ABC News leads off with Bachmann: Pray Away the Gay at Candidate's Clinic?

[Mr. Magoo]

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?'" Matthew 19:4-5.

Those are the words of Jesus, when answering a question about marriage. Don't you think, if there were some exemption for homosexuality, He would have mentioned it.

I did not say that Christ approved of homosexuality. I said that by definition of understanding the word "Christian" then homosexuality is not anti-christian. Not being anti-christian is not the same as being "pro".

 

Homosexuality ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman; they have committed an abomination to God") is CLEARLY pointed out as sinful. Of that there is no doubt.

It may be unbiblical, but this thread is about the specific teachings of Christ.

The teachings of Christ are the teaching of the Bible; the two are hardly
 He took what was taught in the Old Testament one step further. He didn't diminish it.

ah here we go. For this to be true, you would have to admit that everything mentioned in the non-christ speaking parts is agreed on by Jesus. Jesus would have to agree that we should stone adulterers, not shave, not sit where a menstruating woman has sat, etc etc. It was clear that Jesus did not agree with stoning adulterers. I think Jesus changed parts of the old testament built upon hierarchy and social structure and implemented a certain equality (we are all sinners, etc), I do not think the two are compatible, I think Jesus modified the old ways of doing things. If he even modified it in a slight, tiny little bit, in any way possible, your statement cannot be true.

[MCWAY]

I did not say that Christ approved of homosexuality. I said that by definition of understanding the word "Christian" then homosexuality is not anti-christian. Not being anti-christian is not the same as being "pro".

 
It may be unbiblical, but this thread is about the specific teachings of Christ.

ah here we go. For this to be true, you would have to admit that everything mentioned in the non-christ speaking parts is agreed on by Jesus. Jesus would have to agree that we should stone adulterers, not shave, not sit where a menstruating woman has sat, etc etc. It was clear that Jesus did not agree with stoning adulterers. I think Jesus changed parts of the old testament built upon hierarchy and social structure and implemented a certain equality (we are all sinners, etc), I do not think the two are compatible, I think Jesus modified the old ways of doing things. If he even modified it in a slight, tiny little bit, in any way possible, your statement cannot be true.

Jesus followed those laws throughout his life. As far as the issue with the woman caught in adultery, AT NO POINT did Jesus disagree with the law. What's clear is that this issue wasn't about the woman. It was about the Pharisees, trying to set up and trap Jesus. The text even says as much ("They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him."]

That's a clear PERVERSION of the law, as the law of Moses states that BOTH adultery-committing parties (man and woman) were to be put to death, not just the woman. They didn't even have the husband of this woman or the wife of the guy's husband there (who by law, would throw the first stone).

[Mr. Magoo]

Jesus followed those laws throughout his life. As far as the issue with the woman caught in adultery, AT NO POINT did Jesus disagree with the law. What's clear is that this issue wasn't about the woman. It was about the Pharisees, trying to set up and trap Jesus. The text even says as much ("They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him."]

That's a clear PERVERSION of the law, as the law of Moses states that BOTH adultery-committing parties (man and woman) were to be put to death, not just the woman. They didn't even have the husband of this woman or the wife of the guy's husband there (who by law, would throw the first stone).

so the "judge not, lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" aren't applicable? Do you think not stoning an adulterer is a sin? You also didn't address the other parts that it seems Jesus modified. I think what you are trying to show goes against the majority of christian believers. The most obvious case that I can think of that Jesus modified from the old testament is the way that sins are forgiven. If jesus modified, in any slight tiny little way possible, the way that sins are forgiven, then your premise that the teachings of jesus and the teachings of non-jesus speaking parts are inseparable is false. If the premise is false, then the conclusion that homosexuality is anti-christian is false (keeping in mind the use of the word "Christian").

[MCWAY]

so the "judge not, lest ye be judged" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" aren't applicable? Do you think not stoning an adulterer is a sin? You also didn't address the other parts that it seems Jesus modified. I think what you are trying to show goes against the majority of christian believers. The most obvious case that I can think of that Jesus modified from the old testament is the way that sins are forgiven. If jesus modified, in any slight tiny little way possible, the way that sins are forgiven, then your premise that the teachings of jesus and the teachings of non-jesus speaking parts are inseparable is false. If the premise is false, then the conclusion that homosexuality is anti-christian is false (keeping in mind the use of the word "Christian").

The "cast the first stone" line was again, a jab a the Pharisees who were perverting the law, to trap Jesus. "Judge not, lest ye be not judged" does not mean let sinful behavior go unchecked. Yes, we should have a spirit of forgiveness and mercy. But, none of that entail encouraging or turning a blind eye to wrong behavior.

As far as homosexuality goes, it clearly goes against Jesus' teaching (again, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"). That clearly spells out man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman.

[Soul Crusher]

IF EVERYONE WERE GAY - THE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE EXTINCT! 

[Mr. Magoo]

The "cast the first stone" line was again, a jab a the Pharisees who were perverting the law, to trap Jesus. "Judge not, lest ye be not judged" does not mean let sinful behavior go unchecked. Yes, we should have a spirit of forgiveness and mercy. But, none of that entail encouraging or turning a blind eye to wrong behavior.

As far as homosexuality goes, it clearly goes against Jesus' teaching (again, "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"). That clearly spells out man and woman, not man and man, nor woman and woman.

the bold part is the only correct conclusion that we can draw from that quote. It doesn't denounce man and man or woman and woman, it simply does not address them. Not addressing them is not the same as calling them immoral. If I list a set of moral actions, that does not mean that all actions I don't mention are immoral. If I list a set of immoral actions, that does not mean that all actions I don't mention are moral. They are simply unaddressed.

[Dos Equis]

I'm not talking about Biblical, i'm talking about Christianity and using "christian" to mean "teachings of Christ" just like we use terms such as Jeffersonian (teachings of thomas Jefferson), Lockean (teachings of John Locke), Machiavellian (teachings of Machiavelli), Aristotelian (teachings of Aristotle), Millian (teachings of John Stuart Mill), etc. If we use this understanding of "Christian" just like we use "teachings of _______(insert name)" for those other terms, then by definition, homosexuality is not anti-christian because it is not anti-the teachings of christ, since Christ never spoke on homosexuality.

If by the "teachings of Christ" you mean everything he was quoted as saying in the Bible, then your definition is too narrow.  Christ didn't speak about a lot of things.  For example, what did he say about spouse abuse? 

If by the "teachings of Christ" you mean his reliance on Biblical writings, there are crystal clear teachings in the Bible about homosexuality.

Either way, any attempt to try and find support for homosexuality in the Bible isn't very logical.   

[Dos Equis]

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?'" Matthew 19:4-5.

Those are the words of Jesus, when answering a question about marriage. Don't you think, if there were some exemption for homosexuality, He would have mentioned it. Jesus said He was there to do the will of His Father and not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Homosexuality ("If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman; they have committed an abomination to God") is CLEARLY pointed out as sinful. Of that there is no doubt. We've seen liberals foolishly attempt to twist and jerk Scripture to condone what it clearly condemns. The teachings of Christ are the teaching of the Bible; the two are hardly seperate. He took what was taught in the Old Testament one step further. He didn't diminish it.

Yeah.  I agree with this. 

[Mr. Magoo]

If by the "teachings of Christ" you mean everything he was quoted as saying in the Bible, then your definition is too narrow.  Christ didn't speak about a lot of things.  For example, what did he say about spouse abuse? 

If by the "teachings of Christ" you mean his reliance on Biblical writings, there are crystal clear teachings in the Bible about homosexuality.

Either way, any attempt to try and find support for homosexuality in the Bible isn't very logical.   

by "teachings of christ" i mean what Christ taught. I'm using, in this thread, "christian" by the same definition that we apply to other terms such as Aristotelian (people use this term to apply to what Aristotle taught) or Millian (people use this term to apply to what Mill taught). I don't think my definition of "Christian", when taken the same way that people accept these other terms, is too narrow. I don't know what Christ said about Spouse abuse but let us assume that he never mentioned it. That would mean that spouse abuse is by definition not anti-christian. That does NOT mean that Christ approved of spouse abuse, he may well have (as I assume) been very much against it. But if spouse abuse is not mentioned in any quotes we have of Jesus, then Jesus never taught on spouse abuse. If Jesus never taught on spouse abuse then we cannot say, by definition, that spouse abuse is anti christian (Christian= the teachings of Christ, Aristotelian= the teachings of Aristotle, Lockean= the teachings of John Locke). Most people take "christian" to mean the teachings of the entire bible, not just of what Christ taught, which in light of how we typically use phrases such as Aristotelian, is inconsistent. Consider for example Aristotle's take on metaphysics. If Aristotle agreed with something that Plato said, but Aristotle is never seen discussing this topic, then we cannot call this topic "Aristotelian".

Keep in mind I am NOT saying that Jesus supported homosexuals. I'm saying by definition of "Christian", homosexuality is not anti-christian since Christ never said (as far as we know) homosexuality was immoral. If Christ did not teach "not x" then we cannot say "not x" is a christian ideal. Christ agreeing with "not x" is a separate issue from what Christ taught.

[whork25]

If god exists im sure he could care less about gays. He created this place we would be like ants to him he wouldnt give a shit...

[Dos Equis]

by "teachings of christ" i mean what Christ taught. I'm using, in this thread, "christian" by the same definition that we apply to other terms such as Aristotelian (people use this term to apply to what Aristotle taught) or Millian (people use this term to apply to what Mill taught). I don't think my definition of "Christian", when taken the same way that people accept these other terms, is too narrow. I don't know what Christ said about Spouse abuse but let us assume that he never mentioned it. That would mean that spouse abuse is by definition not anti-christian. That does NOT mean that Christ approved of spouse abuse, he may well have (as I assume) been very much against it. But if spouse abuse is not mentioned in any quotes we have of Jesus, then Jesus never taught on spouse abuse. If Jesus never taught on spouse abuse then we cannot say, by definition, that spouse abuse is anti christian (Christian= the teachings of Christ, Aristotelian= the teachings of Aristotle, Lockean= the teachings of John Locke). Most people take "christian" to mean the teachings of the entire bible, not just of what Christ taught, which in light of how we typically use phrases such as Aristotelian, is inconsistent. Consider for example Aristotle's take on metaphysics. If Aristotle agreed with something that Plato said, but Aristotle is never seen discussing this topic, then we cannot call this topic "Aristotelian".

Keep in mind I am NOT saying that Jesus supported homosexuals. I'm saying by definition of "Christian", homosexuality is not anti-christian since Christ never said (as far as we know) homosexuality was immoral. If Christ did not teach "not x" then we cannot say "not x" is a christian ideal. Christ agreeing with "not x" is a separate issue from what Christ taught.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree.  The "teachings of Christ" are not limited to quotes you can find in the New Testament.  He embraced Biblical teachings.  It would be more accurate to say that the "teachings of Christ," and Christianity in general, are grounded on Biblical teachings. 

[Kazan]

If god exists im sure he could care less about gays. He created this place we would be like ants to him he wouldnt give a shit...

I'm pretty sure the people of Sodom and Gomorraha would disagree

[chadstallion]

IF EVERYONE WERE GAY - THE HUMAN RACE WOULD BE EXTINCT!  

no, you would never be allowed to be gay; we would take away your membership card.
please feel free to spread your seed into as many wombs as possible.

if everyone were blonde it would be boring; if everyone were left handed we'd never get anything written.

[240 is Back]

if he used tax dollars, this is a big deal.  crime, etc.

if this is just his private practice, then he is a religious weirdo, but not a crime there.  It just comes down to judgment, then.

[Dos Equis]

if he used tax dollars, this is a big deal.  crime, etc.

if this is just his private practice, then he is a religious weirdo, but not a crime there.  It just comes down to judgment, then.

   There is nothing weird about a Christian telling a homosexual to pray about something the Bible says is unnatural.  Another dumb non-issue. 

[tu_holmes]

I'm pretty sure the people of Sodom and Gomorraha would disagree

So then God was ok with destroying the gays, but saving Lot and his daughters so they can have incestuous sex?

Seems odd to me, but ok.

[Kazan]

So then God was ok with destroying the gays, but saving Lot and his daughters so they can have incestuous sex?

Seems odd to me, but ok.

I think you are confusing Lot with Noah

[tu_holmes]

I think you are confusing Lot with Noah

Not a bit... Lot had incestuous sex with his daughters.

[Dos Equis]

Not a bit... Lot had incestuous sex with his daughters.

They got him drunk and had sex with him.  I don't recall reading where they were commanded to do that. 

[tu_holmes]

They got him drunk and had sex with him.  I don't recall reading where they were commanded to do that.  

I didn't say they were "commanded", did I? What the fuck does being "commanded" have to do with the act anyway?



Genesis 19:30-38

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

30And Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt on the mountain, and his two daughters with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31And the firstborn said unto the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
  
32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

  
33And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

  
34And it came to pass on the morrow that the firstborn said unto the younger, "Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

  
35And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37And the firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Benammi; the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

[Soul Crusher]

A mans' cock was made for a womans' pussy, not for another mans' asshole where shit comes out. 


END OF THREAD   

[Dos Equis]

I didn't say they were "commanded", did I? What the fuck does being "commanded" have to do with the act anyway?



Genesis 19:30-38

21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

30And Lot went up out of Zoar and dwelt on the mountain, and his two daughters with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

31And the firstborn said unto the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.
  
32Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

  
33And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

  
34And it came to pass on the morrow that the firstborn said unto the younger, "Behold, I lay yesternight with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also, and go thou in and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

  
35And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.

36Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

37And the firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab; the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.

38And the younger, she also bore a son and called his name Benammi; the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

I thought you were implying that God approved of their conduct.  If you were not, but were simply making a meaningless observation, then my bad. 

[garebear]

You Republicans are a bunch of damn hyenas, I swear.

[tu_holmes]

I thought you were implying that God approved of their conduct.  If you were not, but were simply making a meaningless observation, then my bad. 

I AM saying that God approved of it... That's not commanding anything.

You have really gotten dense.

God saved their lives so they can have incestuous relations, but thought gay people were too evil so he killed them (hypocrisy).

I still didn't say he "commanded" anything.

Do you need a dictionary?

com·mand  (k-mnd)
v. com·mand·ed, com·mand·ing, com·mands
v.tr.
1. To direct with authority; give orders to.

ap·prove  (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction:

They are two different fucking words with two different fucking meanings.

[Straw Man]

I thought everyone knew by now the acorn scandal was false.

333 knows it too but he likes to ignore anything that doesn't fit his preconceived prejudices