Why are people that follow the Bible so ambiguous?

[Deadshot]

Exodus 35:2 states ""For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death." Here's a link to multiple translations of Exodus 35:2 (http://bible.cc/exodus/35-2.htm)

Now the Book of Exodus represents one of the most important books in the Bible for Christians. Within that book is the story of Moses and the list of the Ten Commandments. Now I'm sure there are Christian sects of the Religion that does not teach the Old Testament, OT, but the majority of Christians believe that the OT is just as important as the New Testament, NT.

So why don't we kill those that work on the Sabbath? Adultery is punishable by death, yet we don't do that either. So how can Christians, who are the Religious majority in America, be so up in arms about Homosexuality or Abortion, yet simply disregard working on the Sabbath and Adultery?

[BoogyMan]

The Old Testament law was a schoolmaster that was to bring man to the covenant that would finally be made through the sacrifice of Christ.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The word translated as "schoolmaster" is the greek word paidagogos (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3807) which describes the function of the law with regard to those under its charge.

That Old Testament or Mosaic law has been nailed to the cross.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament law at which point the New Covenant was in effect.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

We are now charged with following the commandments of Christ.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

With this very clear and understandable teaching in mind I find the premise of the thread to be one that doesn't bear up under scrutiny.

[Truth_and_Power]

I try to one-up god and only work 3-4 days a week. I guess I'm an overachiever.

[Tsky]

The Old Testament law was a schoolmaster that was to bring man to the covenant that would finally be made through the sacrifice of Christ.

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The word translated as "schoolmaster" is the greek word paidagogos (http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=3807) which describes the function of the law with regard to those under its charge.

That Old Testament or Mosaic law has been nailed to the cross.

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross

Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament law at which point the New Covenant was in effect.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

We are now charged with following the commandments of Christ.

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

With this very clear and understandable teaching in mind I find the premise of the thread to be one that doesn't bear up under scrutiny.


Very well put Boogey Man. I should point out that this question has been answered in the same manner no less than 6 times since I've been a member here. Be prepared for Deadshot to glaze over your post and ask the very same question next week. It's a neverending saga. Deadshot seems to have a problem with Christians not explicitly following the 10 commandments. However he seems to have no problem with the Jews not following the 10 commandments when unlike Christians, they have no good 'excuse' for not doing so. I really think he's posing the question to the wrong group, for sure.

[Deadshot]

With this very clear and understandable teaching in mind I find the premise of the thread to be one that doesn't bear up under scrutiny.


I would be happy if other Christian denominations would comment, pro or against, my statement below.

I grew up Catholic. Today the Ten Commandments are taught in Church. Each mass has a reading from the OT and the NT. The OT is just as important as the NT. Jesus may have fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, but the OT is not disregarded. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world today. 1/6th of the worlds population, that does not see the Christian religion as you do Boogy.

So while my question does not stand up to your interpretation, and you've never given your religious affilliation, my question does hold true with many, many or the majority of Christians out there.

Didn't you realize that the line in my original post "Now I'm sure there are Christian sects of the Religion that does not teach the Old Testament, OT, but the majority of Christians believe that the OT is just as important as the New Testament, NT." was written especially for you?

The majority of Christians use and believe in the both aspects of the Bible. The OT being just as important and valid as the NT. Ergo, for you other Christians out there, and not Boogy who interprets the Bible as I do, in my own way, but those that are in a denomination, how can you embrace the evils of homosexuality and abortion but not the evils of working the Sabbath?

Tsky, just read your post. Please link for me the example of the Jewish organization going nuts when a Government office takes down the Ten Commandments. It's not the Jews that go off the deep end, it's the Christians. But if it will make you happy, I'm just fine with asking the Jews why they don't follow the 10 either.

[BoogyMan]

So while my question does not stand up to your interpretation, and you've never given your religious affilliation, my question does hold true with many, many or the majority of Christians out there.

You will notice that I placed no interpretation on those scriptures DS, I simply pointed out the truth as it is clearly written. I see the point you are trying to make, but the standard of religious obedience to God isn't designed by man it is designed by God. We have the ability to choose whether or not we adhere to it.

The majority of Christians use and believe in the both aspects of the Bible. The OT being just as important and valid as the NT. Ergo, for you other Christians out there, and not Boogy who interprets the Bible as I do, in my own way, but those that are in a denomination, how can you embrace the evils of homosexuality and abortion but not the evils of working the Sabbath?

I simply want to clarify that majority does not make right, especially in light of the clear and simple teaching of the scriptures that I presented. I am certainly not present my view, I am presenting the text in its beautiful simplicity.

[Tsky]

With this very clear and understandable teaching in mind I find the premise of the thread to be one that doesn't bear up under scrutiny.


I would be happy if other Christian denominations would comment, pro or against, my statement below.

I grew up Catholic. Today the Ten Commandments are taught in Church. Each mass has a reading from the OT and the NT. The OT is just as important as the NT. Jesus may have fulfilled the prophecies of the OT, but the OT is not disregarded. There are 1 billion Catholics in the world today. 1/6th of the worlds population, that does not see the Christian religion as you do Boogy.

So while my question does not stand up to your interpretation, and you've never given your religious affilliation, my question does hold true with many, many or the majority of Christians out there.

Didn't you realize that the line in my original post "Now I'm sure there are Christian sects of the Religion that does not teach the Old Testament, OT, but the majority of Christians believe that the OT is just as important as the New Testament, NT." was written especially for you?

The majority of Christians use and believe in the both aspects of the Bible. The OT being just as important and valid as the NT. Ergo, for you other Christians out there, and not Boogy who interprets the Bible as I do, in my own way, but those that are in a denomination, how can you embrace the evils of homosexuality and abortion but not the evils of working the Sabbath?

Tsky, just read your post. Please link for me the example of the Jewish organization going nuts when a Government office takes down the Ten Commandments. It's not the Jews that go off the deep end, it's the Christians. But if it will make you happy, I'm just fine with asking the Jews why they don't follow the 10 either.


Deadshot,

All of the 10 commandments (less the Sabbath) are still relevant today. As for any organization that is challenging whether or not the 10 commandments should appear at the courthouse, I think they are misguided. True Christians realize that Church and State are separate. Any organization that is trying to force religion on a government agency is flawed, IMO.

[Deadshot]

You will notice that I placed no interpretation on those scriptures DS, I simply pointed out the truth as it is clearly written.

Many things in the Bible have a myriad of interpretations. Being "clearly written" is just not a Biblical term. Exodus 35:2 proves that.

I see the point you are trying to make, but the standard of religious obedience to God isn't designed by man it is designed by God. We have the ability to choose whether or not we adhere to it.

And that's why I left you out of the equation, Boogy. I know your beliefs. To be honest I feel as though I've asked most people who's fries are better McDonalds or Burger King only to have you chime in that you eat at Taco Bell.

I grew up in the Catholic School system going to Catholic School from pre-K to 12th grade. My wife was the same way and went to a Christian College. We have friends that are Christians, Baptists and Disciples of Christ. All of them use both the OT and NT. One book is not more important then the other.



I simply want to clarify that majority does not make right, especially in light of the clear and simple teaching of the scriptures that I presented. I am certainly not present my view, I am presenting the text in its beautiful simplicity.


Your view is your view, mine is mine. Each of us view the Bible differently. But the denominations out there follow a specific Dogma. And in the case of Catholics, Baptists and Disciples of Christ (which according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States), accounts for 47% of the believers in God of the USA quote and believe both books of the Bible, as I have stated. It is those people, and obviously not you, to whom I'm addressing my thread.

You are on another plane of understanding that some wish to attain, while others will simply wave as you go about your way.

If you wish to challenge those religions as to their Dogma and reading of the Bible, be my guess. Please start another thread doing so, so that you may espouse your beliefs versus those of tens of millions.

[BoogyMan]

I like the long odds.... :D

[Deadshot]

Deadshot,

All of the 10 commandments (less the Sabbath) are still relevant today. As for any organization that is challenging whether or not the 10 commandments should appear at the courthouse, I think they are misguided. True Christians realize that Church and State are separate. Any organization that is trying to force religion on a government agency is flawed, IMO.


Tsky, who are you to decide that the Sabbath commandment is not relevant today? Who are you to decide what a "True Christian" is or isn't? Who are you to make a judgement on Christians forcing their religion on others?

Do you begin to see my point? If even Christians can't seem to decide who is a Christian or what is a relevant commandment, how can they make a judgement on Homosexuals?

[BoogyMan]

Tsky, who are you to decide that the Sabbath commandment is not relevant today? Who are you to decide what a "True Christian" is or isn't? Who are you to make a judgement on Christians forcing their religion on others?

Do you begin to see my point? If even Christians can't seem to decide who is a Christian or what is a relevant commandment, how can they make a judgement on Homosexuals?[/color]


Since the old law was nailed to the cross and since we are no longer under such a schoolmaster now that we have Christ, I do not see the need for confusion surrounding this issue.

You keep speaking of how you think simply repeating the words of the New Testament is placing some kind of interpretation on the text DS, how can simple repetition and obedience be construed "interpretation." You being a law enforcement official would not stand for someone "interpreting" traffic law or domestic dispute law in such fashion, how is it that man seems to feel that we can do so with the will of God?

[Deadshot]

Boogy, the scriptures are interpretted and have been since the day they were written down interpretted in different ways. Here's an example...

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34 <<<<dem dere are da RED words, dat means dey come from da J.C. his self!

This quote is from Jesus and is almost in no way true to what he is saying throughout the Gospels. It requires interpretation.

BTW, you mentioning my Law Enforcement background shows that you simply can not see the forest for the trees here. Murder is a crime, right - in your view - No interpretatin neccessary. But for everyone else if a person who's been abused kills their abuser, it's still murder, but the circumstances change as to if there will be punishment or not.

We interpret those mitigating circumstances, because even the most simplistic laws and rules require interpretation.

Try running a red light or a stop sign with a pregnant lady or some other medical emergency happening in a car and see if you get a ticket.

Human being simply aren't confined by simplistic notions or rules. Each rule/notion applies differently at different times.

[BoogyMan]

Boogy, the scriptures are interpretted and have been since the day they were written down interpretted in different ways. Here's an example...

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword."
Matthew 10:34 <<<<dem dere are da RED words, dat means dey come from da J.C. his self!

This quote is from Jesus and is almost in no way true to what he is saying throughout the Gospels. It requires interpretation.

BTW, you mentioning my Law Enforcement background shows that you simply can not see the forest for the trees here. Murder is a crime, right - in your view - No interpretatin neccessary. But for everyone else if a person who's been abused kills their abuser, it's still murder, but the circumstances change as to if there will be punishment or not.

We interpret those mitigating circumstances, because even the most simplistic laws and rules require interpretation.

Try running a red light or a stop sign with a pregnant lady or some other medical emergency happening in a car and see if you get a ticket.

Human being simply aren't confined by simplistic notions or rules. Each rule/notion applies differently at different times.


I have but one answer to this DS, God's word disagrees with you.

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

[Deadshot]

And Boogy, I'll follow your lead here, and simply say that that is YOUR interpretation.

No man can know the mind of God.

[AnnEsthesia]

Here is a question: Why do people think that God cannot give many ways to find him? Why do they want there to only be a narrow path? Could it not be that because god is so infinite, he gave many narrow paths that can each end at the same place? Or heck, can he not have each path end in the place most suited for us and who we are?

[BoogyMan]

And Boogy, I'll follow your lead here, and simply say that that is YOUR interpretation.

No man can know the mind of God.


:D

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

God didn't give us an undecipherable book and say "have at it boys."[hr]
Here is a question: Why do people think that God cannot give many ways to find him? Why do they want there to only be a narrow path? Could it not be that because god is so infinite, he gave many narrow paths that can each end at the same place? Or heck, can he not have each path end in the place most suited for us and who we are?


God is no respecter of persons AnnE. He gave us His law, it is up to us to follow it or reject it.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Christ's own words would set aside the idea of separate paths for each man AnnE.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

[AnnEsthesia]

That works only if you believe that to be the be all and end all. I think he gave that for those that need strict rules. Not everyone does well with strict rules and god is smart enough to know that.

[Deadshot]

And Boogy, I'll follow your lead here, and simply say that that is YOUR interpretation.

No man can know the mind of God.


:D

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

God didn't give us an undecipherable book and say "have at it boys."

Considering how many different ways it's been interpretted and who has interpretted it, from Hitler to David Koresh, I think History shows that the Bible is undecipherable, to a certain degree.

[hr]
Here is a question: Why do people think that God cannot give many ways to find him? Why do they want there to only be a narrow path? Could it not be that because god is so infinite, he gave many narrow paths that can each end at the same place? Or heck, can he not have each path end in the place most suited for us and who we are?


God is no respecter of persons AnnE. He gave us His law, it is up to us to follow it or reject it.

Wow! God the Father, the one that loves all his children, doesn't respect us. That's one on me. Care to reference that in scripture, where God doesn't respect us...:nana:

Your scripture below is an example of Peter's "perceived" notion of God...don't we need some interpretation?:madlaugh:

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

Christ's own words would set aside the idea of separate paths for each man AnnE.

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


But my path to Christ is different then yours. While you may say I'm damned for not following your path, no one can know the mind of God. Ergo, we EACH have as much chance to be right as we do of being wrong...[/color]

[Tsky]

If God were unloving he wouldn't provide a guide to find him. He would just let man flail around like blind mice with no direction or guidance and he really wouldn't care if man found him or not.

Since I believe God to be a God of love I believe he has given us a guide to find him but many don't like the guide so they make up their own rules as they go. As a result even with the existence of the guide there are many people still flailing around like blind mice.

FYI: I'm not sure what 'respector of persons' is supposed to mean but it certainly doesn't mean God doesn't respect people. The same verse says anyone who fears God is acceptible to him. The scripture makes it clear that anyone can find him if that is their desire. But the Bible also makes it clear that not all paths are paths leading to him. Muslims who believe in killing people supposedly believe in God also. When you put things into perspective you see why all paths are not paths leading to the true God.

[PatrickHenry]

Do you begin to see my point? If even Christians can't seem to decide who is a Christian or what is a relevant commandment, how can they make a judgement on Homosexuals?
Nobody is trying to kill homosexuals. I don't even know of a movement to make homosexuality illegal.

What's your problem? That some people's judgement of what is fruitful behavior differs from yours? How tolerant...

[BoogyMan]

That works only if you believe that to be the be all and end all. I think he gave that for those that need strict rules. Not everyone does well with strict rules and god is smart enough to know that.


Once again though AnnE, this kind of thought process would deny the fact that God is no respecter of persons.

[AnnEsthesia]

It is not a 'fact' Boogy. It is your interpretation and understanding of that which no one can understand.

[Deadshot]

If God were unloving he wouldn't provide a guide to find him. He would just let man flail around like blind mice with no direction or guidance and he really wouldn't care if man found him or not.

Can you show me where I said that God was unloving? The Bible does give direction, that's not what I'm argueing at all. I'm arguing that the Bible can not be taken, word for word, literally, ergo Homosexuality can not be condemed.

Since I believe God to be a God of love I believe he has given us a guide to find him but many don't like the guide so they make up their own rules as they go. As a result even with the existence of the guide there are many people still flailing around like blind mice.

I niether feel blind nor flailing. I too believe that God is a God of love. I don't believe that God would make a person that from birth likes the same sex, and not allow his love to touch that person and for that person to have the ability to love whom he/she wishes.

FYI: I'm not sure what 'respector of persons' is supposed to mean but it certainly doesn't mean God doesn't respect people. The same verse says anyone who fears God is acceptible to him. The scripture makes it clear that anyone can find him if that is their desire.

But not all scripture is clear. Hence you and Boogy, as well as myself all don't agree as to what Boogy's quotation of scripture means. He thinks it means God does not respect people, it's there in black and white. You and I don't see it that way. If we can disagree over something like this, couldn't your interpretation and Boogy's about Homosexuality be wrong?

But the Bible also makes it clear that not all paths are paths leading to him. Muslims who believe in killing people supposedly believe in God also. When you put things into perspective you see why all paths are not paths leading to the true God.


Ok, but there is no clear, easy to follow path. Why? Because both you and Boogy are religious yet you each are following a different path.

Nobody is trying to kill homosexuals. I don't even know of a movement to make homosexuality illegal.

What's your problem? That some people's judgement of what is fruitful behavior differs from yours? How tolerant...

So we need to wait until people start killing Homosexuals before we speak up?

C'mon PH. I'm intolerant of intollerance!

[BoogyMan]

It is not a 'fact' Boogy. It is your interpretation and understanding of that which no one can understand.


I beg to differ AnnE, the scripture clearly tells us that we can know the truth and it tells us specifically that God is not a respecter of persons. It also tells us specifically what we are to do. I am not sure why it seems so nebulous to so many as it is pretty clear and concise.

[Buck Laser]

Deadshot, I guess I don't understand your use of the term "ambiguous" with respect to people who follow the Bible. It's been my experience that people of that persuasion tend to be the ones who have the least tolerance for ambiguity. They're the ones who tend to say "The Bible says it and I believe it, and that's that".

I think you're right that a good many people try to explain away or forget some of the harsher stories and rules in the OT, but there's really no such thing as presenting Bible without interpretation. Of course it's possible for people to CLAIM that they make no interpretation, but they always do.

Back to the ambiguity--it's been my experience that conservative people are the ones most uncomfortable with ambiguity. They tend to want things in black or white, without shading. If they encounter apparent inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible, they deal with it by assigning one part or another higher priority, usually the NT over the OT.

My personal approach is to recognize that the biblical traditions came together over a period of about 1500 years, and that many threads and traditions go back further than that. I feel no need to "explain" things like that, because I think human hands are so clear in the bulk of the Bible. Yes, it's God's word, but it's always mediated through human hands. And we all know what humans do when they undertake to do things, don't we?

[underdawg]

It is certainly apparent to me that most Christians do not follow most of the laws set forth in the Old Testament. However when it comes to homosexuality, it does seem like Christians tend to go right to the Old Testament and point out the passages where homosexuality is condemned. One would think that if homosexuality were such a sin against God and nature that Jesus would have said something reguarding this topic. Paul spoke about homosexuality, but he is not God nor is he Jesus.

I don't know if the people who follow the Bible are ambiguous as much as they cherry pick the Bible. Some Christians tend to follow some passages of the Bible and ignore others. Some see the Bible as a literal truth while others see the Bible in a more symbolic way. I suppose if everyone saw the Bible the same way, you would have only one demomination.

There is one truth, but who is to know which interpretation is right. Every religion and faith claims to know the right path to the truth, but who really knows? You can't prove it in a court of law, it can't be shown by science, no one has ever come back from rigor mortis. Every religion is taken on faith, but faith is nothing more than believing something without proof, but with the hope that you are right. If someone claims to know the ultimate truth I would see them as a liar or a fool.

[Tsky]

It is certainly apparent to me that most Christians do not follow most of the laws set forth in the Old Testament. However when it comes to homosexuality, it does seem like Christians tend to go right to the Old Testament and point out the passages where homosexuality is condemned. One would think that if homosexuality were such a sin against God and nature that Jesus would have said something reguarding this topic. Paul spoke about homosexuality, but he is not God nor is he Jesus.

I don't know if the people who follow the Bible are ambiguous as much as they cherry pick the Bible. Some Christians tend to follow some passages of the Bible and ignore others. Some see the Bible as a literal truth while others see the Bible in a more symbolic way. I suppose if everyone saw the Bible the same way, you would have only one demomination.

There is one truth, but who is to know which interpretation is right. Every religion and faith claims to know the right path to the truth, but who really knows? You can't prove it in a court of law, it can't be shown by science, no one has ever come back from rigor mortis. Every religion is taken on faith, but faith is nothing more than believing something without proof, but with the hope that you are right. If someone claims to know the ultimate truth I would see them as a liar or a fool.


How could you ever stand for anything if there is no truth?

Those who don't stand for anything fall for everything.

That is truth.[hr]I agree with whoever said that "Christians" pick and choose what scriptural principles they want to obey. The OT and NT condemn fornication and adultery yet "Christians" do not routinely frown upon members that are fornicators. To make concessions for this many religions are now 'ok' with homosexual preachers and members because they cannot atone for the double standard.

HOWEVER, the fact that obvious hypcrosisy exists in religion does not change God's feelings about homosexuality and fornication. Both are wrong in God's sight. It is not right for homosexuals to expect that God would overlook their behavior because they were 'born that way' and not at the same time overlook the activities of fornicating heterosexuals because wouldn't they be 'born that way' also. The Bible makes no distinction between a heterosexual fornicator and a homosexual fornicator. You are both sinners in God's eyes. Does that mean that God hates homosexuals and other people should also? Hardly. But it does mean that he will judge harshly those that do not change. He seems to think, being the Creator and all, that matters of sexuality are a choice. To give God 'props' so to speak for being a loving God as it says it the Bible but then ignoring his views about sexuality as if He's got that part wrong is as much cherrypicking as is Christians who believe God will judge homosexuals but look over the fact that they are shacking up with members of the opposite sex. Wrong answer.

But clearly, both sides (traditional Christians and non traditional Christians) can be guilty of cherrypicking. I think we have seen some examples in this discussion thread.

[underdawg]

Yes there are truths or the things we believe to be true. The things we directly experience in our own lives and observe with our own eyes, hear with our own ears and touch and taste. There is a certain truth, but even we can be fooled. Can't always believe your eyes. A magician can redirect you to believe something else has happened. But as far as our history goes and the reality of God and what God claims is right and wrong is up to faith that what is written is truthfull.

From life experiences you learn that certain actions are beneficial and other actions cause harm. As a child you learn what is fair treatment and what is not. you learn that telling lies offers certan benefits yet cause lots of trouble. Ultimately you learn that lying distroys trust between yourself and other people and leads to no good. Truth is about being authentic. Trying to be honest about separating the real from the unreal.

I know people want to believe in an afterlife and have high hopes of doing what they think is best to to achieve such an end. The fear of death leads them that way. It is a hope that what they want to believe is real. This faith is not based in reality and truth, but a trust that something exists beyond the senses.

As a homosexual I don't want my life determined by what is written down in a book about a god that I have not seen nor heard from in my entire life. To me truth would be if such a God were to present itself to me and explain to me why I as a homosexual am not worthy in its sight. I would want to present my case to such a being. But as it is now, I am being charged with crimes of sin by Christians from a book of rumors, "the Bible", that I have no way of defending my self against, and the main witness to my so called crimes, "Jesus, or God", refuses to appear if they exist at all.

[Deadshot]

But clearly, both sides (traditional Christians and non traditional Christians) can be guilty of cherrypicking. I think we have seen some examples in this discussion thread.


But whom does my cherrypicking hurt? Christians who cherrypick the Bible and allow divorce and simply ignore or allow adultery, yet condem Homosexuality, hurt Homosexuals.

But the non traditional Christians cherrypicking, hurts no one.

[BillyPilgrim]

Gosh,
How about that christianity is made up at the Council of Nicea? Or that it is a philospohy based on fear and division? You're afraid of your alleged "immortal soul". Sad.

[PatrickHenry]

But whom does my cherrypicking hurt? Christians who cherrypick the Bible and allow divorce and simply ignore or allow adultery, yet condem Homosexuality, hurt Homosexuals.

But the non traditional Christians cherrypicking, hurts no one.
Are there "Christians" that ignore or condone adultery? Which ones are they?

And those who find fault with homosexuality...who is substantially injured?

For instance: I find fault with habitual drunkards. I think it would be best if they did not behave so. But as long as I don't seek to criminalize such behavior, how does that hurt them?

In other words, how do opinions, short of enacting laws, injure those who engage in consensual actions that some find fault with?

[Deadshot]

But whom does my cherrypicking hurt? Christians who cherrypick the Bible and allow divorce and simply ignore or allow adultery, yet condem Homosexuality, hurt Homosexuals.

But the non traditional Christians cherrypicking, hurts no one.


Are there "Christians" that ignore or condone adultery? Which ones are they?

Sure they ignore it. The Religious Right loves Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson just endorsed Rudy Guiliani. Both Newt and Rudy cheated on their wives. So while they do not "condone" adultery, it is easily forgiven and/or ignored.

And those who find fault with homosexuality...who is substantially injured?

If one cannot get married, one cannot share in the benefits of the spouse. If my wife and I were not married, only living together, my employer would not insure her. She would be substantially hurt, since right now she's a full time student. So if Adam and I were in love and wanted to get married, and Adam was a full time student, he would have no insurance because my employer would not allow him to be added to my policy.

That's just ONE example of how someone is injured.

For instance: I find fault with habitual drunkards. I think it would be best if they did not behave so. But as long as I don't seek to criminalize such behavior, how does that hurt them?

How is that a good example? Homosexual people can not be married. Their behavior is criminalized. In your example, as long as the drunkard does not drive or hurt someone, they can drink themselves to death, and no one will stop them. Homosexuals getting married hurts no one.

In other words, how do opinions, short of enacting laws, injure those who engage in consensual actions that some find fault with?


Because those opinions lead to laws. Here in Missouri there is a Constitutional Ammendment on the State books making Gay Marriage illegal. So even if the U.S. Government allows Gay Marriage, or a few States allow Gay Marriage there will be a court battle here and our State Constitution would have to be changed.

So, to recap, when opinions lead to enacting laws that's a bad thing. Laws aren't enacted on a whim, people's opinions must be expressed for law makers to act upon the will of the people.

[Tsky]

Oh Lord.

Per Deadshot, no one is allowed to have an opinion. An opinion leads to a law.

Unless of course the opinion is that homosexuality is a great lifestyle choice, at which point Deadshot believes your opinion should lead to laws that support gay marriages.

Some people will say anything, no matter how ridiculous to prove a point.

Sad indeed.

[Scorpion]

Oh Lord.

Per Deadshot, no one is allowed to have an opinion. An opinion leads to a law.




I'm confused Tsky. In the following quote from the Obama/Pakistan thread you advocate restricting freedom of speech...



I think Bush supporters should be disqualified from even speaking on bombing unstable countries...considering both Afghanistan and Iraq were models of stability...


But now you accuse Deadshot of exactly what you have advocated.

Care to explain?

[Deadshot]

Please read the below post from Tsky and notice my changes.

Tsky, I'm not against opinions or laws. I'm against opinions and laws that take away peoples rights.



Oh Lord.

Per Deadshot, no one is allowed to have an opinion. An opinion leads to a law.

Unless of course the opinion is that being black is a great lifestyle choice, at which point Deadshot believes your opinion should lead to laws that support black people.

Some people will say anything, no matter how ridiculous to prove a point.

Sad indeed.


See the difference now Tsky? It's about equality, not about anything else.

[HankSaint]

So why don't we kill those that work on the Sabbath? Adultery is punishable by death, yet we don't do that either. So how can Christians, who are the Religious majority in America, be so up in arms about Homosexuality or Abortion, yet simply disregard working on the Sabbath and Adultery?[/color]


You ask a good question, and since we are a government of the people and by the people, with true representation we find all sorts of laws being passed both by liberal and conservatives which do not seem to fit our personal agenda or beliefs.

My take is that since we live in a democracy, we need to accept the majority rule.
Since I believe in God and yet know this is a secular type government my acceptance of certain laws are naturally a concern, but the peace of knowing I can worship my God the way I decide makes it all worth it.

Just as you my friend, find abortion a choice and can see no sin in it, I can find it a sin but realize I will be judged by God accordingly. I have peace of mind in the knowledge of my actions. Being a secular Constitution, we must live with those who do not share our beliefs and practices, hence laws we hate, but agreeing that this is the choice of the majority. I would not have it any other way.

The way I live the commandments of God personally should be no concern of yours. How I keep the law of the Sabbath should be between me and God.
Choice is the key word here, and all of us should be grateful we live in a free society where we can practice free will. Explaining the scriptures to meet a certain criteria would be more of force than choice. Biblical inerrancy, I agree we have scripture that might have errors, translation problems, etc. But the additional scripture I have with the Book of Mormon brings me more clarity.
Hope you understand where some of us are coming from.

[BillyPilgrim]

"My take is that since we live in a democracy, we need to accept the majority rule."

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representational republic. Majority only rules on small scale. None of us vote for federal laws but rather those who we hope will represent our opinions. But when our opinions infringes on the rights of others we have no right to expect our opinions to be supported.

[HankSaint]

"My take is that since we live in a democracy, we need to accept the majority rule."

We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representational republic. Majority only rules on small scale. None of us vote for federal laws but rather those who we hope will represent our opinions. But when our opinions infringes on the rights of others we have no right to expect our opinions to be supported.


Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, and the system we have allows for all to vote freely. But you're really not addressing my point, you are merely defining something we all already know. End result is we vote for the candidate we feel represents are beliefs. If the majority votes secular than most likely we will end up with more social programs. If we vote libertarian than we will end up with less government and more liberties. My point is that religion is only one of many philosophies or belief systems in a mixed society as ours.