[CanadianJeff]

stratos stratos:

Leviticus 20:13 Leviticus 20:13:

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them

And Dr. you will see that it does not say how they shall die, this is understood to mean that God will see to their deaths. Thus not a offense that will be a death sentence by the state, as in being stoned to death.


Jabberwalker there are also a couple lines in the new testement condeming homsexuality. But as a sin not as a need for the death sentence to be imposed.

Oh so it doesn't matter that your still insisting it's worthy of death so long as your not the one having to kill them. Sounds moral to me.

Yeah this is why 99% of Christians cherry pick their bible for the love and peace stuff. Most people realize the slavery and death threats are kind of wrong so they just sort of flat our ignore them or translate them in a very metaphorical way.

[stratos]

"Oh so it doesn't matter that your still insisting it's worthy of death so long as your not the one having to kill them. Sounds moral to me."

Last time I looked we all die, are you immortal? You CanadianJeff continue to assume things of people with out even knowing their true stance. Such people like you are why so many people go OH SHUT THE F**K UP YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[CanadianJeff]

yep figured as much. Couldn't have asked for a better example of what I'm talking about.

Do you even read what you post before you post it? All I'm doing is pointing out exactly what your saying.

When i'm not the one talking about people deserving death for simply being themselves I think I can take a "Shut the fuck up" in a public setting. Thanks for showing all these nice folks exactly how tolerant and loving you and the way you translate your book really are.

[stratos]

$1:

All I'm doing is pointing out exactly what your saying.

No all you are doing is twisting the meaning of what I said to fit your need to hate.

$1:

When i'm not the one talking about people deserving death for simply being themselves I think I can take a "Shut the fuck up" in a public setting. Thanks for showing all these nice folks exactly how tolerant and loving you and the way you translate your book really are.

Yep there are people who deserve the death sentence, mass murderers, cop killers, child killers and some others. Yet when someone like you comes along and attempts to twist others words into meaning things they don't mean then yes they need to be told to shut the fuck up. It's not an issue of tolerance its an issue of quit trying to twist peoples words to fit your hate and bigotry. I'm sorry you have such a low oppinon of yourself that you feel the need to berate others on false accusations that you make up yourself.

[stratos]

$1:

When i'm not the one talking about people deserving death for simply being themselves .....

I will use this as an example, please point out exactly where I said this. You can not without a twist of my words to help you fullfill your own hate and bigotry.

[CanadianJeff]

Your words are all right there for people to see for themselves.

$1:

"And Dr. you will see that it does not say how they shall die, this is understood to mean that God will see to their deaths. Thus not a offense that will be a death sentence by the state, as in being stoned to death."

Notice the "hey it's not me killing them it's god!" line running through that post. Lovely bit of avoiding having to say "they deserve death" so you don't dirty your own hands.

[stratos]

It was and is saying that it is not a sin punishable by the state death sentence. Back then being stoned to death. It is saying that it is a sin and that God will see to their sins upon their deaths. Just like he will see to all of our sins upon our deaths. So once again I ask are you imortal and again show me where I said

$1:

.... people deserving death for simply being themselves

You can not because I never said that. So STFU and quit trying to twist my words to fit your hate.

[stratos]

What an inteligent person wanting to know exactly how I felt about the issue of homosexuality vis a vis my religous stance would ask something along the lines of do you think like westboro that gays (homosexuals) will burn in hell.

My answer would be a resounding NO, homosexuality is as sin but it is not the only sin people commit. I commit a ton of sins so if a persons biggest sin is being a homosexual and they are a Christian then they IMO are a lot better off for getting into Haven then I am. For, IMO, any and all Christians end up in Haven be they strait, homosexual or what ever. You have to face up to your own sin so why the heck should I fixate so much on others sins when I've got my own to deal with.

yet you CanadianJeff have never approached me along those lines. you atomaticly assumed that I am some sort of homosexual basher because I'm a Christian. I wonder how shocked you will be to find out that I have even attended homosexual freindly chruches and found them to be very positive and uplifting. They did preach the word of God and I would assume that most who were members of the Chruch were Christians. As I've stated offten in the threads I work at a newspaper, when the "westmorons" as I call them, send notices about where they are planing on protesting and other dribble I take great joy in compeling up the notice and tossing it into the trash can. The paper never publishes their flyers or what ever someone wants to call the trash they send. There is so much about how I interact with the homosexual community that you are utterly unaware of CanadianJeff, for thesimple reason that you never asked. You were so ready to hate and view me as someone who fit your mold as what a Christian is when you really had and have no idea. What you have shown is your own bigotry and hate towards myself and others just because we profess our Christian faith. So I have no problem with saying STFU and quit twisting my words.

[stratos]

$1:

I like going back to the Dead Sea Scroll translations.

I'm changing the topic a bit here DR. Do you know how much of the dead sea scrolls they have translated now? Its been a few years sense I last looked into it and back then it was around 10%

[CanadianJeff]

stratos stratos:

What an inteligent person wanting to know exactly how I felt about the issue of homosexuality vis a vis my religous stance would ask something along the lines of do you think like westboro that gays (homosexuals) will burn in hell.

My answer would be a resounding NO, homosexuality is as sin but it is not the only sin people commit. I commit a ton of sins so if a persons biggest sin is being a homosexual and they are a Christian then they IMO are a lot better off for getting into Haven then I am. For, IMO, any and all Christians end up in Haven be they strait, homosexual or what ever. You have to face up to your own sin so why the heck should I fixate so much on others sins when I've got my own to deal with.

yet you CanadianJeff have never approached me along those lines. you atomaticly assumed that I am some sort of homosexual basher because I'm a Christian. I wonder how shocked you will be to find out that I have even attended homosexual freindly chruches and found them to be very positive and uplifting. They did preach the word of God and I would assume that most who were members of the Chruch were Christians. As I've stated offten in the threads I work at a newspaper, when the "westmorons" as I call them, send notices about where they are planing on protesting and other dribble I take great joy in compeling up the notice and tossing it into the trash can. The paper never publishes their flyers or what ever someone wants to call the trash they send. There is so much about how I interact with the homosexual community that you are utterly unaware of CanadianJeff, for thesimple reason that you never asked. You were so ready to hate and view me as someone who fit your mold as what a Christian is when you really had and have no idea. What you have shown is your own bigotry and hate towards myself and others just because we profess our Christian faith. So I have no problem with saying STFU and quit twisting my words.

You still don't get the fact I'm trying to point out how lazy and badly constructed your words always are. Your spelling here is not helping your issues either.

That and as an underscore I'm also trying to point out to you rather bluntly that trying to use the old testament as a "Hey I'm loving even towards sinners" stance is a tired old and untrue trope that's been used a thousand times and still rings hollow.

That same point on the old testament is one of the main points of that letter of 10 questions earlier in the thread was pointing out. How ridiculously hollow it is in today's world to pretend like the old testament holds any relevance.

Hiding behind a book saying oh " I have gay friends/attend openly gay church" while saying you still think homosexuality is a sin is playing a double standard. Frankly as a gay man that pisses me the hell off. I'm so sick and tired of people saying "I love the sinner I just hate the sin". If you think the way I was born is a "sin" then that's fine but don't smile to my face and try and play the nice guy on the issue. I'll call out your bullshit.

I just want you to realize it's not being or not being Christian or religious that makes someone a good or bad person. It's a persons deeds. Playing double standards doesn't do anyone any favors.

[stratos]

So what you are saying is that because I am dyslexic my words somehow don't hold weight enough for you?
Secondly me saying that I do consider homosexulaity a sin along with a ton of other things, many that I do, some how upsets you then my response is tough. If you don't think homosexuality is a sin thats fine I wont bash someone to much over it. I have and always will bash people who say that homosexuals will burn in hell and all that other BS from westmorono's and like groups.

Nope I'm not loving towards everyone never claimed to be. What I am is bluntly honest. The old testoment IMO is used wrongly, a very short summation is that it shows no matter how "good" someone is they still are a sinner and can not enter Heven without Jesus Christ. The new testoment shows how this is accomplished through Jesus. Thus my stance that the old testoment is relevent but just used wrongly. Prime example being the whole issue of homosexuality and people picking and chosing instead of taking it as a whole and in the context of what it is ment to convey.
I'm not trying to hide behind my association with the homosexual comunity just getting sick of being bashed about my Christian views without anyone actualy asking what they are. A sin is a sin IMO none are persay greater (worse) then any other. There are a couple of exceptions but thats for another time.

[CanadianJeff]

I'm saying because your dyslexic you need to pick your words with great care.

I'm also saying calling what I am a sin isn't "tough" deal with it. I'm going to deal with it by calling it exactly what it damn well is. Two faced and a complete falsehood.

That can finally if you don't even realize that not all sins are equal then you really just failed basic theology. Thankfully I think even you realize that something like killing a man isn't even close to being on par with stealing a loaf of bread for example.

Do you even know what the one unforgivable sin is? It's mentioned twice in the new testament in two of the four gospels and it's likely not what you would expect it to be.

[stratos]

$1:

A sin is a sin IMO none are persay greater (worse) then any other. There are a couple of exceptions but thats for another time.

This was said in reference to your homosexuality sin vs my many sins. As you say that I failed basic theology then so have you for denying that homosexuality is a sin. Also please notice that I did mention that there were a couple of exceptions but hey turn the blind eye on things it seems thats what you like to do. You can be a homosexual that is your business and in my faith it is something that you will have to answer for to God just like I will have to answer to God for my sins. I'm not the one needing to read things into other peoples posts that are not there and twisting their words around just to make my self feel superior or what ever your reason for doing such things are.

As for the unforgivable sin ...... if I recall correctly its speaking out aginst/denying the holly ghost. Some say spirit but for some oddball reason I'm stuck on the term holly ghost.

[CanadianJeff]

When on earth did I deny that what you were stating in the bible is there? I'm just trying to point out to you the damn stupidity of following the book on this kind of matter rather then just making up your own damn mind. Or at least trying to get you to realize if your going to follow the book then be ready to actually follow it.

You do understand that telling me I was born "sinful" because I was born gay is the exact same thing as saying "Being black is a sin." It's no less stupid and disrespectful and there's a reason the idea has gone the way of the dodo. It's no less offensive to tell a gay person they were born sinful while pretending to be their friend. At least have the guts to actually take a stand somewhere on the issue.

It's one area where Bart for all my disagreements with him actually gets some major points. He will tell me to my face where he feels on things rather then trying to smile nicely while sitting on a fence.

Btw good call on the unforgivable sin. You wouldn't believe how many Christians don't even know that one. 90% of the time I get "Is it killing a man?". Sadly it's rather more petty then that.

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

$1:

I like going back to the Dead Sea Scroll translations.

I'm changing the topic a bit here DR. Do you know how much of the dead sea scrolls they have translated now? Its been a few years sense I last looked into it and back then it was around 10%

Something like that. I'd expect more, but I know they argue over every single squiggle and smudge. I haven't really kept up with Comparitive Religion since my university days, as there are a thousand other things I'm more interested in.

But I think it's better to skip all the monks and printers over the centuries and go back to as close to the original authors as possible to see the original meaning, and perhaps leave some other people's interpretations to history.

But I do disagree with you in that "they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them" seems pretty clear to me. "Put to death" is hard to misinterpret.