietly stopped studying those passages. A strong scriptural refutation isn't necessary for them to say slavery is wrong, because it's a buried issue.

>in theology a "maybe" is playing Russian roulette with three bullets or more in the chamber.

Christianity allows you have a murky understanding of many things and still receive grace. If you have faith and ask for Jesus to forgive you, that's generally enough for admission to heaven. (Luke 23:43)

>>3316

> they'll jump on the first authority figure who offers an alternate view without investigating it critically.

On that we can agree. The Devil is likely to get stronger and stronger until the Second Coming.

> Sure the remaining minority will complain,

I'm hoping we'll at least do some Allahu Akbars if we are to go out. Big ones. ISIS tier. The result of the struggle is all God's will, but we are still to fight and struggle regardless of any of that.

>Slavery

I can see how you'd draw that parallel, but the main difference is that Slavery is not sinful. Both the slave-owner and the slave can reasonably gain admission to heaven if they live worthy lives, which would include being kind and merciful and gentle for the slave owner, and meek, obedient and dutiful for the slave (among other things). This is one of those cases of secular culture changing theology radically in the minds of the people, whereas the reality is much more just. There will be plenty of slave owners, slavers and slaves in the Heavens.

> If you have faith and ask for Jesus to forgive you, that's generally enough for admission to heaven.

>ask for Jesus to forgive you,

The Problem here is that this sort of theology would convince you that you are doing nothing wrong, and you'd never apologize and ask Christ to forgive you for the horrible sin of fagottry. Pride would blind you, and you'd recognize your other sins and ask forgiveness for those, but never for the one that would send you to Hell.

Reminder that LGBT is the spearhead of a political movement that cares nothing about lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transsexuals.

Moreover, the LGB part of the name doesn't think fair to be compared to transsexuals, and the whole of them don't especially like LGBT to be speaking in their names and putting them at serious risk in many countries. Homos in Russia would rather LGBT stopped doing what they do, in Russia and elsewhere, as it has put homos to risks they weren't exposed to before.

Religiously speaking, I'm afraid you'll find a lot of opposition here, and I haven't read the thread yet.

I, for one, welcome you here and hope you stay despite what you'll read. I can only hope you won't be harrassed by half the board here.

I have a question.

You say you're transgender, so I assume you're not transsexual (yet). What is your genetic sex?

Also, did you consider taking hormones for your native sex? I know "transgender" people who were advised to do so (hormones or something else) for their native sex, instead of getting operated on, and within months they felt fine.

I guess this isn't pushed much because it generates less money and people would rather abuse the transgender people while looking like they care, rather than say no to operations and actually healing them while making less money and looking like fascists.

>>3344

I don't think involuntary servitude is worthy or preservation.

>The Problem here is that this sort of theology would convince you that you are doing nothing wrong, and you'd never apologize and ask Christ to forgive you for the horrible sin of fagottry. Pride would blind you, and you'd recognize your other sins and ask forgiveness for those, but never for the one that would send you to Hell.

On second thought don't even think you need to ask for forgiveness. The thief on the cross simply felt remorse. God's standards are impossible for anyone to live up to, which is why you must receive grace for admission into heaven. In the Old Testament they constantly had to sacrifice animals to atone for minor sins in the Old Testament. Most Christians simply pray for forgiveness of all of their sins. They leave the details of defining the sins to God, and find it easier to trust that God will take care of any complications.

If a person misunderstood the bible, say because their entire culture innocently misinterpreted the passages or teachings from the day he was born, Jesus's blood would probably still forgive them. There was a period when the Catholic church banned possession of the bible, (except for in Latin, and only for clerics but not laity.) Many followers were doubtlessly taught unscriptural doctrines, and believed them because they could not check for themselves. Still, those followers are supposed to be in heaven because grace is enough.

>>3378

>I don't think involuntary servitude is worthy or preservation.

>I don't think

You're entitled to your opinion.

>On second thought don't even think you need to ask for forgiveness.

You do though. You need to recognize that you are wrong and ask Christ to forgive you. Sin is like a physical black tar in you, and if you don't recognize it, or worse, think that its good and natural, that specific aspect cannot be forgiven. If its a serious one like homosexual acts, more so.

>They leave the details of defining the sins to God, and find it easier to trust that God will take care of any complications.

They're doing it wrong then. Another byproduct of a spiritually stunted an nannied-generation. God knows it all already, its not like He *needs* you to tell Him a thing, but the Atonement does require you to recognize and REPENT of a sin for it to be forgive.

>Jesus's blood would probably still forgive them.

This is one big assumption. 5 In the chamber.

>Many followers were doubtlessly taught unscriptural doctrines

This is the difference between false doctrine that puts the soul of the perpetrator, but not of the victim, at stake, vs straight up cant-exist-in-God's-presence sin. Any of those priests who twisted and lied about the Scriptures would be held accountable, but as far as I know this would be stuff like indulgences and the like. Homosexuality, however, is different because its expressly forbidden and (I can not stress this enough) it warranted death at one point. Its that filthy.

>Still, those followers are supposed to be in heaven because grace is enough.

No one could prove this, we can't know that anyone is in Heaven. Everyone you know and love could potentially go to Hell and you need to be ok with this. It is a distinct possibility that the majority of people who ever existed are in Hell right now. Who knows? I can't claim certainty, no one can. In Catholicism, at least, the only people who are "known" to be in Heaven are Saints, anyone else you'll never hear a definitive comment on because there's no way to know this. There's no checklist of things that you can do "oh look so and so did this, he's in Heav'n for sure!". No. You follow the Gospel and do all that you can and you hope for the best, that's all you can do.

I also find it interesting that now you're simply trying to find excuses, as if in a hypothetical scenario where homosexuality became accepted in Christianity; not through thorough Scripture study but through pilpul, societal pressure and Satan; that people would still be saved. Why not just understand and accept that this is a wretched thing and its wrong to support it? Why the need to work around and stretch scripture, argue from obscurity and doubt and make these flimsy "maybes"?

This is why feel good Christianity needs to be eliminated in any way we can, because they give a person the illusion of doing the correct thing while simultaneously damning them. At least with asshole Fedoras like Dawkings they dismiss the whole thing, leave it alone and they go off to have their own pie while we have ours.

>>3375

>>3376

OP was a reddit tier faggot and couldn't handle the banter. It left after >>2026 and never came back.

>>3381

I'm sorry to both have to contradict you and side with people I don't like to side with, but I have to agree that the ban on homosexuality is comparable to the ban on shellfish.

It is an Old Testament rule with a very basic purpose: ensure that the Hebrew tribe multiplies and does not indulge in sterile acts of offspringless fornication. That's the goal of that OT rule, a goal that is irrelevant at the time of Christ, a goal Christ never mentions.

Just like shellfish isn't banned amongst Christians, nor is long hair, though Saint Paul explicitly bans it, then the question is up for homosexuality as well.

My main point is that being explicitly mentioned in the Bible doesn't mean much because we do not respect some explicitly expressed bans, such as shellfish or long hair, to take an example from both Testaments.

That is why interpretations vary and I can respect that.

I'm personally against homosexual marriage but for reasons that aren't religious, which makes my position, as usual, unusual, but perfectly coherent.

TL;DR: being in Leviticus isn't enough.

>>3382

Ah, shit. Where does he hail from? Ama go get his ass back here.

>>3384

I'm on /cuteboys/ now. It's a slow board.

>>3394

I'm on /trap/ too now.

OP, if you come back, come to me. I don't want you rejected from here. Opinions need not divide us and they certainly shouldn't isolate you from us. Unity before division.

Come back!

>>3249

Seconded.

>>3383

>TL;DR: being in Leviticus isn't enough.

Its not just Leviticus, thankfully, though that helps to offer context because not all the Old Laws led to Death, but partaking in homosexuality did because it is inherently wretched and sinful, not just impractical and unseemly like eating selfish. \

Paul makes it very clear that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (don't muh original greek me, I swear). Also, Jesus outlines the only form of marriage that is acceptable in Matthew 19.

The most liberal interpretation of the bible possible is this: homosexuality is "neutral", but only marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned by God, and anyone who cannot partake of that should strive to be righteous by being celibate.

>>3409

>Paul makes it very clear that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (don't muh original greek me, I swear)

I wasn't going to, as I know nothing of Paul's Greek words. That said, you can't dismiss the importance of the tongues in which the Bible is written, even if I use it as an argument. C'mon.

As to Paul, he is ambiguous because sometimes he speaks for God, and sometimes he speaks his own Roman opinion; I think he even says so in his letters.

One of the homos I'm conversing with on the homo boards of 8chan (I'm crusading into all of them) put the following example to me:

>two homos live together, but don't have sex

What of such a couple? Technically, they follow Leviticus and Paul: no homosex between them. If this union isn't carnal, is it OK?

I thought that was an interesting case.

>>3416

> That said, you can't dismiss the importance of the tongues in which the Bible is written, even if I use it as an argument.

You can when it has to do with this stuff, honestly. When the Greek Orthodox Church comes out with a missive about how they've been misunderstanding that particular verse (which would still leave others that put homosexuality down, and the others that exalt proper marriage), then I'll listen, not while its some reddit nigger who took Intro to Greek 101 or some liberal professor type fool.

>As to Paul, he is ambiguous because sometimes he speaks for God, and sometimes he speaks his own Roman opinion;

Not in that specific verse, its God. If it was his "Roman opinion", he'd say "very I say unto you, Tops are righteous and the Lord is pleased with thee, but bottoms? He wills strike you down and destroy thee utterly. Thus says the Lord!"

> they follow Leviticus

Its not Leviticus you have to worry about, that's no longer in effect. That said, this is an incredibly Jewish attitude. Christianity isn't about finding holes in the Torah and trying to fool God. If the Bible says "Don't drink milk", you should refuse cheese, yogurt and maybe even not eat beef just for good measure.

They would be sinning because they would have lust for one another in their hearts. Its not as bad as sodomy, but its still a sin and the Lord would punish them accordingly.

>>3409

>but partaking in homosexuality did because it is inherently wretched and sinful

I think more along the lines of being inherently disgusting to the heterosexual (such as myself). Seeing a man sucking a cock is akin to seeing a man licking a turd. It causes the same reaction in me, sorry if that offends anyone. And I think the strong dislike of homosexuality in most cultures is due to this. Potentially, societies with less testosterone aren't as harsh on homosexual behaviour.

I don't actually know, historywise, if the Hebrews had rampant homosexuals in their midst.

>>3420

View it like this:

God finds it abhorrent= it is a principle of nature. Thus, people of all different cultures with vastly different backgrounds can each arrive separately at the conclusion that homosexuality is at best not good and at worst a public menace.

This is why there needs be a severe, constant and rigorous indoctrination program in order for people to become neutral or supportive of homosexuality, its all outside stimuli and conditioning.

>I don't actually know, historywise, if the Hebrews had rampant homosexuals in their midst.

I don't know this either, but I believe they probably had a normal number of homosexuals in their own groups, but were exposed to (like it says in Romans 1:28) sex cults and witchcraft involving sex magic of all kinds, including faggotry.

>>3426

>Thus, people of all different cultures with vastly different backgrounds can each arrive separately at the conclusion that homosexuality is at best not good and at worst a public menace.

Except they don't and plenty of societies embrace their homos and treat them like women or something. The idea that God can find buttsex abhorrent is borderline blasphemous to me. I get grossed out by homosex, but that's because I'm heterosexual and the act feels unnatural, but that's entirely due to my carnal and sexual nature, and I would be careful before suggesting God would feel the same for the same reasons.

>This is why there needs be a severe, constant and rigorous indoctrination program in order for people to become neutral or supportive of homosexuality, its all outside stimuli and conditioning.

That's kinda scary… The funny thing is that, politically, I would agree on homosexuality and its treatment, but religiously speaking, I can't. My faith contradicts my political beliefs here.

Being against homosexuality is fine and dandy until you're face to face with actual homos (and I mean real people who are homosexuals, not the prancing faggots who dance for the media).

I can't hate those people and I cannot substitute my own personal disgust with that of God. I can't easily assume that my disgust is God's.

>>3433

>Except they don't and plenty of societies embrace their homos and treat them like women or something.

Most of this has happened since the advent of secularism and the rape of non-western cultures. Up until that point, those little deviant societies were the exception, not the norm. But, even those (like Thailand, which I'm assuming is what you meant) reject homosexuality. They do, they reject the idea of two men being sexual partners and this being "normal". If you want to have secks with a man, you better become a woman in all but genitalia.

> I would be careful before suggesting God would feel the same for the same reasons.

You're looking at it too subjectively, as is mostly the case with people raised in the west when it comes to religious ideas. Remember that there was a time, for a very long time, that God decided that if you were a faggot the only thing that could be done with you was to put your ass to death. That's it, simple as that, no other crime against nature involved, just getting caught with someone of the same sex.

God made this happen. He wanted it to happen.

>I can't hate those people and I cannot substitute my own personal disgust with that of God. I can't easily assume that my disgust is God's.

Then don't. You're supposed to love them. You treat them well enough while still being honest and open about your beliefs. Once you understand this, life will get easier. To tell a homosexual to repent and stop is akin to telling someone who's about to get run over "Get the heck out of the way nigga!". They're going to have a bad time if they don't, and God will ask you why you didn't help them when you had the chance.

Read the Scriptures more, you'll see its clear that God despises the behavior but not the person; all of us are Children of God and have a great potential inside us Mormon Heresy incoming We're Gods in embryo, all of us, and even liberal faggots who fellate others for drug money have it in them to become like God if they could just get over their own petty pride and animalistic impulses. You can easily do the same. And at least recognize that when you deal with faggots and you don't have the balls to tell them the truth, its because you are at fault and you lack the nerve (a lot of people do. I myself don't go around telling homosexuals to die in a hole or anything like that, or even to repent and stop sinning), not because the Scriptures are wrong or because God doesn't really say what He means.

Its also not that hard to not deal with fags if you choose not to. I try and take the Evola approach and not support anything I disagree with, and sometimes that includes interactions with people.

>>3439

>You're looking at it too subjectively, as is mostly the case with people raised in the west when it comes to religious ideas.

I think that's what you do, actually. See the following:

> that God decided that if you were a faggot the only thing that could be done with you was to put your ass to death.

I don't think it was God's opinion, just like I don't think God's opinion on what the world is like is presented in the beginning of Genesis. Seems to me that both are way more human than they are divine opinions. Considering God, as a man, went against many of those rules of old, I would assume God also thinks these rules were more human than divine.

>God made this happen. He wanted it to happen.

I don't personally believe that, as stated above, for those reason.

>You're supposed to love them.

Aren't you, too?

>To tell a homosexual to repent and stop is akin to telling someone who's about to get run over "Get the heck out of the way nigga!".

It's not, and it isn't taken as such. Telling them to repent, most often, will only antagonise them and make it that much more difficult for them to come to God. We both know this.

> They're going to have a bad time if they don't, and God will ask you why you didn't help them when you had the chance.

That's very subjective. God could very easily ask you why you approach homos in ways that guarantee they won't want to consider the faith.

>We're Gods in embryo,

Well, to me, that's where Mormons stop being Christians. I don't believe that, nor does scripture suggest that.

>You can easily do the same. And at least recognize that when you deal with faggots and you don't have the balls to tell them the truth

Before you call me a coward, consider the simple fact that I don't actually know for a fact that God hates homosexuality, so I don't assume so. I also don't assume it is for me to judge them, and that I am sure God told me not to, so I don't. You telling homos to stop being homos is guaranteed to have no effect except making them regard Christians with suspicion. But yeah, don't call me a coward and don't question my balls.

For the record, I'm the Christian going to the homo boards right now.

The weird part is that I am politically against homosexual marriage but not religiously.

>>3445

>But He didn't, He fulfilled the Law. There isn't an instance where Christ breaks Mosaic Law

I've had that debate before. If the OT says not to do A and God does A, God goes against it, even if there's a meta-overruling and whatever. There are plenty instances of that, but if you're going to tell me that stoning a woman and not stoning a woman is the same thing, there's little I can argue.

>I am. I try, though to say that I love every single one of them would be a lie. That's a Christ-like feat, one I'd be impressed if any person actually achieved and skeptical of anyone claiming the same. I do what I can.

You're not trying hard enough. You should stop trying to judge people so much or so well and focus on loving them instead. Christ never asked you to judge anyone, quite the opposite. He asked, however, to love your enemies. These people aren't even your enemies and you can't love them? Work on that before you start calling people heretical.

>That's where your responsibility ends, thankfully.

That's where you give up, rather. Responsibility never ends.

>Its not though. God will punish them for their sin.

You certainly are more certain of this than I am.

>You're assuming I'd use the same language to try and convert a homosexual that I do here with you. I use the terms and language that I feel like using on 8chan.

I'm pretty sure no homosexual has given up on homosexuality because of your words, but don't hesitate to tell me I guessed wrong.

>In that case I'd invite you to continue your Scripture studies and open a thread here concerning the subject. I'm sure that the anons here could aid you further in realizing that God indeed abhors homosexuality.

My approach to the Bible is more Catholic than Protestant, meaning I care about what experts have to say and I don't assume "just reading" is enough to understand, because I know many instances where it just isn't. Studying the Bible also shows that you can't just read and assume God wrote or even dictacted it. Also many instances forbidding such an interpretation.

>Pointing out evil things isn't judging, God already laid out the Law for us, we're just letting people know when they break it because there will be unfortunate consequences for them.

Seems to me the disgust is really yours and you're trying to be judgemental about it in a way that makes you feel righteous. It wasn't Paul's epistles that converted Romans, it was Christians themselves, being tortured to death yet still professing love for their tormenters.

You can barely tolerate a homosexual just existing, there is no way they would feel your Christian love when you have none to give them.

As Paul said, if there is no love in what you do, you do nothing.

>That's not my prerogative. I can't change the word of God.

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, nor is there any reason to think so.

>But wait, that's actually a good thing. If you really did everything in the Bible and didn't hold back one bit, unrepentant sinners everywhere would think you're a huge douchebag, and that's how you know you're doing it right. Luke 6:2

I'm more concerned about homos than I am about my reputation or how others see me. This isn't about street cred. I'd rather lead homos to God.

>If you're in the category of people who know what's right but are afraid to be very public about it, you're actually in pretty decent company. If you're in a group of people who know the truth but want to rationalize away or willingly change the message to spare people's feelings, that's not such a good group to be in.

Like I said, I don't know for a fact that "God hates fags" and I tend not to think so.

As to public stuff, I'm European, Swiss at that, and we don't spread that stuff in public. It's personal and nobody speaks of it unless they're close friends, and when they do so, it's very respectful.

>You are free to do what you like. Those boards are full of pornography.

Uh, yes, they're boards they use for fapping, mostly. I imagine porn is enough to stop you from speaking the word. Nothing can stop me, not even gay pr0nz.

>How does this work for you? I mean, what is your rationale for this?

I have reasons to be against homosexual marriagel, all rational and political, but none from my faith. It's fairly simple, I'm not sure Christ would condemn homosexual marriages today, so, religiously, I'm not against it. Politically it's a whole different ballgame having to do with society supporting unions before supporting families and reproduction of a society's individuals, etc.

>>3449

>There are plenty instances of that, but if you're going to tell me that stoning a woman and not stoning a woman is the same thing, there's little I can argue.

That passage is against mob justice, not the mosaic law. The Hebrews in that chapter did not have enough witnesses to prove that she had committed adultery, they were simply trying to kill her on here-say at worst, on one man's word at best. Had Jesus just "shamed" the Pharisees into stopping, they would have killed her no doubt. They stopped because he was able to use the Mosaic Law to prove that their execution would have been unlawful due to the lack of witnesses.

And had they had enough witnesses, they would have had to kill the man and the woman both, not just her.

Jesus was the only one here obeying Mosaic Law, and He ends this all with "Go, and sin no more". He *knew* the bitch was guilty, but the Law is the Law and it could not be sidestepped.

Here's a longer analysis on this, which I love.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=1277

>You should stop trying to judge people so much or so well and focus on loving them instead.

"Love" meaning to be ok with their actions? No. I can be cordial, kind and charitable, and respectful. That I do, but to tell them that their actions are ok is a direct insult to Jesus Christ.

>Christ never asked you to judge anyone, quite the opposite.

You keep using "judge" in common parlance when that's not what's relevant here. Calling people out on their ills and recognizing sin is not "judging". That's not only good to do, its expected.

>Responsibility never ends.

Indeed, but they aren't my responsibility. I do what I can, the rest is up to them.

>I'm pretty sure no homosexual has given up on homosexuality because of your words, but don't hesitate to tell me I guessed wrong.

So far, only 2 of them have, and one was already a member of the Church and trying really hard to be celibate, I merely offered succor and support.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that if people aren't converting that the message is false.

>about what experts have to say

As long as this means Catholic clergy in good standing and not some tranny-loving jewish psychologist, I'd say this is a great policy to have.

>Also many instances forbidding such an interpretation.

Everything in there is in there for a reason. The safe interpretation is that if God didn't say it directly, He's fine with it. To dismiss things we dislike through presentisms and rationalizations is how you become an Episcopalian.

>Seems to me the disgust is really yours and you're trying to be judgemental about it in a way that makes you feel righteous.

Too many ad hominems and assumptions. Nothing I've said here is without support in the Bible.

>It wasn't Paul's epistles that converted Romans, it was Christians themselves, being tortured to death yet still professing love for their tormenters.

How do you think there got to be Christians to be tortured in the first place? Paul.

>>3449

>You can barely tolerate a homosexual just existing, there is no way they would feel your Christian love when you have none to give them.

This is unfortunately a gigantic straw-man. By your logic, if I hated homosexuals I'd encourage them to sin harder and harder so they'd burn in Hell forever Hell and how to get there is different in Mormonism but let's put that aside. You wouldn't go to Hell just for being an unrepentant homosexual though and I'd never have to suffer their existence again. But no, I want them to repent and be righteous so they can partake of the Celestial Glory and I'd embrace them as they come.

This sort of tactic to paint me as evil should be below you; its what liberals and jews who don't understand the Gospel do when confronted with Christians rebuking them on their sins, especially on the subject of homosexuality.

Let's take it down a notch. This is getting heated and I'll admit this is a touchy subject for me.

>I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, nor is there any reason to think so.

Unless you have a good explanation for this, things are about to get very comical; because a Mormon is about to tell you you're not Christian. But I see you do believe in God and Christ, so this confuses me.

>I'm more concerned about homos than I am about my reputation or how others see me. This isn't about street cred. I'd rather lead homos to God

Which is fantastic, I really like your attitude. The problem is that you're walking where many men have before and fallen. They loose sight of the goal and begin to think that homosexuality just isn't that big a deal, that its fine, that its all forgiven even if the person doesn't want forgiveness and sins with pride in their heart knowingly, they'll be fine.

This isn't the case. As long as you remember that though, and arm yourself with courage and Scriptural knowledge, you may very well be a great missionary to the homosexual flock.

>"God hates fags" and I tend not to think so.

He doesn't hate anybody. He hates the sin, not the sinner. God is a desperate father pleading to His children not to smoke any longer, and we're the mirror He may use to show the child just how cancerous and sick the cigarettes make him, and show him how to stop.

That's how this whole thing should be done. Its a labor of love, not hatred. If I sound upset, it has to do with the fact that Organized Jewry is using homosexual marriage as part of a great plot to destroy my nation, and I've some negative feelings towards homosexuals right now because of that.

That's a separate issue from the issue of God's Law on Homosexual Acts.

>I imagine porn is enough to stop you from speaking the word. Nothing can stop me, not even gay pr0nz.

I've been there, I've got demons of my own. I wish you good luck if you go there so you may conquer over sin and spark in them the desire to know Christ.

>Politically it's a whole different ballgame having to do with society supporting unions before supporting families and reproduction of a society's individuals, etc.

I want to hear more about this.

>>3316

Sin has stayed the same throughout the testaments, the way it's forgiven has changed. If anything, it has become much stricter (don't even think of adultery, let alone do it, etc.).

>>3452

The OT has prohibitions on cooking a goat in the blood of its mother, eating shellfish and wearing mixed garments, and I'm guessing God (or the authors) considered partaking in these activities to be sins that made you unclean at that time.

>>3452

I meant milk, not blood. (Exodus 23:19)

>>3416

>two homos live together, but don't have sex

I'd say that this is dealt with when Jesus says that hating your brother is the same as murder, and thinking of a woman lustfully is adultery. This is essentially saying that not only is the act sinful, but the thought itself is sinful.

Therefore having sexual thoughts towards the same sex (being gay) is sinful innately.

>>3461

I've heard that reasoning before. So it goes that it is the lust that is the sin, regardless of the gender it is directed at. But punishing someone for their thoughts (or unconscious dreams) is very frightening.

>>3463

Any lust outside husband/wife is sin. As for clean thoughts, it has always been that way, even before Jesus made it explicit.

In Job for instance:

>It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.

>I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a young woman.

>>3463

You may recall that we are to take every thought captive and cast down imaginations (2 Cor 10:5), and to think on pure, holy, righteous things (Phil 4:8).

>>3451

>Unless you have a good explanation for this

I do. Here it is:

1. Genesis says the world is a half bubble surrounded by infinite waters. I don't believe this is "of God" simply because it would force me to accept that either God is lying, or God is wrong. It seems much more plausible that this idea was a human's idea, not God's; a human who saw the sky was blue, that it sometimes rained, and that the sea was flat: thus we live inside a dome, surrounded by water.

2. Each Gospel has 4 different sets of Christ's "last words". There can't be 4 actual sets of Christ's last words; the composer of the Bible were aware that each gospel was a human testimony, which is what God wanted (otherwise Christ would have written the texts Himself). Testament means testimony, a witnessing.

More generally, there is no reason to assume God dictated the Bible the way Allah alledegedly dictated the Quran (Or Gabriel, rather). Apart from things like the Ten Commandments, most of the books of the Bible don't even claim to be "divinely inspired". None of the New Testament books make such claims, most clearly state who the author is and don't claim anything beyond that.

The whole "infallible word of God" deal is a fairly recent, and Protestant, idea and it causes nothing but trouble. The whole Creationism debacle comes from this.

As to you telling me I'm not a Christian, don't forget that Christians, for centuries, did not even have a Bible. You don't need a Bible to be Christian, because the first Christians did not have a Bible, but they had faith. The idea that the Bible itself is some sort of holy relic that fell from the sky is another Protestant idea that just won't work for anyone willing to get a minimal education on the history of the Bible.

The Bible not being directly written under the guidance of God makes no difference to me, it only makes it more real. Faith, according to me, shouldn't force anyone to reject facts.

>>3451

>Which is fantastic, I really like your attitude. The problem is that you're walking where many men have before and fallen. They loose sight of the goal and begin to think that homosexuality just isn't that big a deal, that its fine, that its all forgiven even if the person doesn't want forgiveness and sins with pride in their heart knowingly, they'll be fine.

Even so, I don't see why singling out "homosexual sin" makes sense. We're all sinners, and "homosexual sin" is not better or worse than "heterosexual sin".

The other problem with homosexuality as sin is that you assume that it is natural. If sin is natural, then is it sin at all? If sin is a temptation to do evil, then that's something else altogether. I doubt many homos do buttsex out of wanting to commit evil.

These are sexual issues that have to do with psychology and reducing the spiritual debate to it does no good to the faith. I have never seen any good come from it, in decades.

>>3451

>I want to hear more about this.

I see homosexual marriage, and cause more generally, as the spearhead of a larger political movement supported by the very wealthy who wish to standardise us so we can be moved from nation to nation to work jobs paying less and less; to do this, all actual social networks (family, nation, race, religion) must be undermined. This is what I see on a daily basis. Romanticised version of marriage ensured that people married for themselves more than anything else (not for kids, not for nation, not for God), and that's where homo marriage comes in: the official sanction of sex for sex. My problem with homo marriage is that civil partnership could have been enough, we didn't have to change marriage for everyone else and change what we expect of the union of two humans. More than licensed buttsex.

What I see for tomorrow: civil wars between SJW's and neo-fascists, the sort we have around here and on /pol/.

>>3452

>Sin has stayed the same throughout the testaments

Wrong. Old Testament, sin is merely disobeying God, whatever is asked; in the NT, you get a far more spiritual sin.

Surely you will agree that picking up wood on the wrong day isn't comparable to having evil thoughts about someone or something, be it pride, greed, or anything.

OT = don't sin or God punishes you directly

NT = don't sin or you'll send yourself to Hell

>>3556

There is a lot of truth in this post, but at least the same amount of error.

The Bible is infallible because it is decreed to be divenely inspired, it was at first reaffirmed by the prophets which stood in direct contact to God and was later on affirmed again by Jesus who himself was God.

Of course there are many errors occuring when interpreting the bible, namely by protestants, i.e. literal interpretation.

>The Bible not being directly written under the guidance of God makes no difference to me, it only makes it more real. Faith, according to me, shouldn't force anyone to reject facts.

So you reject the Church AND the bible? What makes you call yourself a Christian? Seriously, what's left here that we could relate to Christianity?

>>3557

Yes, we need to condemn sin. Relativation of sin, claiming that it does not matter beside other sins and anything that goes towards "sola fide" is bad.

>>3558

>What I see for tomorrow: civil wars between SJW's and neo-fascists, the sort we have around here and on /pol/.

There are no neo-fascists in Europe. beside the antifa and communists

>My problem with homo marriage is that civil partnership could have been enough, we didn't have to change marriage for everyone else and change what we expect of the union of two humans. More than licensed buttsex.

Civil partnership and civil marriage are the same good for nothing.

>>3561

The God of the OT and the God of the NT are exactly the same. All morals come from God, ergo morals do not change.

Jesus was not absent when the OT was written nor when "God punished directly". Everytime this occured Jesus was there and agreed with it.

>>3563

>Jesus was not absent when the OT was written nor when "God punished directly". Everytime this occured Jesus was there and agreed with it.

So the argumentation that "spiritual sins" are more taken into account does not mean that what was sin before (of the flesh) is no longer, this is non sequitur.

It is more like the standard was set even higher.

>>3461

> This is essentially saying that not only is the act sinful, but the thought itself is sinful.

That part of scripture is generally misunderstood both because of a lack of understanding of the English language but even more so because of the original language.

The term "lust" in 16th century English was not specifically sexual, you could lust after money or anything else; it just meant "really, really, really want, crave". In the original language, the word Christ uses involves a very long and persistent desire and craving, not a fleeting thought. It's more akin to a plan than anything. "Lusting" after your neighbour's woman, in Christ's terms, means you're virtually planning to take her at some point, and that degree of coveting is a sin (the word Christ uses is the same as in the Old Testament, in the commandments, the word we translate by "covet").

So the sort of thought involved here is much more than a fleeting thought.

Moving on, if having homosexual thoughts is sinful, then human biology is sinful, since I don't assume anyone here believes anyone has a choice in sexual attraction (apart from bisexuals). And that's a big issue to which a whole thread should be devoted.

Considering sexuality amongst animals and they many variations of it, I find it difficult to believe that humanity has a fallen sexuality and used to have a non-fallen sexuality before the Fall.

>>3563

>The Bible is infallible because it is decreed to be divenely inspired

Saying something is something doesn't make it so, otherwise everybody would be correct. That would work if God directly says it, but then you'd have to know whether God actually said it or not.

>it was at first reaffirmed by the prophets which stood in direct contact to God and was later on affirmed again by Jesus who himself was God.

There was no Bible at either time, though. At the time of Christ, there was no New Testament to speak of, and thus Christ never speaks about the New Testament, obviously. None of the texts in the New Testament are written by people who make references to it, simply because it wasn't a thing back then.

I have no idea what you may possibly mean by saying that Jesus confirmed anything about the texts.

>>3563

>So you reject the Church AND the bible?

I'm not Protestant, so I don't feel obligated to believe God somehow dictated texts to humans, especially when said texts contain silly errors or very human sentiments. I prefer the Catholic approach which takes in account what experts say and know about the composition of the books of the Bible.

Not believing that the Bible is divinely inspired doesn't mean I reject the Bible, or the Church. I rejection literalism as a mostly Protestant form of wishful thinking.

>What makes you call yourself a Christian?

My faith in Christ. Same as every other Christian out there, same as all the Christians who called themselves Christians before there was even a book called the Bible.

>what's left here that we could relate to Christianity?

Not accepting the infallibility of human texts doesn't mean there's nothing left from the Bible. I just don't read it the way you do; I prefer to inform myself with the knowledge we have obtained about the process and context. I am absolutely convinced the Bible is impossible to comprehend without a lot of education about both the languages, the history, and the context of all of these texts. My study has proven to me how essential this was. It is no longer up for grab for me to consider everything before interpretating a text on my little own.

>>3563

>Yes, we need to condemn sin. Relativation of sin, claiming that it does not matter beside other sins and anything that goes towards "sola fide" is bad.

Mattering less isn't the same as not mattering at all. Having a Pope doesn't mean bishops no longer count. Hierarchies don't flatten everything.

My problem is that many Christians, when they say "sin", they only mean "sex". And then everything is solely about sex, and I find that both sad and concerning. Is it, then, any surprise that whenever Christianity is dealing with contemporary issues, it's always about sex-related issues? Abortion, homosexuality, marriage, divorce, etc. It's no surprise but I have a higher esteem of my faith than to think of it as a solem cockblocker.

If you ask me what Christ would say about homosexual marriage, my answer is clearly that I have no idea. Because of this, spiritually, I don't touch that question from a religious perspective. Politically, that's something else, but you won't hear me tell anyone that Christ told them not to do it.

>>3563

>There are no neo-fascists in Europe.

I meant the term as a descriptive term, not as an insult. There are tons in Europe and every nation has a rapid growth in the "far right" department.

Try telling me that the Golden Dawn of Greece had nothing to do with being neo-fascists, just try.

There are plenty of people and parties, today, in Europe, who pine for more traditional values, who oppose gay marriage, and who don't like liberal values and the banks and markets having dominance over the will of the people and their nations.

>>3563

>The God of the OT and the God of the NT are exactly the same.

That's your dogma, but I don't see things in such black and white. Your problem is that you regard the Bible as written by God, which doesn't allow any mistake, any misunderstanding, any discrepancy of any sort, so you have to resort to this sort of thinking.

They are not the same in that they don't behave the same. OT God smites any fucker who doesn't do what he's told; NT God dies for that fucker and loves him. Don't tell me that's exactly the same even if you personally believe they are the same God.

Unlike you, I read the OT with massive pinces of salt, because of the nature of many of these texts; some texts tell the same story as another text, but in one God kills some people, and in the other version, Satan does it. Discrepancies like this are easily understood if you think those texts were written by humans, but impossible to explain if you think God dictated them. This is thankfully not my problem as my view allows for errors and explains them rather simply. Your view is forced to explain to me why God thinks the world is a half bubble and space doesn't exist, but is, instead, an infinite ocean.

>>3565

Thought do not have to be a sin, this is right. We cannot change our very own nature, but we have to try.

Thoughts can be as well sinful if we let them be sinful.

>>3566

>Saying something is something doesn't make it so, otherwise everybody would be correct. That would work if God directly says it, but then you'd have to know whether God actually said it or not.

The OT is valid because Jesus declared it to be valid. Which is circular logic because our source for this is the NT.

Luckily enough the NT is also valid because Church Councils have validated it and declared it to be the infallible which does not mean literal or "fallen from the skies" word of God.

They can do this because the whole body of the Church in this case represented by the Council cannot err, given by the Holy Spirit bestowed to us by the Son and passed on by baptism.

>>3567

>I'm not Protestant, so I don't feel obligated to believe God somehow dictated texts to humans, especially when said texts contain silly errors or very human sentiments. I prefer the Catholic approach which takes in account what experts say and know about the composition of the books of the Bible.

>

>Not believing that the Bible is divinely inspired doesn't mean I reject the Bible, or the Church. I rejection literalism as a mostly Protestant form of wishful thinking.

Benefit of the doubt.

What do you mean exactly here? Could you explain what "the bible is fallible" means to you? That there is errancies and falsehood in it that we need to sort out by human reason?

If so we disagree, if not we agree

>My faith in Christ. Same as every other Christian out there, same as all the Christians who called themselves Christians before there was even a book called the Bible.

Name everything you'd know about Christ without the Church and without the bible?

If none of both is infallible, why even buy any of it? Then it could as well all be a scam.

Why not become a muslim or something, they believe in Christ too, why should we be more right than them?

>Not accepting the infallibility of human texts doesn't mean there's nothing left from the Bible. I just don't read it the way you do; I prefer to inform myself with the knowledge we have obtained about the process and context. I am absolutely convinced the Bible is impossible to comprehend without a lot of education about both the languages, the history, and the context of all of these texts. My study has proven to me how essential this was. It is no longer up for grab for me to consider everything before interpretating a text on my little own.

Again we agree for the most part.

You trust too much in yourself though. Even if we assumed you could all of this by yourself, who would do it for the non-intellegent and the weak?

There needs to be someone who has a hand over this. Someone who is qualified and has authority. I'm sure you know what I want to imply.

>>3568

It really hurts to see how much we agree like 90% and how much the devil is left in the details.

People obsess over sexuality way too much. Not only civil society, just look at the former board, it's like every other thread there.

>>3569

>I meant the term as a descriptive term, not as an insult. There are tons in Europe and every nation has a rapid growth in the "far right" department.

But this "far right" has not very much in common with fascists at all. It's just a leftist term that has become common here.

>Try telling me that the Golden Dawn of Greece had nothing to do with being neo-fascists, just try.

Sure they are. Same with Jobbik. But they do not matter.

The FN is not neofascist, UKIP is not neofascist, Afd is not neofascist…

>>3570

>That's your dogma, but I don't see things in such black and white. Your problem is that you regard the Bible as written by God, which doesn't allow any mistake, any misunderstanding, any discrepancy of any sort, so you have to resort to this sort of thinking.

The bible was written by men.

>>3570

>They are not the same in that they don't behave the same. OT God smites any fucker who doesn't do what he's told; NT God dies for that fucker and loves him. Don't tell me that's exactly the same even if you personally believe they are the same God.

You misinterpret at least one of the persons then.

Let's assume that the OT represents the person of the Father and the NT the person of the Son.

If there is but one God, how can those two be different?

Also won't the father judge?

>>3570

>Unlike you, I read the OT with massive pinces of salt, because of the nature of many of these texts; some texts tell the same story as another text, but in one God kills some people, and in the other version, Satan does it. Discrepancies like this are easily understood if you think those texts were written by humans, but impossible to explain if you think God dictated them. This is thankfully not my problem as my view allows for errors and explains them rather simply. Your view is forced to explain to me why God thinks the world is a half bubble and space doesn't exist, but is, instead, an infinite ocean.

Random accusation. I'm no biblical literalist. I'm also aware that there are two creation myths that can't be true at the same time. And that the earth was not created in 7 days because seven means perfection and day just timespan ie.

>>3563

>Jesus was not absent when the OT was written nor when "God punished directly". Everytime this occured Jesus was there and agreed with it.

I'm not going to argue about this, but I'll give you my general opinion on the OT. I don't personally have any reason to read any book from the OT with the same degree of "literalism" as I do with the NT, meaning, if Genesis tells me a story, I won't read it as literally as I would a Pauline epistle. The reason is the nature of these texts and their contexts.

When a people writes a creation myth, they write it as such, they tell it as such, etc. When Paul writes a letter, he's not writing a creation myth. It's completely different and easily identifiable provided a small amount of context.

In other words, just because the Old Testament says something doesn't make it a reality to me. I've given a example of the OT contradicting itself over a rather important point: did God or Satan kill these people? That is no small mistake to make, and I won't readily believe that this was willed by God. How anyone can believe that God willingly put errors in the Bible or that, even worse, perhaps, God made an editing mistake, I don't know, but that's why I don't believe the Bible is "divinely inspired", meaning God assumed control of the putting together of the Bible.

If anyone uses the term to mean anything less than Quran-style dictation, then that is fine with me, but it becomes a meaningless notion, as being somewhat divinely inspired makes anyone unable to know when it was inspired and when it wasn't.

I believe that if God wanted a text, He would have written it Himself when He was able to do so. The fact that He did not tells me that it mattered that the testimony be given to us by other humans, not directly from the source. It's safer that way and repels some fundamentalists and literalists. That is why I resist the urge to simplify everything and just take Scripture at face value, generally choosing parts one likes for personal reasons.

It still astounds me the amount of Christians who read Job and aren't aware that Job is literally a work of fiction, comparable to Milton's Paradise Lost and Dante's Inferno. Someone wrote a poem starring God, and ignorant readers millennia from then assume it's 100%. That's like people reading Inferno today thinking that Dante literally had a vision and saw all this for himself.

>>3564

>So the argumentation that "spiritual sins" are more taken into account does not mean that what was sin before (of the flesh) is no longer, this is non sequitur.

Except I never argued that, that's just you assuming things.

>It is more like the standard was set even higher.

That is exactly what I was saying, and that is also why I generally dislike Christians who try to go back to "simpler rules" to avoid spiritual sins. Whenever anyone reduces Christianity to a list of do's and don't's, I cringe. The whole point Christ was trying to get across was that things weren't this simple and that you shouldn't seek solace and comfort in authoritarian lists of do's and don't's. I know few people will like my words here, because many on 8chan come from /pol/ and are very much into authoritarian modes of behaving.

The spirit of the law is above the law and Christ made this clear countless times in the Bible.

>>3571

>Thoughts can be as well sinful if we let them be sinful.

Depending on what you consider sinful, some thoughts will be sinful and impossible to avoid, short of neurosis/psychosis or other mental trouble coming from repression.

It remains to be known whether unconscious desires are a sin or not.

I tend to think sin is a condition more than an act. Consider this: two identical acts can be done for two different reasons; one can be sinful and the other not. This should be enough to demonstrate that acts don't cause the sin. Sinful thoughts may lead to sinful acts, but regardless, it's what goes on inside that is the sin.

>>3571

>The OT is valid because Jesus declared it to be valid.

Arguable. That said, being valid at one time doesn't mean being valid forever, especially when there's a change in covenant, which the coming of Christ was. A new covenant implies new rules, no matter how valid old rules may have been.

>Which is circular logic because our source for this is the NT

That's not even circular logic, since both bodies of texts are extremely different, written at very different time periods, and in different languages. And it remains a matter of faith anyway.

>Luckily enough the NT is also valid because Church Councils have validated it and declared it to be the infallible

I'm sorry but Church Councils aren't supernatural entities or angels or Jesus. They can declare anything they want according to whatever logic they choose. Wrong things have been declared "infallibly". There's nothing much to add once we know that.

>They can do this because the whole body of the Church in this case represented by the Council cannot err,

Again, that's your personal belief. I don't believe this at all, and find no evidence of this in the mouth of God. And if that wasn't enough, history disproves the notion of being somehow guided by the Holy Spirit.

Unless you think the Holy Spirit wanted Its Church to abuse children, unless you don't call that "erring".

If priests can err so radically, other members of the Church can err just as radically in councils. There's absolutely no reason to assume they can't err there as well.

>>3571

>the Holy Spirit bestowed to us by the Son and passed on by baptism.

Well, the Holy Spirit has also been bestowed to me through baptism, yet we disagree. That ends that argument right there I suppose.

>>3571

>What do you mean exactly here? Could you explain what "the bible is fallible" means to you?

I mean that I do not believe it was written under the direct guidance of God to be exactly what it is today.

I've explained why above and resorted to a number of discrepancies that cannot coexist with the idea of God having controlled the writing of the Bible. When God wants you to write something down directly from Him, you get the Ten Commandments. Otherwise, you write your own testimoney but not under God's direct advice.

I cannot believe that Genesis was dictated by God when it portrays our world as a half bubble inside an infinite ocean. That'd mean God is either lying or doesn't know about cosmology.

God doesn't need a creation myth if He knows the truth; and if God had wanted to vulgarise, He wouldn't have resorted to falsehoods either. My version preserves God, yours makes grave accusations about Him and I never hear anyone who has that interpretation defend God after their own accusations. If you could kindly explain how you combine divine inspiration with falsehoods/lies, I'd love to hear it.

>>3576

> that acts don't cause the sin

Acts change you. You are what you do.

But luckily it also works the other way round.

Will it benefit you to pray if you are unfaithful?

Yes

Will it benefit you to make the sign of the cross?

Yes.

Will it benefit you to go to mass?

Yes

>>3578

> A new covenant implies new rules, no matter how valid old rules may have been.

But the old law is affirmed in the NT… you know the not come to abolish the law verse, I won't cite it.

>I'm sorry but Church Councils aren't supernatural entities or angels or Jesus. They can declare anything they want according to whatever logic they choose. Wrong things have been declared "infallibly". There's nothing much to add once we know that.

>Again, that's your personal belief. I don't believe this at all, and find no evidence of this in the mouth of God. And if that wasn't enough, history disproves the notion of being somehow guided by the Holy Spirit.

>Unless you think the Holy Spirit wanted Its Church to abuse children, unless you don't call that "erring".

>If priests can err so radically, other members of the Church can err just as radically in councils. There's absolutely no reason to assume they can't err there as well.

>>3579

>Well, the Holy Spirit has also been bestowed to me through baptism, yet we disagree. That ends that argument right there I suppose.

You are well aware that I never claimed that everyone baptised in the Holy Spirit cannot err. The body of the Church as a whole the council for instance is protected by the spirit.

There are bad persons in the Church doing evil stuff, but it does not matter in the greater picture.

>>3580

> If you could kindly explain how you combine divine inspiration with falsehoods/lies, I'd love to hear it.

If we do not read the bible in a literal way everything can bear truth, ideas and inpisation.

Job may be fiction, but isn't each and every metaphor in the NT fiction?

I just do not see a great importance here. But I may be weird in this.

>>3571

>Name everything you'd know about Christ without the Church and without the bible?

The Church not being you or anyone alive today. Early Christians had no Bible. Then they compiled the Bible and we've had a Bible ever since.

If the Bible is the only place where you have found Christ, I feel very sorry for you.

I get your point more generally, but I don't see how that's something I might have disagreed with.

Everything I know about my biological father was told to me by other people. They don't have perfect knowledge of everything, but their testimonies agree with each other and I don't see why they'd lie. Their testimony is enough to get an idea of who this man was.

I don't see why the New Testament can't function the same way for me. It doesn't have to be black and white. I'm not a Fundamentalist and judging by your flag, you aren't either.

>If none of both is infallible, why even buy any of it?

You are a fallible human, like myself, like all humans. Does that mean humans can't say anything true or accurate? Of course not. It only means that you can expect errors along the way, and the Bible contains errors which are easily explained by being human errors. Misspellings are the easiest type of human errors in the good book, and I doubt you'd argue against that, since we have evidence of misspellings. Similarly, there are other errors and they aren't God's fault. Accepting divine inspiration means blaming God for the errors, and I refuse to do that. I find the very idea arrogant and blasphemous. God doesn't make mistakes, humans do.

>>3571

>Why not become a muslim or something, they believe in Christ too, why should we be more right than them?

If you're Discipulus, I'd like to know because I generally assume that any Catholic responding to me at length is you. You don't give me the usual Discipulus vibe but I'm asking anyway.

I've read the Quran. I wasn't impressed or touched by it. I've read the New Testament, and I was both impressed, touched, and given a sense of something truly supernatural; the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Saint John, made me consider that this whole Christ stuff might just be real.

That is the main reason why I'm not a Muslim. I have naturally done research to further my understanding of the faith but the core impression left by the New Testament is comparable to nothing else on the earth in terms of sacred texts.

A text doesn't need 100% infallibility to faithfully convey the truth. You, for instance, you will speak of Christ often, to other people, and you surely don't assume to be infallible in your attempt. I believe the apostles were the same.

You cannot be infallible and give Christ's final words 4 times differently, it doesn't compute. This fact alone proves that there is no absolute infallibility in the Bible. You shouldn't assume it is to be expected because you'll be disappointed when you realise it isn't there. I believe it is more realistic to expect errors in the Bible than to imagine its writing was supernatural. That's what Muslims believe, and along with this, a whole bunch of illogical ideas that can only make sense if you dance around logic.

Muslims "believe in Christ", not quite. They believe He existed and was a prophet and wasn't God. Believing in Christ as a Christian, to me, means that you also believe Christ is God. The Incarnation is one of the things that make Christianity stand out.

>>3571

>You trust too much in yourself though.

In fact, doubting myself for my own shortcomings makes me doubt other humans for theirs, which is why I won't just take another human's word for anything without inquiring for myself. God has not asked us to understand everything, but He has clearly asked us to use our brains to the maximum of our abilities (Paul writes about this explicitly).

>Even if we assumed you could all of this by yourself, who would do it for the non-intellegent and the weak?

Lots of people do it for the less intellectual. We all have to start somewhere. I used to think the Catholic Church did this and that was why I held it in high esteem. It doesn't do it to the degree that I thought, but it's better than nothing, or maybe not. It is better to speak the truth with a trembling voice than state nonsense and halftruths firmly (unless you want political power).

>There needs to be someone who has a hand over this. Someone who is qualified and has authority. I'm sure you know what I want to imply.

Probably an appeal to authority. I'm an academic, I've been in formed in that world and evolved there for many, many years. I won't simply assume someone better or more educated can simply tell me what to do.

Christ didn't need to act superior to get me to Him and all the better teachers don't act superior either, even when they are.

I have the ability to question intellectual authority based on their argument and ideas, like any other human. None of the experts who deal with historical facts or chemistry, or astronomy ever have anything that I can disagree with, due to the nature of their fields and qualifications, but when it's about interpretating texts, I see a lot of very lightly done homework, especially when it comes to translations. I believe on can't just dance around preferences when it comes to that.

You seem to assume that all I say is just my opinion. You'd be terribly mistaken. Most of what I say comes from books I read, generally written by experts in their own rights. Simply because an idea I express does not please you doesn't mean I just made it up 5 minutes ago.

>>3571

>It really hurts to see how much we agree like 90% and how much the devil is left in the details.

>People obsess over sexuality way too much. Not only civil society, just look at the former board, it's like every other thread there.

I'm glad to know we mostly agree, then. I can't blame them, though. You reap what you sow: that board spent its time talking about masturbation (and still hasn't stopped blaming me for mentioning the subject, even though it was 1 thread out of easily over 50 that I had opened back there; this is all they retained of me, the "Sex Calvinist") that now people go there because of masturbation. People literally open threads about not masturbating.

I imagine you understand my concern when one's Christian faith is about not pulling on your noodle. I don't give a damn about anyone's efforts not to masturbate; in fact, I don't want to hear about it.

But if you advertise for this, you'll get people who are interested in this.

As often, I assume the debate is somewhere higher, more spiritual than how long you can go without touching yourself.

>>3572

>But this "far right" has not very much in common with fascists at all. It's just a leftist term that has become common here.

By "fascists", I meant /pol/, basically. There are plenty of new generations of people who think this way, adapted to our era.

>>3572

>Let's assume that the OT represents the person of the Father and the NT the person of the Son.

>let's assume

I wouldn't assume that, and to my knowledge, the OT doesn't assume it either. Correct me if I am in error, but I don't think there are any references to the Trinity in the OT.

>If there is but one God, how can those two be different?

By being the Father and being the Son? If they differed in absolutely nothing, we wouldn't have two words for Them, and there'd be no Trinity. They are the same God, but different persons, which implies they could be different in any number of ways God has chosen. That said, I don't think the God of the OT is written as belonging to any Trinity, so I'm not sure about the value or discussing it; it feels like projecting our imagination on those texts.

I know Mormons think the OT God is basically Jesus "practicing".

As stated before, I don't put much faith in the OT in terms of historical veracity. I take the whole thing with a massive pinch of salt. I don't literally believe God assaulted the Egyptians; I don't exclude it, but my natural reaction isn't to think it 100% happened.

>>3572

>Random accusation. I'm no biblical literalist.

If you both believe that Genesis is not literal and written by God, then how do you explain to yourself that God would choose to use images like "half bubble in an infinite ocean"?

You can vulgarise our universe to be understandable to a five-year-old without resorting to making stuff up that doesn't exist.

>sphere in the night

See? That's closer to the truth. It's not a half bubble, it's a complete sphere (spheroid if you want a degree closer to the truth).

I cannot believe God wanted to give us a false simplification of the universe when a truer one was easily available.

I'm glad you're aware that no numbers in the Bible can be taken at face value because of the Hebrew alphabet and related meaning.

The Bible doesn't say that it is divinely inspired, for instance, except in certain specific parts (Paul, Ten Commandments), so why assume it is? The irony here is that I trust the Bible more than you on that point. You trust a council that concluded it was divinely inspired, despite the fact that the very Bible doesn't suggest it is divinely inspired (inb4 using the end of Apocalypse to apply it to all the Bible).

>>3583

>If you're Discipulus, I'd like to know because I generally assume that any Catholic responding to me at length is you. You don't give me the usual Discipulus vibe but I'm asking anyway.

Explain to me what the "discipulus vibe " is or by what it is usually provoced and I'll answer you.

>>3583

>I've read the Quran. I wasn't impressed or touched by it. I've read the New Testament, and I was both impressed, touched, and given a sense of something truly supernatural; the New Testament, specifically the Gospel of Saint John, made me consider that this whole Christ stuff might just be real.

I understand that this is a valid reasoning for the individual, but I'd never trust my feelings like this.

If they were reliable I'd have never had a broken heart for example ;^)

>Muslims "believe in Christ", not quite. They believe He existed and was a prophet and wasn't God. Believing in Christ as a Christian, to me, means that you also believe Christ is God. The Incarnation is one of the things that make Christianity stand out.

Of course, they believe in a different Jesus, like mormons do, I'm aware. It was just rethorics from my side.

>>3584

>Probably an appeal to authority. I'm an academic, I've been in formed in that world and evolved there for many, many years. I won't simply assume someone better or more educated can simply tell me what to do.

I'm a soldier, and I know what disorder does to people and how anarchy can destroy everything human in us. Maybe this is a difference that stands between us more remarkably than any dogma or religious creed ever could.

>You seem to assume that all I say is just my opinion. You'd be terribly mistaken. Most of what I say comes from books I read, generally written by experts in their own rights. Simply because an idea I express does not please you doesn't mean I just made it up 5 minutes ago.

I read books too and like them. Really adore them. There was a time when I held up thus spoke zarathustra up like a revelation and a time when enlightenment blew away my mind.

But I had to realize that things are not lwas what they seem to be at the first glance and that books can be dangerous too.

>>3585

>As often, I assume the debate is somewhere higher, more spiritual than how long you can go without touching yourself.

People who obsess so much over it like them there are more of a slave to sin than any occasional masturbator.

It's better to jerk of once in a while and ask for forgiveness than to destroy yourself over something so petty as this.

>>3586

>I wouldn't assume that, and to my knowledge, the OT doesn't assume it either. Correct me if I am in error, but I don't think there are any references to the Trinity in the OT.

As are no in the NT.

Why do you think that there should have been a change in the nature of God between the OT and the NT. If there is there must be a reason. If there is a reason I see problems with the idea of an infallible and good God.

>>3587

And Pi is not 3. As said it has no relevance to me. I understand that there are people that will take offense towards this, but I can't help it. I have never had to think about it, I have no satisfying answers.

>>3577

Thanks for that post. I'm aware of the food/homo stuff, as I've myself had to explain it to countless atheists over the years.

What I meant was that they are the same in this: they are both laws that existed before and that we must resort to interpretation to know if they are to be held or not.

The second part of your post is where things go wrong, as Paul isn't actually talking about homosexuals.

If you read both before and after that passage, it becomes evident that the people Paul writes about aren't Christian (for starters) and that they're making idols.

Here's the passage that comes right before yours:

"21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

That doesn't sound like homosexuality to me.

I'll take a look at the other quotes, because I don't remember reading the word "homosexuals" in any of my Bibles, and I have a bunch.

>>3577

>Corinthians 6:9-10

Checks out better than the previous quote. Various translations have any of these for your "homosexuals":

>effeminate

>men who have sex with men

>men who abuse themselves with men

>those who make women of themselves

I'm assuming it's about butt sex, but here again, some historical context would be neat.

My main problem with Paul, though, is that he sometimes speaks for him and sometimes for God. Paul isn't Jesus Christ to me, so I don't know what to do with his words in situations like these.

I have a very serious problem believing that God would send people to Hell forever for having been a homosexual.

Try convincing me if you can, but I cannot imagine how buttsex is this important to the Lord. Spiritually speaking.

>>3591

What you call "educated Christianity" I'd call idolatry, heresy, if not even heathenry.

> Buddhism however has works that more neatly match (or exceeds) the sophistication, theology, and peaceful values of Christianity. Speaking from experience, I think Buddhism would challenge a person's faith more.

I'd take Islam over buddhsim at any day of the year. And I'm no fan.

> I think every Christian wants to be prepared if they ever have to debate a Muslim, but it's unlikely they would listen since they'll just say, "You read a translated Quran, you have to read it in beautiful Arabic, or your interpretation is invalid."

Debates are not held for your contestor but for the audience. It would take me wonders if anyone was convinced by this.

deleted double post

>>3592

You view procreation too much from the secularist angle, the base-animal mentality, view it from a spiritual perspective: God Almighty has given you; this weak little thing; a power that He holds supreme and is one of His greatest abilities. He's given you the power to create life.

This is a great gift, a great responsibility and a great act of trust from God, which is why there are guidelines to be followed on how to best use them, and how one could misuse them much to God's ire.

The sooner you cease to see this as just another base physical natural act and begin to see the glory and the magnificence, the sanctity and sacred value of Life Giving Powers, the sooner you'll see why homosexual intercourse is so vile, such a slight and insult against the Lord who made you.

>>3590

>Other sins in society have either been thoroughly entrenched or still to far off to bother with.

That's where we have a major disagreement. I believe the gravest sins are committed on a daily basis by the average person. You're probably thinking of murder and rape and all that obvious stuff, but the worst of sins don't have to do with the material world. Christians believe the first sin was Pride, and I see a lot of that, and none of it is against the law.

Catholics have on their list of mortal sins "drugs", yet they drink alcohol at mass, because, I guess, alcohol is not a drug (it is).

>This is why homosexuality gets singled out, because it really matters and there's time to do something about it.

All right.

>Doesn't matter.

My point was more about what's natural and what's a sin, with the possibility that all sins come from natural processes of evolution.

A very serious concern for my faith.

>>3590

>I see that you are redpilled, I must say I'm quite redpilled myself.

I took my redpill from the SJW directly, the most potent of them. I've studied the "liberal arts" at university and met Liberals, of whom I was one. I've been one of the brainwashed leftists that inhabit university hallways. Then I learned and grew up.

>I was just thinking a few days ago that I would open a masturbation thread to see if we can get some actual productive discussion going on the subject, as opposed to the senseless deus vulting your average nofap thread usually turned to. Might do that, later on, lest someone beats me to it.

I will abstain from joining it, for the reason that I already know what I'd get into.

>>3591

>I always find this sort of post interesting.

Here we go…

>Educated Christianity is really one step removed from Atheism.

I am one step away from atheist, a step I took, with much difficulty, across the years. I did so because of my education on the subject.

>You remind me of certain educated Christians who don't believe in hell, and believe Jesus was just a good man/concept worth emulating.

I loathe that vision of things as much as you do. I believe the notion of Christ being God to be essential to a truly Christian faith. If Christ wasn't God, then He was just a looney, so I don't accept interpretations where Jesus is just a wise guy.

>I think developing cognitive-dissonance when personal values, and biblical imparted ones don't line up is what usually sends people over the edge.

I agree and don't find myself facing any cognitive dissonance.

>It amazes me that so many Christians bother to waste their time when it's readily apparent that it is inferior

Nothing is readily apparently inferior. You just can't assume anything so lightly. If I had done that with the Bible, I wouldn't be here today and wouldn't call myself a Christian.

>Buddhism however has works that more neatly match (or exceeds) the sophistication, theology, and peaceful values of Christianity.

It's obvious to me you have never read any of the Muslim theologians or anything about them. There has been much sophistication in the Muslim world, and as a reminder, our Renaissance was made possible by the Muslim world, who preserved ancient texts of philosophy, mathematics, etc. Buddhism has never done anything comparable to us. I hold Buddhism for a much worse faith, if you can even call it that. Just because it's Asian (arguably) doesn't mean it's automatically better or more sophisticated.

I studied Buddhism before I got into Christianity. You know which I found more convincing.

I could speak about Buddhism for hours.

I bought the Quran after 9/11. I also studied Mormons' sacred books, and Buddhism.

Muslims believe the Quran is uncreated, meaning that it existed, as a text, before the world, which begs the question of how did the Arab language evolve just to match it.

>>3595

>What you call "educated Christianity" I'd call idolatry, heresy, if not even heathenry.

Why don't you just call it "kindling"? I believe in education, knowledge, research. I'm not scared of the truth. I firmly believe that religious truth cannot be antagonised by scientific truth. Truth above all.

>I'd take Islam over buddhsim at any day of the year. And I'm no fan.

I'd take none but I recognise Buddhism as a philosophy turned religion through individual adoration; it has all the signs of it. I really think Buddhism is made of despair and denial.

>>3597

>You view procreation too much from the secularist angle, the base-animal mentality, view it from a spiritual perspective: God Almighty has given you; this weak little thing; a power that He holds supreme and is one of His greatest abilities. He's given you the power to create life.

The same is true of animals. If you wanted to make me feel special as a human, that didn't do it.

>This is a great gift, a great responsibility and a great act of trust from God, which is why there are guidelines to be followed on how to best use them, and how one could misuse them much to God's ire.

I'm not very convinced by this. A lot of humans don't care and their children gain nothing from having their parents punished after death for their mistakes. At this point, it remains very animal to me; in fact, most animals act as better parents than many humans.

>>3597

>The sooner you cease to see this as just another base physical natural act and begin to see the glory and the magnificence, the sanctity and sacred value of Life Giving Powers, the sooner you'll see why homosexual intercourse is so vile, such a slight and insult against the Lord who made you.

I'd love to, but I can't. I have a very much less romanticised view of biology. Where you see magnificence, I see McGyver. Life will make do with everything it can. God designed evolution to follow from His universe, and that's how it does.

If you respect God's view of marriage so much, why did you adopt the pagan version of it? Namely, monogamy? Romans and Greek were into monogamy, nobody in the Bible was ever monogamous, everyone was polygamous, and Christ never condemned polygamy. Just as an example. Monogamy, until someone shows me otherwise, is a pagan custom. I approve that pagan custom, but it's still a heathen thing to do.

>>3597

>the sooner you'll see why homosexual intercourse is so vile, such a slight and insult against the Lord who made you.

Technically, no worse than sterile heteros having sex. I cannot imagine God cringing at sex acts, any more than I can imagine a human cringing at insects having sex.

One reason for this is that I believe the great thing with humans is that we can separate sex, love and procreation. You can do each alone, or combined with another. Basic animals (excluding dolphins, elephants, great apes, etc) can't do this. We can just fuck, we can make love, we can procreate. A homo can have his sex partner, and still make babies with a woman he loves.

I'm not convinced it matters this much to God. Feel free to convince me, though.

>>3604

> nobody in the Bible was ever monogamous

You have a weird bible, sir.

>and Christ never condemned polygamy.

I'd still require an answer to this one:

>>3413

>>3606

>You have a weird bible, sir.

Are Hebrews monogamous in your Bible, sir?

>>3606

I still require an answer as to why Christians adopted the pagan custom of monogamy from the pagan Romans and Greeks.

I've asked this many times on both boards and nobody has ever been able to give me a proper answer.

I answered your post in the other thread: basically, the adultery you commit is by forcing your wife to be adulterous, since she becomes another man's wife without having actually ceased to be yours. In this sense, you commit adultery by making her adulterous.

For all I know, no historian wonders whether the Jewish people around Christ were polygamous or not. They've always been until that point and for some time onwards, and still in some Jewish groups.

>>3607

Deuteronomy 17,17

"Neither shall he have a great number of wives, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he accumulate a vast amount of silver and gold."

>>3610

>"Neither shall he have a great number of wives,

A great number, meaning you should have a small number of wives, which is still polygamy. Solomon's 500 wives were too many, he should have had way less, like 60.

60 is still polygamy. That verse doesn't demonstrate anything.

Not accumulating a vast amount of gold doesn't mean you can't have two gold coins.

>>3609

>I still require an answer as to why Christians adopted the pagan custom of monogamy from the pagan Romans and Greeks.

>

>I've asked this many times on both boards and nobody has ever been able to give me a proper answer.

We didn't.

>I answered your post in the other thread: basically, the adultery you commit is by forcing your wife to be adulterous, since she becomes another man's wife without having actually ceased to be yours. In this sense, you commit adultery by making her adulterous.

I would have never ever (ever) come up with an interpretation like this and I cannot see how one would do this by himself unless he is convinced of polygamy before reading the verse.

>>3612

>I would have never ever (ever) come up with an interpretation like this and I cannot see how one would do this by himself unless he is convinced of polygamy before reading the verse.

It takes two to do adultery. What you said can be said of your own interpretation that the Jews back then were monogamous. You can't reach this idea without imagining this.

The difference is that we know for a fact that Jews back then were polygamous, not monogamous, therefore my interpretation is the only one that makes historical sense.

The rest is you trying to bend the text to your liking.

>We didn't.

Then do?

>>3611

Returning to the original question:

Isaac, Jacob and Abraham.

Adam and Eve are the more important example, however. Polygamy seems to be a post-fall thing.

>>3614

The historical customs of jewry are unimportant when Jesus decrees truths.

His word superceds jewih custom.

>>3612

>I would have never ever (ever) come up with an interpretation like this

Of course not, you didn't even seem aware that Hebrews had been polygamous for millennia at this point…

Besides, it doesn't matter if one can or cannot come up with an idea. The fact is that Jesus was talking to people who were polygamous. Nobody doubts that, and if you think they weren't polygamous, I want to see some evidence of that.

If Jesus had suddenly wanted to tell the Jews that they could only have one wife from then on, He would have said so. The topic here is just divorce (which the Catholic Church still refuses even though Christ makes it very clear right here that divorce is OK in case of adultery, not that Christ's word is enough for the Church if it doesn't fit its own will).

If anyone can justify why the Church goes against Christ here, please do.

>>3617

>Of course not, you didn't even seem aware that Hebrews had been polygamous for millennia at this point…

Making up stuff from thin air you are. So I was aware that it had to be explicitly forbidden to the kings of Israel but I was unaware that it was otherwise common? Nice logic here.

>>3615

Adam and Eve are mythical characters, as aknowledged by the Catholic Church. Being the first doesn't mean much here, especially since their children go on to be polygamous. The very names of Adam and Eve should clue you into the fact that they aren't to be regarded as the average human couple.

>Polygamy seems to be a post-fall thing.

We still live in postlapsarian times, though.

>>3616

>The historical customs of jewry are unimportant when Jesus decrees truths.

Jesus decreed that divorce was valid if adultery was involved. Church reaction? Forbid it, for any reason.

Jesus says nothing against polygamy. Church reaction? Imitate Romans.

His words indeed supercede Jewish customs, so why don't you allow divorce and admit that Christ never said anything against polygamy?

His words there are clearly about divorce, not polygamy; keek in mind He's speaking to polygamous people.

You'd be better off trying to argue that Joseph only had one wife (but then you'd be stuck with Jesus' brothers, if you can't assume they're from Joseph's other wives, then you can't have a virgin Mary anymore).

Everything points to polygamy being normal and accepted by Christ. His own father, Joseph, was polygamous.

Roman contamination is the only origin of Christian monogamy.

>>3618

>Making up stuff from thin air you are.

Literally tell me Hebrews weren't polygamous. I'll stop arguing at this point and I'll just copypaste history books.

You're the first Christian I talk with who didn't know polygamy was common to Hebrews (and in fact very common in human societies at large).

>>3619

>>3620

Read again. Think again. Write again.

>>3619

>You'd be better off trying to argue that Joseph only had one wife (but then you'd be stuck with Jesus' brothers, if you can't assume they're from Joseph's other wives, then you can't have a virgin Mary anymore).

His former wife died.

Old Testament evidence of polygamy:

>In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

>In 2 Samuel 5:13; 1 Chronicles 3:1-9, 14:3, King David had six wives and numerous concubines.

>In 1 Kings 11:3, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.

>In 2 Chronicles 11:21, King Solomon's son Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines.

>In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons…."

>>3623

>>3621

>>3622

>His former wife died.

Would love to read the source on this.

>>3625

http://www.vatican.va/latin/latin_index.html

>>3624

How come you use this:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

to maintain many of the old laws, but for some reason, polygamy isn't one of them?

>old Jewish customs

>Old Testamen laws

Nice way to pick and choose what you want by calling them different things. Polygamy wasn't just a "custom", it was a legal agreement which all marriages are.

>>3627

>to maintain many of the old laws, but for some reason, polygamy isn't one of them?

Exactly. There is no law allowing polygamy, not even a part laudating polygamy in a way.

>>3628

>There is no law allowing polygamy

There is no law allowing breathing, either. That doesn't mean much. Jews were polygamous and have been for millennia, and still were at the time of Christ. I have no idea where you got the idea that the Hebrews were monogamous, but would like to know your sources for this.

Also, if you, or anyone, could actually tell me why the Catholic Church refuses divorce when Christ explicitly condones it for adultery, that would be appreciated.

"Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." (1 Corinthians 7:25)

This is why I read Paul with scrutiny; he liked to put his own opinion in his letters - which is fine - but which is not the word of God.

Paul, for instance, condemns long hair and justifies it with some ridiculous rationalisation about not hiding yourself while women should hide because they're not as beautiful as men…

>>3633

>Paul, for instance, condemns long hair and justifies it with some ridiculous rationalisation about not hiding yourself while women should hide because they're not as beautiful as men…

I wouldn't be surprised if Paul was a closet homosexual, because of all the things like this which he says.

>>3638

Quite possibly. Paul, before conversion, was a Christian killer. Then he becomes Christian.

He also mentions not being sexual at all, possibly asexual. He also mentions mortification, if I am not mistaken, but I'm not sure about that one.

What strikes me about Paul is his very staunch hatred. Sure, his love is just as passionate, but I don't recall Christ being so hateful against anyone.

Is there any branch of Christians who literally consider Paul a scam or some sort of fraud?

I know there's a line in the gospel that has Christ announce him as the apostle for the goys, this come when Christ rejects a non-Jew that came for help (something I still find tricky to accept, as a goy boy). Was Christ only for the Jews?

>>3639

>Is there any branch of Christians who literally consider Paul a scam or some sort of fraud?

Thomas jefferson called Paul the first corruptor of the teachings of Jesus, and the Jefferson bible only contains the gospels without the miracles. Then again Jefferson became a Deist/Atheist.

>Was Christ only for the Jews?

Probably, going by the gospels he didn't seem to care much about gentiles. Without Paul Christianity as we know it would not exist, since his writings were the earliest dated ones in the NT. He probably was instrumental in creating the church (or even a religion which may not have yet existed). He might have been the first leader of the church.

>>3639

>Was Christ only for the Jews?

Yes, at first. But the jews rejected him and Israel was replaced. Now he is only for "jews" too if you will, but what a jew is has changed.

>Probably, going by the gospels he didn't seem to care much about gentiles. Without Paul Christianity as we know it would not exist, since his writings were the earliest dated ones in the NT.

He sent the apostles to all peoples after all.

> He probably was instrumental in creating the church (or even a religion which may not have yet existed). He might have been the first leader of the church.

Paul? No, he never claimed that and it also would have made no sense, Peter holding the keys to heaven and all…

>>3642

>You're saying this…to a Mormon. This Prophet of God, Brigham Young, can say it better than I ever could.

>a Mormon

Yes, and correct if I am wrong, but the LDS Church made polygamy forbidden and only Mormon sects now apply polygamy (to questionably young women, at that).

Correct me further if I am further wrong, but the LDS Church adopted polygamy mostly as a pragmatic manner to structure their society when men were scarce and women more numerous, not so much for purely spiritual reasons.

But yeah, of all Christians, you're probably the least concerned by monogamous marriage contagion.

>This is satanic.

Is it? I see it as being a step above animals. You can raise children you didn't produce, and you can separate being a parent from being a reproducing mammal, even if you were both at various times. In other words, being a good father has virtually nothing to do with being good in bed, and I can't imagine why anyone should tie those two things together.

Oddly enough, it's more than likely that I hold sex in even lesser esteem than most of you guys do.

>>3642

>Read the Scriptures, its clear as day.

That won't be enough to convince me much. Only Paul is clear as day on this issue, and Paul has a personal agenda which flows from his being a Roman subject. He's more of a Roman than a Christian on everything that has to do with law or social behaviour, including homosexuality.

>>3644

>God handed the people over to a reprobate mind (and thus they BECAME homosexuals)

That's some weird way of becoming a faggot. I don't think it happens like this usually, but I'm all ears about demon-induced homosexuality if you have anything on that.

>>3644

>If you don't think this verse is about homosexuality then there's nothing I can say to convince you because it's pretty clear.

It's pretty clear in this translation. I have no knowledge of the Greek version of it. All I can say is that it's from Paul.

>That's because some use euphemisms for "homosexual" like "effeminate". Where I am from, even today calling a man effeminate would be like calling him literally gay or at the very least that he behaves like a homosexual.

Correct.

>Whether or not asses were literally penetrated,

That's a legendary topical sentence. I like your style.

>And this is where we won't reach an agreement. Either you accept the Pauline Epistles as scriptural or you don't. I personally do and I'm sure most people here do also.

I don't reach agreements with myself on most religious things, so worry not, just don't take it personally.

I accept Paul's writings, but I also accept what he says in them, and one thing he says is that some of what he says is from God and some is from him more personally. Sometimes the line is obvious because he says so, and sometimes it's not obvious because he doesn't say so.

So I'm not telling you the epistles should be removed from the NT, I'm only saying that Paul is lesser than Christ and some of his opinions are just that, his opinions, his Roman opinions, especially when it comes to women, whom Christ treated in an extremely "progressive" way, in an age where men did not even speak to them.

>>3644

>If I quoted something from the Book of Mormon, you probably wouldn't take it very seriously because unless you are a Mormon it's just uninspired words of men

Well, to me, the regular Bible is simiarly the uninspired word of men. The reason why the Book of Mormon is something I don't take seriously is because it is verified plagiarism and it says "and it came to pass" far too often. I mean, why would God imitate 17th century English when in every other sacred books, God speaks the language of the people He speaks to? Apart from an attempt at sounding like King James, I don't see the point on God's part, most likely because it isn't of God, but that's current opinion on LDS doctrine (no offense intended, every Mormon I've ever known was great, I like Mormons, I just can't accept their doctrines, hate the sin not the sinner etc).

> If you adopt the same attitude towards Paul and thus you render his Epistles non-scriptural and not divinely inspired in your mind, there's nothing that will convince you.

I am not concerned with turning the Bible into what it was never thought to be. Whether something is scriptural or not only means, to me, that it's in the Bible or not, and that's all. It's a collection of books. It's a testimony written by humans. I don't regard the Bible as supernatural.

>It's a matter of having faith in Paul and the people who trusted him (the other apostles and Christ's disciples).

Most of the Apostles were dunces who made Christ cry through their sheer thickness and traitorous ways. Of course they would trust someone who claimed Christ talked to them directly from the Other Side. That doesn't mean much to me. Why would you trust people who deny Christ after having met Him and lived with Him for years?

Paul was a great author and much of my faith comes from his epistles. I'm just not at all convinced that his hatred of women and homos was shared by Christ. That's all, in a nutshell.

>>3644

>God doesn't damn you to hell simply for having homosexual tendencies or even committing a homosexual act. If a person is an unrepentant homosexual, however, that may be a different story. We all sin but if we repent we are forgiven.

As a Mormon, you might be the only other Christian here who shares my belief in levelled Hells and Hell as more like a school than a prison.

Maybe you guys are right about homosexuality and I am wrong. I personally believe that homos who have major mental problems because of their homosexuality and end up killing themselves do so because they're only partly homo and can't reconcile their feelings; their hetero part can't stand the part that just wants to suck a dick. So in a way, even homos know "it's wrong". I just can't imagine God being that angry at people who derive pleasure from their natural sexual attraction the same way heteros do.

>>3645

>Thomas jefferson

Yeah, I can't into Deism, or Freemasonry.

Christ announces Paul, but since those gospels were written long after Paul's epistles and his joining of the Church, I don't know if we can take it wholesale.

>>3663

>Paul? No, he never claimed that and it also would have made no sense, Peter holding the keys to heaven and all…

Paul sure sounds more like a leader of the Church than Peter. Whose writings are essential to Christianity? Paul's far more than Peter's. Who patronises the various churches of the time? Paul. Who visits them for further bossing around? Paul again!

Claiming to speak on God's behalf doesn't require any other claim of authority.

As to the keys to Heaven, where does that show up beyond the St. Peter's basilica? Out of curiosity.

>>3670

> made polygamy forbidden

In the physical real as of yet, and due to extreme circumstances. Doctrinal, its still there, its merits and its effect supposedly still affect things in the Celestial Kingdom. Which is why, in 2015, a man can have as many Temple marriages as he likes, but a woman may only have one.

>adopted polygamy mostly as a pragmatic manner to structure their society when men were scarce and women more numerous, not so much for purely spiritual reasons.

This sounds like one of those pretty things the casual mormons or outsiders would believe. No, plural marriage was a commandment from God given to Joseph Smith, and He drew a clear line between it and exaltation. That's what that quote from earlier means to say: You want to be a God? You must practice polygamy.

There's a "monogamy first" school of thought within LDS thought, which is legitimate, but even they acknowledge that when plural marriage was practiced, it was for spiritual reasons.

>and you can separate being a parent from being a reproducing mammal,

This is because humanity is the only being that can be a parent, period, the animal can only produce life of a lesser caliber. This is part of that mystical aspect of God's gift for us.

>being a good father has virtually nothing to do with being good in bed, and I can't imagine why anyone should tie those two things together.

Indeed. But the fact that you can create life in the first place and your desire and ability to be a good father if you so choose are related.

>>3681

>First:

>mormon

>Christian

>No.

You know what he meant. Let's not get jewy about this. inb4 some nonsense, you know I'm the first nigger to start making that claim when its relevant.

>So how exactly would you know what it takes to be in hell and who's there?

There's like 2 definite things you can do.

1. Deny the Holy Ghost

2. Kill an innocent person

Sexual immorality ranks third but is covered by the Atonement and thus you can be forgiven, but it might build up with other things, that's between yourself and God.

>Why is the "ya r ebul :DDD " crowd in these cases only on Christianity but never on you? Huh?

Look at that graph again. The sure fire way to go to Hell is to be an apostate (meaning, leaving the LDS church, not just being part of a Christian church) AND deny the Holy Ghost. Ryan Gosling has a better chance of going to hell than many others because he's seen the truth and rejected it. You, on the other hand, could join ISIS tomorrow and the Lord would show you more leniency because you never made covenants with Him or formally accepted the Restored Gospel. I'm also assuming a Muslim wouldn't explicitly deny the Holy Ghost, but you personally might as a convert, that depends.

>>3692

>God does not want His children to "eat dirt".

So we can presume to know the mind of God on anything? Even if God didn't want us to eat dirt, and it was in the bible, is it fair to create laws banning eating it? Those laws would violate free will which is why certain Christians say God allows people to sin, because it is all a test. (I would like for some homosexuals to come to this read. By the way people eat a ton of dirt and dust every year, and probably derive some nutritients from it.)

>>3694

>How many homosexuals die of AIDS every year?

How many straight people die from AIDS every year? The solution is simply condoms and safe sex for EVERYONE.

>How many die of drug overdoses?

What does this have to do with homosexuality? I don't think there is a significant relationship between being gay and taking drugs.

>>3681

>Christs identity as word, what do you think about it?

I'm assuming you mean logos, perhaps, but even then, I have no idea what you want to say.

>That's the step before a-religioisity and hipster-"christianity"

You keep seeing things from your perspective as though it were my own. Let me remind you that I come from strict atheism and detestation of Christianity and Christians.

I have no idea what "hipster Christianity" even is; it just sounds like you're trying to make me stay away from certain views by making them seem "not that cool", as if I were 12 and trying to look badass.

Yes, I believe the Bible is a normal collection of texts and that there is nothing supernatural about them, even if they are about supernatural events. Telling me I'm not a real Christian over and over doesn't count as anything: it's not an argument, it's not an explanation, it does nothing. Either disagree and explain why I'm wrong in a way I can learn from, or disagree and explain why you think what you think, that I may understand. But just stating things about the nature of my faith or myself does nothing.

>>3681

>Christ trusted them with his most precious thing on earth, the living Church. Good enough for me.

He also trusted them to betray Him. I believe in their faith and their efforts, I have no reason to believe they suddenly became extralucid and superiorly intelligent and courageous. The "church" in the Bible generally means the body of the believers, in other words, Christians.

>First:

>mormon

>Christian

>No.

You got some nerve sir. You get upset at me when I tell you that in some conversations one's personal opinion doesn't matter, but you don't have a problem telling this guy, or myself, that we aren't Christians, that you're the only real Christian, and nobody tells you to stop doing this, nobody gets mad over it. You expect others to treat you with all the respect you give to yourself, but you never once stop to look at the words you use about others. If Mormon dude wants to call himself a Christian, I'll let him and I'll use the term accordingly, even if I specified myself that I didn't consider certain beliefs compatible with Christianity, specifically the non-divinity of Christ (and plurality of Gods). But if he considers himself a Christian, let him. You consider Christian, the only real Christian here, and I let you. Why can't you drop the authoritarian act and accept that none of us holds the infallible truth? I know you can't drop it, but you could relax on the self-righteousness, just so you don't feel forced to call everyone else a pagan, a heretic, a heathen, a hipster Christian, and etc. It would be nice for all of us, including yourself.

>Fancy way of talking, sounds like purgatory.

Yes, stop acting like every word out of my mouth is based on Catholicism and is either an attack on it or an attempt to portray it in a bad light.

>You should post in the freemasonry thread :^)

Why? I think they're pedophile satanists.

>But does any of this make him the leader? A leader can be quite, a grey eminance, introverted …

Pragmatically, it does make him a leader of he functions as son, yes. He has both the physical presence and the scriptural presence, while Peter, to my knowledge, had neither.

>On the flag?

Where does the key reference come from? I meant the Peter statue in Rome, with silver and gold keys. What's the origin of the idea of Peter with those keys?

>So how exactly would you know what it takes to be in hell and who's there?

Only actual Mormons can go to "outer darkness" because only they were exposed to the truth. Everyone else has the excuse of not knowing better. My Mormon friend told me that this was basically why I wouldn't be allowed inside a temple as a non-Mormon.

>>3691

>Oh, stop being so snarky.

I wasn't being snarky. I was being serious and literal; I have read about such demon-induced states, whatever it's worth. I'm very much interested in the occult, the paranormal, miracles, demons, angels, etc. I was interested in this stuff long before I became Christian.

I'm sorry if it came across as mockery, I was being serious.

> If you have a problem with Paul, which you obviously do, then just disregard it like everything else he wrote while you're at it. Not gonna keep spoon feeding you Pauline Christianity only to have it completely disregarded because of the author.

I'm sorry if I'm making you upset, it isn't my aim. I don't completely disregard Paul, far from that, but I do take his words with a grain of salt. That's all.

>So why even debate? Just rip that entire section from your Bible.

Why debate? Because I'm interested in your opinion. Even if I disagree on everything with everyone here, I still want to be exposed to your opinion.

>Why even attempt to be a Christian if you can't accept the "apostle to the gentiles" who wrote half the New Testament?

I ask myself often. And I often consider giving up. Instead of giving up, though, I prefer to consider that Paul might have ideas of his own that don't necessarily reflect those of God, as he writes himself.

>>3692

> The only reason to even consider Paul to be questionable in my opinion is if something he says comes in direct contradiction with Christ.

There's another reason, though. Many experts consider it very likely that some of the epistles are frauds written by angry Christians who impersonated Paul to talk to their own community with authority. That's an element we must keep in mind too. If people back then were likely to be absolute moral wretches, it wouldn't be beyond them to fake a letter.

>>3692

>What about good ol John. He was loyal to the end. But, yes they were all imperfect human beings.

John's my favourite, as he was Christ's, and it shows. I said "most" apostles, not all.

>I trust them because Christ specifically chose them! He could have chosen any 12 people on the planet from any time period but He chose THEM. That has to mean something; Christ knew what He was doing.

I tend to think He chose those who followed Him, but since Christ demonstrated telepathic powers, He was most likely able to know them more in depth. I'd agree. It still remains that Christ knew most of them weren't elite humans by any means.

I really appreciate your responses, even those I don't rerespond to (because I have nothing to add and nothing to disagree with).

I'm glad you're here (in case my appreciation doesn't come across, I want to make it explicit).

>>3692

>Imagine you have a child who derives pleasure from eating dirt (let's say they have Pica, a real mental condition like homosexuality). This defect (pica) causes the child to have extreme urges to eat dirt and sand and when they do, they get a release of endorphins and it is extremely pleasurable. But even though it gives pleasure, it hurts the body.

>God does not want His children to "eat dirt" even if it gives them pleasure from doing so. Dirt is not food and it will hurt them to eat it. This is why God hates homosexuality because God knows it is not the spiritual food (marital, heterosexual sex) He has prepared for us. Homosexual acts may give the impression of the real thing (like eating dirt), but like dirt, it is without true substance that real food and real marriage / sex provides. God wants to prevent us from hurting ourselves because He loves us, not because He wants us to suffer.

I understand your point, but can't homosexuals be considered like sterile people? Apart from the procreation bit, they're mostly the same and seek marriages for similar reasons, no?

More pragmatically, what is a faggot to do? Does he just marry a homo woman to make a family and both have lovers on the side? Or do they just give up on making children entirely? Do they fake it or do they just resign themselves to celibacy forever?

What am I to tell a homo if he asks about God?

>>3696

This

>>3698

> If Mormon dude wants to call himself a Christian, I'll let him and I'll use the term accordingly, even if I specified myself that I didn't consider certain beliefs compatible with Christianity, specifically the non-divinity of Christ (and plurality of Gods). But if he considers himself a Christian, let him.

This

>>3694

>On homosexuality, yes.

I'm not convinced. The mind of Paul, yes, but God in the New Covenant? I'm not sure.

In the Old Covenant, it makes pragmatical sense, like most of the other rules, most of which have been abandoned in the New Covenant.

>Yes. Especially if it is contributing to the destruction of human life, like homosexuality and the disease ridden, drug induced, godless, hedonistic lifestyle it creates. How many homosexuals die of AIDS every year? How many die of drug overdoses? I see nothing positive here except the HIV status of the people involved.

AIDS will spread faster amongst male homos, yes, but that's not much of a reason against homosexuality. All of Africa severely condemns homosexuality and they're the most AIDS-ridden group of people in the world.

>>3685

>You know what he meant. Let's not get jewy about this

Oy vey.

>>3707

>AIDS will spread faster amongst male homos, yes, but that's not much of a reason against homosexuality.

As if AIDS was bad. AIDS being something bad or even an "illness" is a social construct.

>>3711

I know personally people that live just happily and more fulfilled with this gift than any of you bigoted homophobes ever will.

>>3719

>he holds opinions different to mine

>SHILLKIKEGTFO

>>>/pol/

>>3725

So you think it is funny to show nazi filth to a man who's family was a victim of the holocaust?

I wanted to inspect this board and see if Christians are really as bigoted and hatefilled as everyone says. They were right. Thank you for that and farewell.

>>3714

Them's fighting words!

>>3727

Don't leave! If I had known you were new here, I'd have welcome you. (I've recently come back from a long leave, so I had assume you were one of the new guys.)

I hope you're not gone already.

>>3731

He's a troll dude, he's done this bs before.

That or he's one of our regulars having a laugh ;^)

>>3728

>>3730

You literally make fun of the suffering of a man and of his whole people's? It is disgusting.

You are the reason that holocaust denial needs to be outlawed.

As a chosen I am closer to what you seek anyway, you could have learned from me.

>>3732

I still give everyone a chance.

>>3733

I'm curious about who you are. When did you land on this board?

>>3735

>When did you land on this board?

"Land on it" ? Am I a fuking alien now? Kike, non-human come at me bro! Give me all you got!

>>3732

>tfw when he personally will serve me in the afterlife

>>3737

I'm out. Reported for hate speech.

>>3750

>Am I every Catholic flag again?

To me, yes. Now I don't remember which arguments were had with you and with this other person, or persons.

Sorry about that.

>No. This does only harm him and no good. If someone thinks he is transgender and wants an operation I don't allow it to him, I'll slap him in the face.

You're in a killer mood! I'll say that it's easier to tell if someone is a man or a woman than it is to tell which Christian denomination is the true one, by far.

>I wonder where I could get this feeling from.

Considering I wasn't talking about you there, I wonder too.

>If they wanna be pedophile Satanists just let them. Ok?

Raping children isn't comparable to someone calling themselves Christian while not being Catholic.

>>3750

>Please share your diversity with us as long as you're not a white cis-shitlord and heteronormative not a Catholic traditionalist that personally killed Jesus twice.

If that is supposed to sound like me, I beg to differ. I'm a white cis shitlord and heteronormative chauvinistic man.

I'd love to know what the "killed Jesus twice" is all about, though.

>>3750

>>>3698 (You)

>> one's personal opinion doesn't matter

>>>3700 (You)

>>Why debate? Because I'm interested in your opinion. Even if I disagree on everything with everyone here, I still want to be exposed to your opinion.

If that was supposed to show a contradiction, it doesn't. One's personal opinion doesn't matter when you're presenting what Catholicism holds as truth in terms of theology: even an atheist person can present it if they know it. I don't need to be Catholic to explain Purgatory to a Protestant (which I have done, by the book). In that context, one's personal opinion doesn't matter.

In GENERAL, I care about personal opinions, especially if I ask for it.

There is a difference.

>>3704

>Apart from the procreation bit, they're mostly the same and seek marriages for similar reasons, no?

I would imagine so.

>More pragmatically, what is a faggot to do?

Chastity for life, or if he can find a way, stop being a homosexual. For some people it is a youthful phase but for others it may persist for life. It's unfortunate that they have to deal with that but, honestly, we all have problems.

I have anxiety problems sometimes but the Bible says that it is a sin. I can't help it (like they can't help it), but it does not excuse the behavior if I act on it. If I act on my natural impulse to be anxious, I am still sinning. Not an exact comparison I know but it does go to show that sometimes our sins are hardwired into us.

>What am I to tell a homo if he asks about God?

You've got to tell him the truth, that the Bible says X about homosexuality. I don't hate gays for being gay (well I try not to anyways but some make it difficult), I hate their behavior and I truly believe that God does also. I hate my own behavior (anxiety for example) and when someone says "don't be anxious because it is sin" and yet I try and try and just utterly fail, it hurts on a deep level. So I know that they hurt too when people tell them that their behavior that is hardwired into them is sinful. But it is still the truth.

>>3781

You are probably right about there being a correlation between gays and drug use. I find this surprising and would like to find out more about the reasons for this later. My first guess is that it's tied to greater sexual promiscuity at clubs where drugs are used. There could also be a neurological difference between gays and hetrosexuals.

>>3782

>>What am I to tell a homo if he asks about God?

>

>You've got to tell him the truth, that the Bible says X about homosexuality. I don't hate gays for being gay (well I try not to anyways but some make it difficult), I hate their behavior and I truly believe that God does also. I hate my own behavior (anxiety for example) and when someone says "don't be anxious because it is sin" and yet I try and try and just utterly fail, it hurts on a deep level. So I know that they hurt too when people tell them that their behavior that is hardwired into them is sinful. But it is still the truth.

This is so important. If you don't have the guts to tell him the truth then rather say nothing. Don't start with this "God loves you anyway" gibberish and that it's fine. It is not fine. It is an abomination and affirming them in this harms them more than anything else.

>>3780

>It's not really upsetting, just kind of annoying to be perfectly honest because it seems so obvious to me that homosexuality is wrong in God's eyes. It's like we are looking at the same object and arguing over the color when it is so obviously blue and not red.

Perhaps I am colourblind (I am, actually, slightly), but for my part, I experience the same frustration you do. Since I'm the unsure one, I can't blame you for being certain. The one who doubts is always more suspicious, I suppose. Skepticism isn't an easy position in matters of faith. I've been reproached with this quite a lot in the past, because I take nothing for granted, but I don't do this to be annoying, I do this to guarantee that I don't believe half truths and nontruths.

>I personally think God spoke through Paul and so to me, it is God's opinion

But Paul writes, clearly, that sometimes he expresses his opinions and that they aren't God's. I can't recall an exact passage of this, but he does warn his readers of that on at least one occasion that I can remember. Paul wrote as Paul, not as God Himself.

I'm not anti-Paul, though, I'm just a true skeptic on everything.

>I would say definitely don't give up on Christianity or your relationship with God, but don't give up on Paul yet either. I would also encourage you to read up on his life. The man traveled the world and was eventually executed for his role in founding the early church. He was a true Christian and we should listen to what he wrote.

Oh, I'm aware of his life. His deeds certainly speak for themselves. Two shipwrecks, spending over 24 hours swimming in the sea, waiting for rescue, and actually getting saved both times; getting rocks thrown at, etc, whipped, even. I know. I certainly respect Paul for his perseverence and writings.

>I just don't think that an act described as harshly as that would suddenly cease to be an abomination simply because the old covenant was fulfilled

From your point of view, of course. My point of view about the Old Testament is much less divine, so I don't have a problem assuming the OT reflects what the Hebrews believed and wanted rather than what God Himself wanted. When the Hebrews lost battles, they preferred to think God was punishing them than to think He either didn't exist or didn't care about them (or didn't seem to care). That's a topic for a whole thread though.

>letters in which he suggests that a man who was having sex with his mother should be cast out of the church.

I don't remember this (not suggesting it's not true, though). Paul was far more about sexual behaviour than Christ ever was, in my impression. I'm just surprised that what was not a topic before suddenly becomes one, to the point where people even get excommunicated.

>Spread of disease is a huge reason to be against a particular type of behavior.

Yes, but I meant religiously. Pragmatically, of course, but religiously, not any more than common sense dictates. Point being: if all homos were monogamous and practiced safe sex and AIDS no longer existed, you wouldn't suddenly say "It's OK now!" Hence it's not a reason.

>The very mechanics of anal sex is destructive to the body regardless of the diseases associated with it.

Sure, but there is a lot of sexual behaviour both in animals and humans that causes some destruction. Some forms of BDSM causes less destruction than some forms of self-mortification Catholics need not get angry at me, I'm not singling you out, plenty of religious people practice self-mortification, some to hardcore degrees which require hospitalisation afterwards.

About homosexuality in general, we won't disagree on much: I personally think it is a mental disease (which shouldn't shock to say, I also believe depression is a mental disease, and I don't think shame should be added to either condition, but let's call a cat a cat, as they say in French), I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, etc. It is from the religious end where I am unsure.

I've known homos who were Christian (including an awesome one back on 4chan, I hope he finds us some day), and they were strictly celibate. I'm not sure this is the best solution.

>>3781

>Or, you know chastity. Followed by sex with your spouse only.

I have to agree that condoms aren't safe. They break very easily (any of them) and, the thing nobody ever says, they remove most of the pleasure from the act. Safe sex is also lame sex.

I also have to agree that the safest and best sex is with your spouse (I have a looser definition of that: it's the person you consider as your partner for life, whether you're married yet or not on paper).

>>3782

>Chastity for life, or if he can find a way, stop being a homosexual. For some people it is a youthful phase but for others it may persist for life. It's unfortunate that they have to deal with that but, honestly, we all have problems.

All right, but how will the nonchristian homo do this? I mean, as a homo man, you can literally get fucked by hundreds of men within 24 hours if you want to, since male homos are regular horny men, minus the female resistance and testing: men can fuck men as soon as both guys find the other attractive. I've seen that "Bug Chaser" documentary, I know this stuff exists: young homos decide to get AIDS so as to no longer worry about getting it, so that they can go to sex parties and get fucked by literally over a hundred homos. They even do this as a form of baptism and I have seen homos in France decorate their sex dungeon to look like a church, to slight Catholicism.

Point being, nonchristian homos cannot and won't hesitate between a life of chastity (for no reason, to them as atheist) and a life of endless sexual possibilities.

>>3782

>I have anxiety problems sometimes but the Bible says that it is a sin.

Wait, what? I'm on that boat too, less today than in the past, but I've known anxiety up close. Are you thinking of Christ talking about birds and how God takes care of them and how dare we worry? Or is there something else that makes you think it's a sin? Acting on it in a bad way might be a sin (depending on what you do), but merely suffering from anxiety? Jesus Christ suffered from massive anxiety in the garden before the Passion, so much so He sweated blood (which does happen medically if you're worried beyond normal levels, if you're stressed to traumatic levels), and I don't think you'd suggest Christ sinned by worrying about what He knew was coming.

Let's restrict sins to acts and thoughts, not conditions. Anxiety, to me, is no more sin than cancer or the flu.

>>3792

In society, when this shit comes up, I generally keep quiet, not even on religious bases, but I know people around me aren't ready for any amount of red pill. Even in small doses it's very tricky to deviate from the mainstream (read, mediatic) opinion. Someone once asked me what I thought about France legalising homo marriage, which I didn't feel happy about. It was intensely tricky to say I didn't approve without sounding like a fascist cunt. I said I thought it was a diversion against more important issues. I feel the pressure, something tense.

>>3801

To be honest, more and more, I expect tomorrow to be made of fascists and cultural marxists fighting each other, with fascists winning because cultural marxists don't believe in violence unless they're 10 to 1.

I'm closely following the Greece debacle these days (since I'm on holidays) and I foretell the end of the European Union with a strong renationalisation of every country, with potentially /pol/tard politics coming in, maybe even a return to Christianity en masse (there is a large base among many young people, it's just that the media never mention them).

What happened in France after they legalised homo marriage is evidence of this: half a million people protested. People of all sorts, though the media said they were "Radical Catholics". There aren't half a million radical Catholics in France, I don't think, but they come together with others who don't think we're taking steps to a brighter future.

Greece's government is far left, and they want out of the EU, but so do far right movements. They both want out of the EU, and once they're out, they'll fight for power.

I'm already imaging Greece in flames in about a week, with Golden Dawn members storming the prison where their leaders are, and an ensuing 1920's communists VS fascists fight.

Greece is a post-apocalyptic nightmare in about 2 weeks or so.

>>3804

I really do hope that you are right, friend. I'd hate for this stuff to blow over, for that cancerous government to retain power and for the moral men of Greece to continue leading lives of quiet desperation. The fire needs to rise, and the people need to be made to have no choice but to fight and die for what they believe in before the moral situation of Europe can begin to improve.

Anyhow, whether a government should be so concerned with homosexuals, and I mean for their spiritual salvation, that's something I'm not sure of. I mean, I agree that they should definitely be pushed out of the public sphere *somewhat* so as to force them to keep their perversions private, Saudi Arabia style, but that's more for the safety of the majority and the spiritually vulnerable, not them per se.

People don't convert legitimately, not even at the tip of a sword, and with homosexuals its not like you could say "well the parents won't believe but their kids or grandkids will be good christians" as I imagine many muslims thought in days past.

>>3820

>That's what you should be doing; trying to understand and learn the faith and what God wants from us. It's certainly better than being apathetic like many people.

Agreed, but it comes at a price. Back on /christian/, they really thought I was a nuisance and actively trying to destroy other people's faith. I remember this one guy who literally snapped on the board and went all caps: the sad result of too much time repressing shit instead of talking it out with confidence. I am confident that if God exists, nothing can endanger that, so I'll ask anything and read anything.

>>3820

>The passage in Leviticus from which he draws his beliefs are the literal words of God to Moses.

I don't think that's what Leviticus is believed to be, though. Leviticus is basically a manual for Rabbis. Is it believed to have been written by Moses? I don't mean traditionally, I mean literally. For all I remember, experts don't even think that Moses wrote anything in the OT, let alone Leviticus. Because of this and the content of Leviticus, I can't take it as the word of God literally.

I'd rather have a problem with a text's accuracy than to have a problem with a God I can't love, to top it all. It also, and mostly, seems the more likely scenario that the Bible is not the direct word of God.

>>3820

>But both Christ and Paul both considered the OT to be completely true and divine.

For all I know, there was no Old Testament to speak of, you had the Torah, but I don't remember Christ singling out the texts specifically, nothing beyond the "old law", and the Ten Commandments.

But even then, Jesus was fully man, which includes some necessary shortcomings; Christ doesn't know everything and isn't almighty as such (which is the point of the Incarnation). I think there's a reason why He doesn't go over details from the OT to either justify or condemn. It remains that Christ goes against the OT again and again, and I know nobody here believes He did and I know someone will quote Matthew and yadda yadda but that's bunk. The OT says to stone adulterous women, and Christ saves a woman from being stoned for just that reason. And she is not innocent as some suggested, first because Christ doesn't say that, He asks if others haven't sinned too, which means He believes she has sinned. Moreover, meeting her at the well later confirms her status (well at noon means you avoid other women picking up water, which they do at dawn and dusk because it's fresher then; she avoids the community of women, and she never onces claims to be innocent).

A New Covenant is necessarily different from an Old Covenant.

As to Paul, he was Jewish. He nevertheless told non-Jewish Christians they were not only under no obligation to get circumcised or live by Jewish rule, but also that they SHOULDN'T even try, because that'd be a lack of faith in the New Covenant, in Christ. That's pretty telling to me.

>>3820

> and it became Paul's responsibility to weigh in on the matter.

I always wonder why Peter, the alleged first Pope, did not step in and act like the boss. Why does someone who didn't even meet Christ gets to boss everybody around?

>>3820

>Being an educated Jewish scholar, Paul looked to the scriptures for guidance because Christ did not mention homosexuality explicitly.

In other words, with Paul you get the same exact thing you got in the OT. Because that's where he got his own answer. In other words, he didn't get that from Christ.

>>3820

>I see what you're saying but I don't think its a possible scenario. The Bible says that homosexuals have been handed over to a reprobate mind. I don't think it's any more realistic to imagine a world in which gays are (mostly) monogamous than it would be to imagine a world in which feral cats are monogamous.

It's possible in theory and I mean that philosophically. Unlikely, perhaps, but it's technically possible.

Either way, I find your words unfair in that you could say the same exact stuff about heterosexuals and it'd work out the same: it's highly impossible to have a world of heteros who don't cheat because they were given a reprobate mind. Oh, they weren't? Then why do they cheat and divorce so much?

I rest my case on that.

More to the point, do we agree that homosexuals are homos from birth and that it's a condition?

>>3831

>The passage in Leviticus 18 that lists the abominations begins with this however: "The Lord said to Moses,".

You're right.

I don't know, if I am to believe Leviticus comes straight from God, I still have to find out whether we, in 2015, are still bound by those rules, if God wants us to apply Leviticus.

Would you stone a bunch of homos if we were living as a tribe in Iceland after some apocalyptic disaster?

I know I couldn't, even if I thought God asked me to. My faith in Christ is not about stoning faggots. I know I am fundamentally against much of Leviticus from the bottom of my heart. Leviticus was the source of my atheism when I was a young teenager. It literally killed the interest I had in Christianity, right there and then. I would hate to see it do it again now that I'm an adult, but I doubt this could even happen.

>>3831

>But this brings me back to a previous point: Christ believed Moses and Moses said that God told him those things.

Christ believed Moses? How? I mean, He read his alleged words, like everyone else.

Christ believed Moses' law, not sure. Christ doesn't need to and frequently broke said laws. Reading the gospels, all of them, it's obvious Christ thinks the laws are there to help us, but they shouldn't restrict us, the son in the well is the most obvious: save your son, even on sabbath. "Sabbath was made for man, not man for sabbath."

>>3834

>broke said laws.

like which instance?

>>3838

Why does every Christian not know this? It's all over the gospels.

He does stuff on sabbath and lets His disciplies do things on sabbath, for one.

He talks to women.

He goes against stoning the adulterous woman.

Just to name a few.

>>3840

I'll get to the other two later today, but I'll direct you to this post in which I explained to you a few days ago why not stonig the adulterous woman was actually a fulfillment of the law, not a dismissing of it.

>>3450

>>3842

I responded to it there. What you call "mob justice" would have been every act of justice among the Hebrews for centuries before.

>They stopped because he was able to use the Mosaic Law to prove that their execution would have been unlawful due to the lack of witnesses.

Really? I thought He just asked them to ask themselves whether they too hadn't sinned before. And upon that realisation, they figured that they'd feel bad at punishing her for her sin while they didn't get punished.

It feels like you (and many others) are trying hard to hold on to the Old Covenant even against Christ Himself.

As to witnesses, amongst Hebrews, the word of a woman wasn't worth shit. I'll take a look at your link again but I'm not convinced and I've definitely never heard this before.

But hey, let's go to the end of this: do you think women who cheat should be stoned to death?

You can't say no now if you agree with your analysis. I cannot believe you think Christ wants us to stone cheating women. I just can't, but prove me wrong.

>>3842

>The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.

Dropped. Seriously. (I'll still finish it, but by now it's dead to me.)

>Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely side-stepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment.

Nobody says that the man hasn't been stoned already. This entire article is based on the logical fallacy of the "argument from silence". It's based on if's.

It is not conclusive. If the gospel author had meant this, he would have included explanation about it. He didn't because that's simply not what this is about.

Why would you have an act of Christ but not the explanation that makes you understand it?

This is just an attempt to make Christ like the OT.

It remains that Christ broke the Sabbath. What's the rationalisation for that one?

>(It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery was in league with the accusing crowd.)

C'mon… I'm dropping it for good now. Too many "maybe", "and what if", and "not beyond the realm of possibilities", which just means "maybe".

Trying way too hard to force Christ into not breaking the old laws.

But I'm willing to see each and every rationalisation. The extent to which people don't want to hear Christ is truly impressive.

>>3848

Nah, you're letting the maybe's which are there to offer context, not as the main argument, to detract from the crux so as to remain with this hippie feel-good interpretation of Christ as a tree hugging anarchist. He didn't break the Sabbath, or violate Mosaic Law. The adulterous woman issue is a great example of this, s He wouldn't have convinced the Pharisees with this "haven't you ever sinned :(((?" nonsense.

>But hey, let's go to the end of this: do you think women who cheat should be stoned to death?

Look at when this happened Chronologically. Christ had not yet performed the Atonement, Mosaic Law was still completely in effect and He knew it. Had he broken the Law and sinned, He would have been unable to perform the Atonement, as He would have went against the Law God Himself (Christ Himself, to Trinitarians) first instituted. If Jesus sinned, He was not God. If He ever Broke the Law of God, He was not a God.

>You can't say no now if you agree with your analysis. I cannot believe you think Christ wants us to stone cheating women.

Do not forget who first told the Hebrews that it was not only good but demanded that they should stone these whores: it was God the Father; either Christ Himself or His Father depending on your view. This law is Holy and honorable, not some vile thing to be treated with disgust like you seem to do.

That said, I personally would not be against this. If a secular government chose to employ this, we'd be duty bound to stone them. But due to the Atonement, NOT stoning them is now an option to consider.

>Trying way too hard to force Christ into not breaking the old laws.

We can take examples in which you think Christ broke the law, one by one, and see where it leads us.

>>3846

Christ did not break the Sabbath. He made the Sabbath even holier because he healed the sick man. The Sabbath is about resting but also worship and helping others.

>>3831

>>The OT says to stone adulterous women, and Christ saves a woman from being stoned for just that reason

>This section was added later and is not authentic. This event was a fabrication.

I've also read that it was inserted later. Since you are already aware of it, why hasn't this bothered you, in regards to the accuracy of the NT?

>>3875

>I've also read that it was inserted later. Since you are already aware of it, why hasn't this bothered you, in regards to the accuracy of the NT?

You just have to accept the reality that the Bible is imperfect. But God answers prayers and speaks to prophets. Heavenly Father will always give wisdom to those who ask of it.

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. James 1:5

>>3831

MR, how is the event of the adulterous woman a fabrication?

>>3866

>Nah, you're letting the maybe's which are there to offer context,

They are the foundation of this argument. Without them, there's no reason to assume anything other than what the author presents to us, which is very straightforward.

>this hippie feel-good interpretation of Christ as a tree hugging anarchist.

I think this is the origin of this article: it seeks to twist Christ's intention back to the OT. The problem you'll face is that if there was no change from the OT, there was also no reason for Christ to come.

>He didn't break the Sabbath, or violate Mosaic Law.

He did break the Sabbath in more ways than once.

>The adulterous woman issue is a great example of this, s He wouldn't have convinced the Pharisees with this "haven't you ever sinned :(((?" nonsense.

Is this somehow more of a miracle than walking on water now? It's the obvious meaning represented by the author. If your meaning was intended, the author would have indicated it somehow, but he never does. There isn't a single line in the passage that points to this contrived interpretation, nothing. The article continuously imagines what could be, only highlighting that at no point is there anything suggesting this interpretation. It's wishful thinking at its finest.

>Look at when this happened Chronologically. Christ had not yet performed the Atonement, Mosaic Law was still completely in effect and He knew it.

This has to be a joke. I've literally never heard of this argument before. Is this specifically LDS belief or more general?

> (Christ Himself, to Trinitarians)

You will tell me that you believe Christ believes in stoning adulterous women, but you won't believe that Christ is God, despite Christ saying so multiple times. How do you do this? We should make a thread on LDS doctrine at some point. I have tons of questions for you on that specific topic.

>>3866

>not only good but demanded that they should stone these whores:

You literally give me chills sometimes. I don't believe God actually demanded this crap; I believe humans wanted this to happen, as they don't need God to ask them to do that sort of crap. Anger and cruelty shouldn't use God as an excuse. It's what Isis does and I don't believe it's of God. This stuff makes me seriously think we should have listened to Marcion and dropped the OT entirely.

>This law is Holy and honorable, not some vile thing to be treated with disgust like you seem to do.

If you can find it in your heart that throwing stones at people until they die is a beautiful thing, then I don't know what to say in response. I feel the same disgust as Christ did, so I'd not participate to such demonic acts.

>>3872

>He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” Luke 24:44

What's written about Him is what is written about the messiah, i.e. that He would save His people.

What Christ is doing there is use their religious base to get them to believe in Him. Nobody there assumes that there's a chance for a Jew not to believe in Moses. He's making the connection between past prophets and Himself as the Messiah.

> the transfiguration

I thought this might be what you were thinking of, but I wasn't sure exactly what happened there.

I'm fine with all this but it doesn't exclude changes in covenants; Christ merely says He is the continuation (and end) of the process. I really need to start a thread about LDS, because I keep having these questions and comments and if I tackled them here, it'd never end.

>>3874

All right, stop, because what you did just there is what I do about "breaking the Sabbath" which ends up meaning making it better and etc.

You don't do this to other cases where you can't apply this logic, though. You don't say Christ didn't want to stone the woman because love is the improvement and real meaning of the law, but for this one, you do.

You know why you do? Because you can't rationalise this one back to the OT. Christ broke Sabbath by doing things, multiple times. Yes, He explains it very well, but on a base level, it is breaking the Sabbath; on a more spiritual level, it isn't, but that's because Christ asks us to see higher, which you do in this one case but not in the stoning case. In that stoning situation, you prefer to stay at base level.

That's a double-standard and it reveals the pick-and-choose nature of these interpretations: once it's literally, once it's not.

>>3875

The event isn't a fabrication, but the connection is not explicit. It isn't explicitly said that it's the same woman, that much is true, but with context, it becomes increasingly obvious, more so to the contemporary reader.

>well at noon = avoiding other women

There's a whole context there that isn't mentioned because it's obvious to the readers of the time. I think I explained this somewhere above.

It's not a fabrication, though, I maintain. The reason why she's at the well at noon is the same as to why others want her stoned: she's an adulterous woman and for this, other women have rejected her, which makes her go get water at noon, while everyone else gets water at dawn and dusk. That stuff is obvious to desert people but if you live in Austria and get water from the tap, it won't ring any bell.

>>3879

see

>>3892

>>3891

The sabbath is still valid m9

t. adventist

The only thing Christ did about it was to show that the Sabbath its not a burden. It was something to be delighten

>>3907

>Yes, I did. I said that I wouldn't stone faggots because I don't think Christ would because of His own 2nd Commandment.

What does the Second Commandment have to do with stoning? Do you mean the 6th? I'm going to assume you meant the 6th: the original text says "You shall not murder," not just "kill", and the difference that is murder is defined as the unlawful act of killing; there are lawful acts of killing, such as the stoning of adulterous people, in the OT.

If you really meant the Second, I confess I'm lost.

>>3907

>Either you are confusing the two Mormons

I am. I didn't realise there were two Mormons on this board until about 5 minutes ago in the Mormon thread, where the other Mormon mentions you.

I went by flags, and assumed that sometimes you used your trip and sometimes not.

I made the same mistake with Discipulus, who became every Catholic flag on this board to me.

My bad.

>The story of the woman who was about to be stoned is not contained in the earliest manuscripts.

I wasn't aware of that. But I doubt it. The manuscripts virtually haven't changed from their original editions; the parts that did change or were added have square brackets around them in most Bibles, and they're generally just a line or a verse, never a whole passage as suggested here.

Nevertheless, if you have some references for this, I'd like to read about it.

>But it's still clear that Christ considers Moses to be a true prophet. If Moses was a true prophet then the list of abominations must also be true.

I wouldn't make that connection myself since we're not even sure Moses wrote any of the Torah; experts generally think he didn't write any of it (again, if I remember correctly).

> Christ did not say "You should have believed Moses, except for that one chapter where he talks about the list of abominations. It's the year 30 for fucks sake, get with the times."

I think Christ meant specifically about the long line of prophets leading to the Messiah, Himself. I honestly don't remember if Moses announced the Messiah himself or not.

>>3915

> Lets get real here. You just want to convince yourself that the chapter in Leviticus was not really God talking to Moses so you don't have to worship a God who thinks homosexuals are an abomination. This is a personal issue to you for whatever reason and that's why you've made an arbitrary distinction between that and Moses' other prophesies.

You seem to use a much wider definition of "prophesy" than I do. By "prophesy", I mean "predicting the future" exclusively.

As to it being a personal issue, I suppose the same can be said of any Christian who would rather the text mean what they personally prefer rather than something else. You'd rather Jesus consider homosexuals an abomination. My problem isn't so much that I'd rather have Jesus who doesn't consider them an abomination, my problem is that I am not certain that He does.

You think my disagreement on these points is just me pushing my own agenda. Believe what you want but I'm really just trying to understand Christ, and I am of the opinion that Christ did not forget to stress out repeatedly what mattered the most, and that does not include homosexuality and the likes.

As to the passage, according to wiki, experts disagree on it. I have no idea what to make of it. Both sides seem to agree that the story is authentic even if John didn't write it himself.

> that's why you've made an arbitrary distinction between that and Moses' other prophesies.

That's where the word "prophesy" is used different by you and I. Moses receiving laws is not something I describe as a prophesy (though I understand your meaning); to me, the "prophesy" was 100% about future things, such as the Messiah. Stop assuming that I just want to believe what I want and not the rest and that because of this, I interpret texts this or that way. I start from the text, not from my personal opinion.

>cafeteria Christian

New one to me. I'm accused of this fairly often, and the more it goes on, the more I think you're right. I think about this on a daily basis, I just always assumed that it was better to be a confused Christian than not to be Christian at all.

>you've got to provide an actual reason why false prophesy is included in the Torah and this is tolerated by Christ.

My reasoning is not grounded in nonsense. I've given you reasons for my skepticism: Moses probably didn't write it, experts think it's a sort of handbook for Rabbis from which they can select what they prefer, more or less, etc. We look at the Torah and pretend that the Hebrews had no debate over it. The Talmud is a reality and there isn't a lot that the Hebrews took the way you think every Christian and Mormon should take. By the time Christ was born, the Hebrews were divided into many subgroups with various beliefs. The Torah was much more discussed amongst Hebrews than among Christians. I suppose it's more difficult to criticise a text that doesn't come from one's own culture and wasn't written by one's own fellow.

>>3915

>What makes this particular prophesy false but the others true? How is that distinction made, and most importantly, why didn't Christ make that distinction Himself and rebuke the Leviticus 18 prophesy of Moses if it were false?

Leviticus 18 isn't a prophesy to me, as I explained above. I didn't have those two things in mind.

My understanding of Christ after reading the gospels is that Christ came to change the law, to make them fulfilled, which I understand to mean closer to home, more precise, but that way, more subtle also. Love your neighbour as yourself being the main commandment, as Christ said. Because I believe in Christ's commandment, I have a hard time believing in some of the OT customs and this idea is supported by Christ's behaviour, on which we have disagreements.

>>3918

LDS theology offers an explanation which I believe to be true, regarding why you feel the way you do, if you want to hear it.

>>3926

>I could say the same for your retro-active continuity error of making Christ act as if the Atonement had already happened.

I never said that. I don't have this vision where the change needs to take place immediately after Atonement but not before, simply because Christ is already teaching the new way before His sacrifice and since He's God, He can't be too late or too early with Himself, nor can anyone else if they follow Him.

>The Cross, man, its everything.

The cross didn't become an important symbol until centuries later. What mattered most to early Christians was the Resurrection, more than the Passion. It's still that way for the Orthodox. My Utah friend had a similar view of the Catholic crucifix, she thought it was too much focus on the dark side and not enough on the good news: the victory of Christ over death.

>And this is where we fundamentally disagree. You buy into the Gnostic beliefs of the OT being evil (and therefore not of God) or man-made (and therefore not of God), whereas I do believe that it was Jesus Christ Himself who gave men Mosaic Law and demanded the things in the OT.

I'm not a Gnostic. It's not that I believe the OT God is evil, it's that I think He's more fiction than fact, more Hebrew than God, more cultural than spiritual.

I don't believe the world was created evil, or for evil purposes (not unless we're discussing conspiracy theories, but that's another thing).

>>3928

>LDS theology offers an explanation which I believe to be true, regarding why you feel the way you do, if you want to hear it.

I don't think I'll like it, but I'm curious as ever, hit me!

>>3945

>imply because Christ is already teaching the new way before His sacrifice

There's a big difference between preparing the world for the Atonement and acting as if it had already happened. For the adulterous woman, there was no way her sin would be washed away, the Atonement had not yet taken place. The timing is key, and so is adherence and respect for the Law that He Himself introduced in the first place; and it wasn't this broken, vile "in between" thing, it was holy and righteous in its own way

If anything, the New Law is a test of our resolve; its so much easier to kill a sinner than to love him.

>The cross didn't become an important symbol until centuries later.

Not the Cross per se, but what it represents: the Atonement. I'm reiterating the importance of the Atonement.

>I'm not a Gnostic.

>it's that I think He's more fiction than fact, more Hebrew than God, more cultural than spiritual.

>not a Gnostic.

I got bad news for you, you might be at least somewhat Gnostic.

>I don't believe the world was created evil, or for evil purposes

If God commands you to stone a woman to death, how can that be evil? God has commanded it.

>>3947

When it comes to things like birth, race, class and circumstance, there's little that's coincidence. As in, God knew you in your pre-mortal existence, He knew what your resolve would be and what your inclinations would be; He knew you'd be the type to fiercely oppose to Old Law, and have this intrinsic affinity for the New Law (how deep it goes, only you know). God placed you in the time, place and circumstance where you could best excel, but also be tested. You have this drive for knowledge, and you struggle with God's actions in the past, but I imagine loving others comes easier to you; this is God's idea. Likewise, a person like me who would have had no trouble performing justice in the Old Law was born today, because that is my challenge: to love others. And there's no cheating God on that department.

I don't think your aversion or disbelief in the Old Law is an evil thing, not necessarily, and I think God has accommodated for that in your life.

>>3948

Thank you my friend, I will read this.

>>3948

>A prophecy consists of divinely inspired words or writings, which a person receives through revelation from the Holy Ghost. That's the definition I am using because that is what the LDS church uses.

I understood this eventually, but know that to others, "prophesy" will mainly mean foretelling.

>I just think that perhaps no amount of evidence will convince you. If the passage omitted homosexuality and was solely about bestiality for example would you really have such a hard time believing it?

It'd be the same, because the reasons for my doubt are the same.

>I think the bombardment of gay propaganda in today's world makes many people repulsed to even consider that Christ was "homophobic".

I don't think Christ was scared of homosexuals; as to repulsion, that probably wasn't the only thing that repulsed Him, though that's an argument from silence either way.

>Could you imagine someone preaching a sermon today about how it's a sin to fuck your dog? Of course not because it's so obviously wrong that it would be unnecessary to do so.

Leviticus does that. And having studied cultural anthropology, nothing is "obviously" wrong. You'd think swallowing 20 old men's cum is "obviously wrong", but that used to be the rite of passage of certain tribes, to become an adult, to fill yourself with the manly seed of all the elders of your tribe. From their point of view, it makes perfect sense and nobody questions or winces at the act. There are countless examples of stuff like this, so I'd not be surprised that the Hebrew did all sorts of "obviously wrong" stuff, some of which we know. Bestiality is mentioned, so one must assume it's happened. It happens today. Humans don't change much.

In other words, yes, I can imagine sermons about how it's wrong to fuck your dog. I can imagine even more easily in the times of Christ, yet He doesn't mention sex much at all.

>Talmudists believe this. It's a Talmudic Jewish idea that you can pick and choose from the Torah. Christ never taught such a concept.

To be fair, they picked and chose the Torah, to begin with. They wrote the books, they chose which would be in the Torah. The process was always "pick and choose" right from the start. The Talmud only continues what always happened.

>>3949

>There's a big difference between preparing the world for the Atonement and acting as if it had already happened. For the adulterous woman, there was no way her sin would be washed away, the Atonement had not yet taken place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christ forgive sins long before the Atonement?

He forgives people's sins, it's one of the reasons why high priests want Him dead, and He does this before the Atonement. I think this brings down the rest of the argument.

>>3949

>I got bad news for you, you might be at least somewhat Gnostic.

Somewhat Marcionist, sure, but I don't see how I'd be Gnostic, since I don't share anything of their views.

There's a difference between believing that Jehovah is the demiurge and believing that the OT isn't the word of God.

>>3949

>If God commands you to stone a woman to death, how can that be evil? God has commanded it.

I believe God is infinitely outdone by Himself, that is, justice, goodness, love. God wouldn't ask me this, and I don't believe He ever asked anyone to do this, you know my opinion by now.

>>3949

>When it comes to things like birth, race, class and circumstance, there's little that's coincidence. As in, God knew you in your pre-mortal existence, He knew what your resolve would be and what your inclinations would be; He knew you'd be the type to fiercely oppose to Old Law, and have this intrinsic affinity for the New Law (how deep it goes, only you know). God placed you in the time, place and circumstance where you could best excel, but also be tested. You have this drive for knowledge, and you struggle with God's actions in the past, but I imagine loving others comes easier to you; this is God's idea. Likewise, a person like me who would have had no trouble performing justice in the Old Law was born today, because that is my challenge: to love others. And there's no cheating God on that department.

That's one of the most interesting ideas I've been exposed to since I came to 8chan, as far as religion is concerned.

>>3954

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Christ forgive sins long before the Atonement?

Its not like forgiveness for sins was a new concept, it just didn't work the same way and for every single person on earth, not just Hebrews. You could sacrifice offerings, you could asks the priests for forgiveness, John the Baptists forgave people (with proper authority) and likewise Christ forgave specific individuals which was ok. This is not the same as the New Law under after the Atonement where anyone ever can be forgiven and all they have to do is believe in Christ and repent.

>He forgives people's sins, it's one of the reasons why high priests want Him dead, and He does this before the Atonement

Nah its not the same. It was wrong, to them, because *He* was doing it.

>There's a difference between believing that Jehovah is the demiurge and believing that the OT isn't the word of God.

That's why I said you're only somewhat Gnostic. Its not like its a unified school of thought, they have various beliefs and theories that some Gnostics accept and some reject. The idea of the OT being false, evil or corrupt is one of those.

>justice, goodness, love.

I guess then we just have fundamentally different definitions of these words, and if they don't fit your criteria then they can't be from God.

>That's one of the most interesting ideas I've been exposed to since I came to 8chan, as far as religion is concerned.

I'm glad you found it interesting. Pre-mortal stuff is pretty cool but sadly its mostly theoretical. Hopefully more will be Revealed in my lifetime.

>>3951

>In other words, yes, I can imagine sermons about how it's wrong to fuck your dog.

I think you missed the part where I said TODAY… I meant that it would be completely absurd for an American baptist preacher for example to preach a sermon about that TODAY. That's the entire point. In the time of Christ, in Judea, it would be ridiculous to preach against homosexuality because the Jews of the time already believed that it was "obviously wrong" like I said.

>nothing is "obviously" wrong

It's called cultural taboos. Homosexuality was a cultural taboo to the Jews of Christ's time. It was "obviously wrong" to them.

>>3964

>Its not like its a unified school of thought, they have various beliefs and theories that some Gnostics accept and some reject.

When talking of Gnostics, I'm talking about actual Gnostics from back then, not whoever today trying to emulate Gnosticism. It was a group of Christians with their own interpretation of gospel. I share nothing of their beliefs. Not to my knowledge anyway.

>The idea of the OT being false, evil or corrupt is one of those.

I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply. I'm not doing that, I don't assume there's an evil smaller deity anywhere.

>>3967

Ok, I was referring to Gnostic from today as well. Marcionism is essentially a form of Gnosticism in how it differed from "mainstream" Christianity btw.

>I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply.

Yeah, they do that. That or otherwise being dismissive of the OT, like Marcion. What's your gripe with it, simply? That you think many of those things were just the uninspired words of men that got put in there and that God never had anything to do with Mosaic Law?

>>3968

>Yeah, they do that. That or otherwise being dismissive of the OT, like Marcion. What's your gripe with it, simply? That you think many of those things were just the uninspired words of men that got put in there and that God never had anything to do with Mosaic Law?

I'm thinking, sometimes, that Christ might have been born in another religion and culture and He would have said the same stuff.

I agree that this approach doesn't quite match with the big picture, with all the prophets and such. That's how I used to see things. Now it's more like I incorporate the OT but with reserve.

I'm still working on my understanding.

>>3973

>I'm still working on my understanding.

Heck, aren't we all.

> Now it's more like I incorporate the OT but with reserve.

This is the thing, a lot of people seem to like Jesus and profess faith in Him because they only see a certain side of Him (the "nice" side), but dismiss or put aside more unpleasant things. Or, fundamental aspects of the theology like OT stuff. The problem is, the OT is what lends validity to Jesus Christ's claims to being Divine, because His life plays out just like OT prophecies.

Anybody can be a "nice guy", that's not such an outlandish achievement. But for Christ to be a God, the OT has to be true.

>>3974

>The problem is, the OT is what lends validity to Jesus Christ's claims to being Divine, because His life plays out just like OT prophecies.

I see that more today than I did some time ago. I recently read a whole book about "The Bible" (for dummies, for kids), and it was very enlightening in that I learned tons of things I wouldn't have learned from simply just reading the Bible. Like I didn't know Paul's epistles were ordered by importance, which is why Romans is the first.

For now, I'm getting the idea that Christ being born there and then wasn't just a coincidence, so I'm more open to the idea that it was planned, announced, and that God may just have helped the Hebrews to get there, although why all this was necessary, I don't know, unless God improvised depending on the Hebrews' actions. As stated elsewhere, I believe God doesn't know the future, so that makes it more likely to have a God who tries various things and see how we react, which also fits Genesis, "And He saw that it was good," which sorta suggests He wasn't 100% sure that it would be. I'm down with that.

I used to think that the OT God was an alien overlord using technology, and I still think some parts of it definitely fit that better than anything else, especially the Ark or how to behave when "God is amongst Hebrews", which in itself is a most odd notion.

>>3967

>I thought they assumed the God of the OT was not our God, simply. I'm not doing that, I don't assume there's an evil smaller deity anywhere.

Psalm 82 does suggest the writers of the Old Testament once believed God was once one of many Gods. (Possibly the chief God.) The writer then besmirches the lesser Gods for not doing their duties.

>>3918

Man you have your theology mixed up.

Love thy neighbor is not "a law" instead is a way in which Jesus summed up the whole law. The rest of the law is summed up with the other command: "love God…"

The Bible says that the law is good, then why would God remove something is good?

>>3975

Why is God's all knowingship hard for you to accept?

If God didn't knew what would happen then he wouldn't have prefect knowledge. Which would mean God is not perfect.

>>4003

>the writers of the Old Testament once believed God was once one of many Gods.

The first commandment suggests the same, but from God directly.

>>4006

>The Bible says that the law is good, then why would God remove something is good?

Perfecting is not removing. Christ also said that divorce, for instance, was allowed by Moses due to people's hardened hearts, but that it hadn't been this way before and shouldn't. Here is a potential change that isn't about "removing" but perfecting.

As to having my theology mixed up, I don't see how what you said was so different from what I said.

And love your neighbour definitely is a law. A spiritual law more than a simple everyday law, but to discard it as some lesser rule when you yourself say it's the whole law…

>Why is God's all knowingship hard for you to accept?

Because it makes God evil, so I reject the notion. Same reason why Catholics reject Protestant predestination.

>If God didn't knew what would happen then he wouldn't have prefect knowledge.

God can choose to have things exist that He can't know about, that's not a problem to me. It's even necessary if you want to preserve God's goodness. Being perfect doesn't mean you can't make choices. God isn't evil, but He chooses to let evil exist for ulterior, and good, reasons. Same with not knowing the future. The future doesn't exist, there is nothing to know about it. God remains ominiscient and perfect. If we have free will and can take real decisions, then this idea shouldn't shock you. God allows us to be free.

>>4388

>>4388

>God's omniscience makes him evil

>God allows us to be free

how can you simultaneously believe these two statements?

>>4448

In context it makes sense. God's actualised omniscience would make Him evil, that's why He hasn't chosen to make us in a deterministic manner, just as our universe isn't deterministic, as proven by quantum theory and the likes.

>God reserves His omnipotence by not intervening in our decisions

>God allows us to be free

>God reserves His omniscience so we can be free and He not evil

Although it's not that God can know and chooses not to, it's that God chose for us to be able to make decisions that can't be guessed in advance, just like God can't second-guess Himself either, or He'd be forced to act a certain way, which would rob Him of His own free will, which can't be. That one thing cancels any idea about God knowing the future. God can't know what doesn't exist, by definition, and the future is one of those things. It's a word we use, but the future, by definition, doesn't exist. Can God know anything about the non-existent cat I have in a box? No, because there's no cat. Same problem here.

>>4449

why does omniscience make God evil?

he can be aware of every choice we make but still allow us to make them, the two are not mutually exclusive

>>4450

>why does omniscience make God evil?

>he can be aware of every choice we make but still allow us to make them, the two are not mutually exclusive

Same thing as with Predestination. If you know someone is evil and will rape someone else, and you do nothing, you partake of the act because you let it happen, knowingly. It's evil in two ways because one, the innocent person gets raped and two, the rapist goes to hell.

If God knows in advance that this will happen no matter what, then He cannot escape responsibility in this. Predestination makes God the author of sin, as the anti-Predestination theologians had it; it's even truer here.

You could argue that even with a limited foresight into the future, or even with none at all, you could argue the same thing about God's non-interventionist stance. If God doesn't know the future but lets the rape happen, is it very different… I'm thinking aloud here, bear with me.

Forget the rape example, it doesn't work. Where the example works is about human's final destination: if you create a person and know where they will invariably go, you become responsible for it, and that's something I can't believe about God.

But more than that, for God to know the future, God would have to be stuck on railroad tracks Himself, because if He knows what happens in the future, He can't change His future behaviour, and that can't work in my opinion. Knowing the future changes things. God's behaviour in the Bible doesn't suggest much foresight either, at least not certain foresight.

I'm aware my position on this is not popular and not share by many.

>>4453

Nice.