@Shandyr The Christian God's three supposed qualities are: Omiscient (all knowing), Omnipotent (all powerful) and Omnibenevolent (All good). God in the Bible says he doesn't change his mind like a human, he doesn't repent and is forever unchanging. Then they have to explain why God changes his mind and his manner when he becomes Jesus.
Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act. Supposedly a couple of the more popular versions of this are still illegal in 18 states in the US. It does make me wonder if the use of contraception should be defined as sodomy.
A 2011 study in the US showed that there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people.
While i get your point, there's an antithesis in your phrase (besides the one you already mentioned ^^):
"Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act."
with
"... there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people."
If any homossexual sex is sodomy based in this article that you quote, how can exist more heterossexual sodomy sexs?
But again, in portuguese, buggery and sodomy have the exactly same translation, so it's not a big deal and maybe it's just a translation issue.
About the rest of this thread, i feel a bit dizz just by look to the new religious posts, too long posts and i was too inactive for a while to keep in the discussion now .
And God doesn't even kill the baby quickly and mercifully, but makes the baby suffer for an entire week before he lets the child die. This is unjust. And just a few more reasons why I wouldn't look to the Bible for my morality.
And yet you do use the Bible to fortify your morality. Because you take examples out of it that are horrorsome for you (and yes this one is horrorsome for me as well), you decide that it is wrong what is happening there, and you decide that things like these should not happen.
So what if this was the message all along? What if this horrosome example wants to make us value each childs life because we know that there are very gruesome alternatives that might happen? Maybe this example wants to make you feel about it just the way you do. (To clarify: I dont think that without this example we would be unable to appreciate our childrens' well-being, but this examples gives us the chance to be even more happy about our childrens' well-being)
This is what my actual problem with the Bible is. It can be interpreted just in so many ways - That very sadly - there is danger of the Bible being misused in order to do evil under the disguise of good (We already said that, I know).
You see that example above, could work in the way I just said - or you could really take it literally - or maybe theres even a complete different message.
This is why I come to the conclusion that the Bible itself alone is not enough. You still need something else, to be able to draw the good out of the Bible, and to refrain from misusing it in order to do evil.
And I wonder what is this something, and where do I get it?
Actually, I object to that because it's punishing someone who had nothing to do with the crime for the crime. If someone robs a bank and kills a bunch of people in the bank, we don't execute one of their relatives, who had nothing to do with the crime, to execute. That's wrong. Under our modern law, we don't do this because we know it's wrong- because the innocent person is just that, innocent.
And after he kills the baby, God is satisfied, and lets Solomon be born as David's next child with Bathsheeba. And David doesn't even take the death of his son that hard, afterwards, he gets up, changes his clothes and has a good meal and goes back to his business.
Like I said, the God of the Bible is an inconstant figure for morality. Mind you, @Tanthalas, the God of the Bible also says he doesn't change, nor does he change his mind. But he lies (to Adam and Eve about the effect of the fruit- he tells them it will kill them on the same day they eat it, and yet Adam lives for 900-something years afterwards. In effect, the snake was correct in saying that eating it would make them like God, knowing good and evil- it definitely had that effect.)
@Bjjorick I have no doubt you are a man of your faith, but I don't think you have the right reading of the stories in this instance. Regarding slavery- God never says anything to his chosen people about it being wrong, and as God (all knowing, all powerful, all good), he could have made them accept this- after all, he's God, right? Yet, he does nothing about it and never even hints that this is a bad thing. Which, if you accept that God's morality never changes, you are forced to conclude that 1) We are wrong and slavery is still okay today, just as it was back then. or 2) God is wrong and slavery has always been wrong.
Wow, you're kinda off target. If you read my previous post, you'll find out that adam and eve were immortal until they sinned. That introduced death. So yes, it caused death, but did God say, if you eat it, you'll die right then? But because he lived 900 years later and then died, God lied? You know the bible, but how is it that you draw the conclusions that you want to draw rather then what the bible says?
And let's take a look at our law system. A woman is married and hates her husband. She goes to a man she knows lusts after her, and tells him how she wants him, but can't leave her husband. She convinces the man to kill her husband. The man does it because he's blinded by lust. Who goes to prison/get the death penalty? The man. The woman? Scott free. Yeah, that's fair.
I'm not saying that's always the case, but you have to realize, according to the bible, and the way i live, i am responsible for my family and they are responsible for me. I have to set an example. So yeah, i go out and start robbing banks. I wind up in prison. What do you think the chances are that my kids will lead a life of crime? Not always but the precentage is high.
I'm not saying i agree with it, but if i know my family will pay for my actions, you better believe i'm going to measure my actions.
And this gets back to finishing my other post. What did david do? He seduced a woman and killed her husband. What did his son do? Raped his sister. Then he didn't want her, and tossed her aside. But for all the comments about how women weren't respected then, her brother went out and took revenge for his sister. Not saying it's right, but David introduced sin to his family, and it spread.
As far as once his son died, he got up and went to eat? I can already tell you read it, so why not say WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Lol, here's the verse.
14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth[b] on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”
19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.
“Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.”
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
This isn't how you would respond, i understand that, but he mourned and fasted while the child was alive in the hopes that God would spare his son. But when the child died, he knew that he had done everything he could, and that he had caused the death of his son by his sin. 7 days of fasting. I've never gone that long, have you? I can imagine he would be quite hungry, and you can see that the servents were worried about david.
In our society, these things are wrong. But then, this is how life was. we weren't alive that time. We don't know. There is alot we don't know. People say we're so evolved now but lol, other then a change of rules, i don't see how much has changed.
oy, you bring up alot of points, but you don't comment on my counter points, just bring up new points. I'm not going to be able to keep up with addressing all the points you know. Gotta ask though, you know the bible, but you don't believe in God, may i ask how you know the bible so well?
@Shandyr as far as understanding the bible, what i do is read it and pray for understanding. It can be interpreted numerous ways, but God revels it to us. You can read the same passage numerous times and always understand it in a new way, as God reveals it to us. The relationship with God gives you the clarity to understand what he's saying in his words, and honestly, all the people saying it's written by the hands of men, i can't think of another book/writing that has so many interpretations as the bible does. Considering it was written over numerous centuries and different authors (as recorded by scientists studying it and historians), they must have been beyond genius to create something that has so many different meanings, especially in the parts that are quite specific, such as the numerous passages telling of Jesus before he ever came onto the earth.
@Bjjorick "And let's take a look at our law system. A woman is married and hates her husband. She goes to a man she knows lusts after her, and tells him how she wants him, but can't leave her husband. She convinces the man to kill her husband. The man does it because he's blinded by lust. Who goes to prison/get the death penalty? The man. The woman? Scott free. Yeah, that's fair."
Uh, no, women have been punished for having others kill their husbands. For seeking out others to kill them, or for influencing men in love with them to do away with the inconvenience of their husband.
I believe the crime you are describing is called "Conspiracy to commit murder". The fact that they have a name for it shows women don't get off scott-free with the crime.
It's not even about "Your children will follow into crime after you," Just "Your children will be punished for your crime by God." as if the child is a sort of scapegoat. Again, why doesn't the Lord punish David instead of taking it out on an innocent child? God looks like a monster there.
Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act. Supposedly a couple of the more popular versions of this are still illegal in 18 states in the US. It does make me wonder if the use of contraception should be defined as sodomy.
A 2011 study in the US showed that there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people.
While i get your point, there's an antithesis in your phrase (besides the one you already mentioned ^^):
"Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act."
with
"... there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people."
If any homossexual sex is sodomy based in this article that you quote, how can exist more heterossexual sodomy sexs?
Consider the following:
Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a roughly 9:1 ratio. Oral sex and well let's just leave it at a number of other sexual acts have no reproductive function. If both hetero and gay groups have sex at the same rate, then it only takes >1 in 9 heterosexual couples to be doing one of those things. (I am assuming using birth control doesn't count as sodomy anywhere even though that is clearly un-reproductive).
In the United States, there are still some sodomy laws on the books. While they encompass these non-reproductive acts, for the last 30 years about the only time they get enforced is against homosexuals (which is why some of them have been struck from the books on equal protection grounds). Generally these sodomy laws are very rarely enforced against anyone any consenting adults anymore because society has become less interested in getting involved in the sexual acts of consenting adults. I view that as progress.
so, if i wanted to humble you, i should punish you directly, instead of making you watch the things you care about suffer. Seems cruel, yeah, but it's what it takes to get through to a person sometimes. and again, here's a question, did david know what would happen for his sin? he had a covenant with God. Would it be better that he wasn't punished for his sins/crimes?
See, i understand that some people will find fault with anything. This isn't meant as an attack on you but this is what i'm seeing. You said earlier that david didn't seem to care at all that his son died, but when i corrected that, now God is terrible for punishing his son.
I'm a parent. My sons know the rules. I don't change the rules. That's not fair, just as God hasn't changed the rules. It is known that before Jesus, the price of breaking the rules is death. I don't recall it ever saying that breaking the rules would lead to one death. But as you mentioned, God knows everything. Let's say for a second that God is a story. I don't believe it, but let's say that's the case. God sees everything and knows everything, and we know that God judges a person's heart.
A man does an unspeakable crime. Let's say rape and murder of an innocent. But the thing is, this has happened multiple times. The wife and children knew about it, but they never commented or came forward. They allowed it to happen. We don't know their heart, but God does. Say that only the man who committed the crime is killed. You think the wife isn't responsible for not turing the husband in knowing what he was doing? and the children, God already knows if the children will follow in the footsteps of the parents. So, would a good God allow these children to grow up and hurt others, and lead to their own punishement? Or would He spare them what would come in the future? Is that a choice you or I could make? Do we have a right to judge.
Btw, something was bothering me and i'm not sure that i've mentioned it. When Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross, he rose from the grave 3 days later. In that time, He went to the dead, all those who had died before, and offered them the same salvation that is offered to us. God forgives sins if a person repents and turns away from their sins, so even cain and adam may be in heaven. We don't know, but if they accepted Jesus when they had the chance, then they will be there. God is a loving God and always gives us a chance to be saved. That is why He sent His son to earth in the first place.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
@Bjjorick "And let's take a look at our law system. A woman is married and hates her husband. She goes to a man she knows lusts after her, and tells him how she wants him, but can't leave her husband. She convinces the man to kill her husband. The man does it because he's blinded by lust. Who goes to prison/get the death penalty? The man. The woman? Scott free. Yeah, that's fair."
Uh, no, women have been punished for having others kill their husbands. For seeking out others to kill them, or for influencing men in love with them to do away with the inconvenience of their husband.
I believe the crime you are describing is called "Conspiracy to commit murder". The fact that they have a name for it shows women don't get off scott-free with the crime.
It's not even about "Your children will follow into crime after you," Just "Your children will be punished for your crime by God." as if the child is a sort of scapegoat. Again, why doesn't the Lord punish David instead of taking it out on an innocent child? God looks like a monster there.
Your description of conspiracy charges applying is 100% correct. If you convince someone to kill someone else and that is proven, you don't get off scott free by any means.
On the idea of punishing the children, you can see I listed more than a dozen instances where that was done in the Old Testament. Phrases like "leave no living thing" directing religious leaders to slaughter children appear repeatedly. When God floods the world, he kills babies and children. In some cases, God not only directs the slaughter of a particular group of people but directs that they be killed generation after generation (i.e., punish the children and future children). There are lots of examples, and it is a challenging issue. I also have trouble reconciling Old Testament God with Jesus on these types of issues.
Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act. Supposedly a couple of the more popular versions of this are still illegal in 18 states in the US. It does make me wonder if the use of contraception should be defined as sodomy.
A 2011 study in the US showed that there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people.
While i get your point, there's an antithesis in your phrase (besides the one you already mentioned ^^):
"Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act."
with
"... there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people."
If any homossexual sex is sodomy based in this article that you quote, how can exist more heterossexual sodomy sexs?
Consider the following:
Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a roughly 9:1 ratio. Oral sex and well let's just leave it at a number of other sexual acts have no reproductive function. If both hetero and gay groups have sex at the same rate, then it only takes >1 in 9 heterosexual couples to be doing one of those things. (I am assuming using birth control doesn't count as sodomy anywhere even though that is clearly un-reproductive).
In the United States, there are still some sodomy laws on the books. While they encompass these non-reproductive acts, for the last 30 years about the only time they get enforced is against homosexuals (which is why some of them have been struck from the books on equal protection grounds). Generally these sodomy laws are very rarely enforced against anyone any consenting adults anymore because society has become less interested in getting involved in the sexual acts of consenting adults. I view that as progress.
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Marriage between man and a woman, and nothing outside of the marriage (threesomes and such). Beyond that, a husband belongs to his wife, and his wife belongs to her husband. So long as they consent, it is fine. i have never read that oral and others is not allowed.
The bible also says not to withhold sex from your husband/wife, except on health problems. That a man should satify his wife and woman should satisfy her husband.
Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act. Supposedly a couple of the more popular versions of this are still illegal in 18 states in the US. It does make me wonder if the use of contraception should be defined as sodomy.
A 2011 study in the US showed that there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people.
While i get your point, there's an antithesis in your phrase (besides the one you already mentioned ^^):
"Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act."
with
"... there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people."
If any homossexual sex is sodomy based in this article that you quote, how can exist more heterossexual sodomy sexs?
Consider the following:
Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a roughly 9:1 ratio. Oral sex and well let's just leave it at a number of other sexual acts have no reproductive function. If both hetero and gay groups have sex at the same rate, then it only takes >1 in 9 heterosexual couples to be doing one of those things. (I am assuming using birth control doesn't count as sodomy anywhere even though that is clearly un-reproductive).
In the United States, there are still some sodomy laws on the books. While they encompass these non-reproductive acts, for the last 30 years about the only time they get enforced is against homosexuals (which is why some of them have been struck from the books on equal protection grounds). Generally these sodomy laws are very rarely enforced against anyone any consenting adults anymore because society has become less interested in getting involved in the sexual acts of consenting adults. I view that as progress.
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Marriage between man and a woman, and nothing outside of the marriage (threesomes and such). Beyond that, a husband belongs to his wife, and his wife belongs to her husband. So long as they consent, it is fine. i have never read that oral and others is not allowed.
The bible also says not to withhold sex from your husband/wife, except on health problems. That a man should satify his wife and woman should satisfy her husband.
That is the Church's view and spells out exactly why the government should not be involved in this. When the government gets involved, they twist, corrupt and wash down the Church's direction and churches generally give that authority over to the government. Look at marriage. What is allowed today by the government in the way of divorce is largely what is recognized by the church (I know there are exceptions but churches have become more tolerant of divorce because of government's involvement).
The Church should be involved with its members but shouldn't be setting policy for others. The Church shouldn't look to the government to police compliance of its members with Church doctrine and should instead set its own values, rules, etc. to guide members of the Church. If two consenting adults want to do something like have premarital sex that the Church doesn't allow, then don't be a part of the Church. If the Church doesn't approve of that behavior then shun them, shame them, excommunicate them, etc. But government shouldn't start trying to enforce things like sodomy laws because then you start getting situations where adultering politicians are using those laws to attack gays and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and hypocrisy.
Adultery is the same way. Who tries to enforce those laws against the John McCains, Newt Gingrichs and Bill Clintons of the world? No one. But the Church isn't required to tolerate it and shouldn't tolerate behavior like that where the faith doesn't permit it. But let the Church administrate that moral/religious authority and let people choose what Church they will attend. Don't put laws on the books that are going to be inconsistently and prejudicially enforced.
@Bjjorick No, I have always said punishing someone for something that they didn't do is not a moral act. You are conflating a wife and children who knew about immoral acts with David's story. Did David's wives know how David had killed Bathsheeba's husband? The Bible doesn't say. What could David's son by Bathsheeba have done to prevent David from killing his mother's first husband and then being conceived? He couldn't- he wasn't even born yet. That's why your analogy of "A wife and children who know that the father/husband is a criminal and yet say nothing and are punished for saying nothing" doesn't apply here. From the story, David decided this all on his own, to have Bathsheeba's husband killed and take her to wife. From the story it's not clear that they all knew about his plans or actions, yet they still get punished rather than David. And David's son by Bathsheeba wasn't even born when David had his mother's first husband slain. He's innocent. And yet, he suffers as well. God of the Bible is punishing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the crime, and could neither have prevented it, nor told upon David- so why equate it with someone who could? You keep wanting to make it equivalent to a wife and child/children who are fully aware of their father's misdeeds and can do something about it. David's child could do neither, so it does not follow that the situation is somehow the same or even equivalent.
i think i will get into views of the church tomorrow, but from what i've seen, it's typically the catholic church that tries to wrap itself up with the gov't. I know it's not limited to them though.
@Bjjorick No, I have always said punishing someone for something that they didn't do is not a moral act. You are conflating a wife and children who knew about immoral acts with David's story. Did David's wives know how David had killed Bathsheeba's husband? The Bible doesn't say. What could David's son by Bathsheeba have done to prevent David from killing his mother's first husband and then being conceived? He couldn't- he wasn't even born yet. That's why your analogy of "A wife and children who know that the father/husband is a criminal and yet say nothing and are punished for saying nothing" doesn't apply here. From the story, David decided this all on his own, to have Bathsheeba's husband killed and take her to wife. From the story it's not clear that they all knew about his plans or actions, yet they still get punished rather than David. And David's son by Bathsheeba wasn't even born when David had his mother's first husband slain. He's innocent. And yet, he suffers as well. God of the Bible is punishing an innocent person who had nothing to do with the crime, and could neither have prevented it, nor told upon David- so why equate it with someone who could? You keep wanting to make it equivalent to a wife and child/children who are fully aware of their father's misdeeds and can do something about it. David's child could do neither, so it does not follow that the situation is somehow the same or even equivalent.
okay, my comment in that case was a generic answer to why families can suffer for one of their actions.
and will answer you this. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. You know that God has numbered my days and yours and everyone elses, right? God decides when we die. So yeah, a child died. And yeah, it goes back to adam, because he introduced sin into the world, it goes back to david who sinned against God knowing. And that's what God used to reach david.
But once more, do we know more then God? can we fathom His mysteries? The depth of His love, understanding, meaning? Can we comprehend His will?
But, you say God does evil things. Have you ever talked to God? Asked Him why these things happened? You may not believe in Him, so what do you risk or lose by asking Him in prayer? Ask Him to show you, to show you if He's there, and why these things happen. If nothing happens, you'll know, but keep your eyes open to see if He answers you, even if it's not in a way that you expect.
God forgives sins if a person repents and turns away from their sins
For me this is the crucial point where homosexualuty/bisexuality comes in.
So as homo/bisexuality is regarded as a sin:
How can you turn away from your sexual preference?
I know that there are people who claim that they have successfully and consciously changed their sexual preference.
However for me this does not mean that anybody can do it at will. I for myself cannot. I do not even regret my sexual orientation (not in the way I would be supposed to for a sin).
Please, before you answer this, imagine for a few seconds, that you were told that the only way to reach gods forgiveness would be to change your sexual orientation.
And once again, even if you actually could do that. This does not enable everybody to do so.
This would lead me to the conclusion that I dont have to care of anything concerncing god anyway because I am doomed anyway.
There cannot be ever a salvation for me unless I change my sexual preference which is impossible for me.
If you now tell to "try" it. Then "try" would imply that you allow me to fail at trying otherwise you would demand that I change it.
For me the answer is mercy. God is the one who judges. God is the one who chooses to be merciful or not.
And I refuse to believe that every homo/bisexual on this earth who cannot change his/her sexuality is doomed no matter what.
In my belief, God would be far too loving and merciful to let that happen, but ultimately it would be his choice of course.
Lol, first off, wasn't going to tell you to try it. But i do always enourage people to try to talk to God, as I know God is there and is always listening.
Jesus came for the sinners, not the saints. He came to me when i was but a sinner, and i was convinced i would have to give up video games. I know this sounds stupid but i was brought up being told it was bad by preachers and such. In the end, God never asked me to give them up, but I have lost my desire to play as much as i used to. I also enjoy them much more. God surprises people.
As far as what the bible says, is to abstain. If you really do want to know God, come to Him as you are. If he does put a conviction on you to draw closer to Him and seek forgiveness for your sins, and He gives you the desire to step back and review the homosexuality/bisexuality aspect of it, then just abstain for awhile and see where it leads you. That would be the biblical advice i would give you.
Personal advice is slightly different. Read the bible and talk to God. Pray and talk to Jesus and ask him to forgive you of your sins and admit you are a sinner. forget about the homosexuality being a sin right now, because the bible says that He has placed the law on our hearts. if you don't feel it's a sin, but you know that you have sinned by lying, stealing, murder (which is to hate another as well as the act of murder), or adultry (which is to look lustfully upon another, husband and wife excluded i believe but i may be wrong). If you know you've commited any of those, as i have lied, i even stole once, i have hated another, even if only in a moment or over a long term, and i've deffinately been lustful.
Just pray and say, Jesus, i believe you are Lord. I know that I have sinned and I ask that you forgive me, and that you will come into my life and help me. I know that you died for my sins, and ask that you will set me free. Please allow me to stand before the Father in heaven, as your word says that you are the way, the truth and the light, and that NO man comes before the Father except through you.
If you pray that and you mean it and believe it, then it is done. Then talk to God, and don't worry about being formal or anything, just speak your heart. I find it best to do it in private, especially at first, but then i'm not social. Ask God to help you to understand Him and what He has for you. Tell Him of your doubts and your worries and just listen for the still, small voice of God that will speak to you. Pray and listen, just like any conversation, and read the bible so that you'll know the voice of God. If it's for you, then persue it and see where it leads. If you don't like what you find, then you can walk away. God doesn't take away our free will. But give it a week or two, experience it and be patient. Don't go crazy with it, but experience it and see what effect it has. And if you walk away, i promise that nothing will change except that you will have a greater knowledge of God. But if you do it, do it sincerely.
I do hope this helps, and if you try it, awesome. If not, that's still cool. I'm not trying to pressure you, this is just what i believe and the game reference is that I came to God expecting alot of things. He surprised me then, and still surprises me now. He loves us more then anyone ever can.
If this makes you feel pressured or feel that my answer went the wrong way from what you were asking, i aploligize and please correct me.
From a biblical perspective, there is nothing clear and it is a matter that has been interpreted both ways historically.
lol, i was talking biblically. remember when the church said that love was forbidden and ehhhh. laws and nations come and go, but the Lord God is ever lasting.
@Shandyr But it's God doing the punishment, someone we have been told (by Christians) is Omnibenevolent (all good) according to them. This is not good. It's not good and it's not good to punish an innocent person for a crime. You are familliar with the term scapegoat, yes? This child is the scapegoat for David's crime. David's wives get violated by other men, and his son is killed in a nasty and horrible way, but once his son is dead, David is absolved of the crime.
As a punishment for someone else's crime, killing someone whose only crime is in being related to the criminal isn't right, and a God who is the source of all Goodness should know that.
And let's not forget according to the bible, unless you gat baptised we are all paying for the Sin of Adam and Eve.. how is that fair?
@shandyr Lol, as far as discover God by yourself or telling you, I would rather you learn on your own. If i tell you, i may be wrong, or have prejaducies that wouldn't help you. I mean, if you need help, i'll be happy to help, but our relationship with God is a very personal thing. i can go into that later if you want me to, i don't mean private, just personal.
Hehe, homosexuality to God. Well, as far as how you ask, the bible says that men and women give in to their sexual perversions and men lay with men and women lay with women. If you look at it, in nature, and if you accept that God created us, men and women fit together biologically, mentally, emotionally, and spirtually. As far as biologically, the basic hole and filling (not be be crass, just keeping it basic lol), but then on reproduction, i was reading a study on cloning humans today, and the study was saying how complicated it is, how many failures there are. That it requires a man and a woman to properly create offspring because men produce alot of things, as do women. The men, supposedly, shape the size of the placenta? I'm still looking into it.
Mentally. Men and women think differently. I think between the two, there is balance. Men are more focused on a single thing, rather good or bad (like focused on family or on the football game) and women are more designed towards multitasking. My wife motivates me to expand myself all the time, and i motivate her to limit how much she tries to do and rest.
emotionally. I think this one is obvious, and again, balance, but again, will give details.
Spirtually. Two become one. God gives each the pieces that they need to bring them together in perfect unity. I can expand tomorrow, getting sleepy lol.
as far a it goes, sex is supposed to be for marriage. And to be honest, it could be that since marriage in God's eyes is for man and woman (two joining to be one, returned from 1 becoming 2 when i was talking about adam earlier), i think just the act of sex is part of it. But romantic love is only for husband wife. There is brotherly/sisterly love and many kinds of love.
Sorry, i guess i'm not making much sense now. Hehe, please ask me what doesn't make sense and when i get home from work tomorrow, will try to do a much better job explaining.
@Bjjorick regarding your last post- what you are describing (apart from biological anatomy and procreation) is idealized situation consisting of archetypes. archetypes are not real people, most people are more masculine or feminine but neither completely. there are obviously many bad straight couplings despite the fact that they can have children together.
very simple- i propose that LGBT people are perfectly capable of described mental, spiritual and emotional union you describe.
Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a roughly 9:1 ratio. Oral sex and well let's just leave it at a number of other sexual acts have no reproductive function. If both hetero and gay groups have sex at the same rate, then it only takes >1 in 9 heterosexual couples to be doing one of those things.
This is precisely my point, sodomy is associated with homosexuality whilst at the same time as practiced by more heterosexuals.
As I haven't been edited by the kindly moderators thus far I'll just go ahead and say what I meant in the first place: the survey was about anal sex, not oral or general "sodomy" as a whole. It states that "about 40% of heterosexual Americans aged 15 to 44 have or have had anal sex." With that in mind, why should sodomy be such a taboo? I wonder if most homophobia is male originated for reasons that I can definitely not get away with going into.
@AHF I should look that up! the guy there was interviewed in Richard Dawkins' documentary "The Root of all Evil," before those things came out. I do like stories like this, we're only animals, simple as that. Give it a few millennia and maybe we'll just be another gap in the fossil record.
Comments
"Interestingly, although sodomy has a generally accepted meaning of buggery today (in the UK), it encompasses any un-reproductive sex act."
with
"... there were more heterosexuals who had committed sodomy (in the generally accepted sense) than there were gay people."
If any homossexual sex is sodomy based in this article that you quote, how can exist more heterossexual sodomy sexs?
But again, in portuguese, buggery and sodomy have the exactly same translation, so it's not a big deal and maybe it's just a translation issue.
About the rest of this thread, i feel a bit dizz just by look to the new religious posts, too long posts and i was too inactive for a while to keep in the discussion now
And after he kills the baby, God is satisfied, and lets Solomon be born as David's next child with Bathsheeba. And David doesn't even take the death of his son that hard, afterwards, he gets up, changes his clothes and has a good meal and goes back to his business.
Like I said, the God of the Bible is an inconstant figure for morality. Mind you, @Tanthalas, the God of the Bible also says he doesn't change, nor does he change his mind. But he lies (to Adam and Eve about the effect of the fruit- he tells them it will kill them on the same day they eat it, and yet Adam lives for 900-something years afterwards. In effect, the snake was correct in saying that eating it would make them like God, knowing good and evil- it definitely had that effect.)
@Bjjorick I have no doubt you are a man of your faith, but I don't think you have the right reading of the stories in this instance. Regarding slavery- God never says anything to his chosen people about it being wrong, and as God (all knowing, all powerful, all good), he could have made them accept this- after all, he's God, right? Yet, he does nothing about it and never even hints that this is a bad thing. Which, if you accept that God's morality never changes, you are forced to conclude that 1) We are wrong and slavery is still okay today, just as it was back then. or 2) God is wrong and slavery has always been wrong.
Wow, you're kinda off target. If you read my previous post, you'll find out that adam and eve were immortal until they sinned. That introduced death. So yes, it caused death, but did God say, if you eat it, you'll die right then? But because he lived 900 years later and then died, God lied? You know the bible, but how is it that you draw the conclusions that you want to draw rather then what the bible says?
And let's take a look at our law system. A woman is married and hates her husband. She goes to a man she knows lusts after her, and tells him how she wants him, but can't leave her husband. She convinces the man to kill her husband. The man does it because he's blinded by lust. Who goes to prison/get the death penalty? The man. The woman? Scott free. Yeah, that's fair.
I'm not saying that's always the case, but you have to realize, according to the bible, and the way i live, i am responsible for my family and they are responsible for me. I have to set an example. So yeah, i go out and start robbing banks. I wind up in prison. What do you think the chances are that my kids will lead a life of crime? Not always but the precentage is high.
I'm not saying i agree with it, but if i know my family will pay for my actions, you better believe i'm going to measure my actions.
And this gets back to finishing my other post. What did david do? He seduced a woman and killed her husband. What did his son do? Raped his sister. Then he didn't want her, and tossed her aside. But for all the comments about how women weren't respected then, her brother went out and took revenge for his sister. Not saying it's right, but David introduced sin to his family, and it spread.
As far as once his son died, he got up and went to eat? I can already tell you read it, so why not say WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. Lol, here's the verse.
14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth[b] on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”
19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.
“Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.”
20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate.
21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”
This isn't how you would respond, i understand that, but he mourned and fasted while the child was alive in the hopes that God would spare his son. But when the child died, he knew that he had done everything he could, and that he had caused the death of his son by his sin. 7 days of fasting. I've never gone that long, have you? I can imagine he would be quite hungry, and you can see that the servents were worried about david.
In our society, these things are wrong. But then, this is how life was. we weren't alive that time. We don't know. There is alot we don't know. People say we're so evolved now but lol, other then a change of rules, i don't see how much has changed.
oy, you bring up alot of points, but you don't comment on my counter points, just bring up new points. I'm not going to be able to keep up with addressing all the points you know. Gotta ask though, you know the bible, but you don't believe in God, may i ask how you know the bible so well?
@Shandyr
as far as understanding the bible, what i do is read it and pray for understanding. It can be interpreted numerous ways, but God revels it to us. You can read the same passage numerous times and always understand it in a new way, as God reveals it to us. The relationship with God gives you the clarity to understand what he's saying in his words, and honestly, all the people saying it's written by the hands of men, i can't think of another book/writing that has so many interpretations as the bible does. Considering it was written over numerous centuries and different authors (as recorded by scientists studying it and historians), they must have been beyond genius to create something that has so many different meanings, especially in the parts that are quite specific, such as the numerous passages telling of Jesus before he ever came onto the earth.
Uh, no, women have been punished for having others kill their husbands. For seeking out others to kill them, or for influencing men in love with them to do away with the inconvenience of their husband.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xir5la_florida-woman-who-tried-to-kill-her-husband-found-guilty_news
I believe the crime you are describing is called "Conspiracy to commit murder". The fact that they have a name for it shows women don't get off scott-free with the crime.
It's not even about "Your children will follow into crime after you," Just "Your children will be punished for your crime by God." as if the child is a sort of scapegoat. Again, why doesn't the Lord punish David instead of taking it out on an innocent child? God looks like a monster there.
Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a roughly 9:1 ratio. Oral sex and well let's just leave it at a number of other sexual acts have no reproductive function. If both hetero and gay groups have sex at the same rate, then it only takes >1 in 9 heterosexual couples to be doing one of those things. (I am assuming using birth control doesn't count as sodomy anywhere even though that is clearly un-reproductive).
In the United States, there are still some sodomy laws on the books. While they encompass these non-reproductive acts, for the last 30 years about the only time they get enforced is against homosexuals (which is why some of them have been struck from the books on equal protection grounds). Generally these sodomy laws are very rarely enforced against anyone any consenting adults anymore because society has become less interested in getting involved in the sexual acts of consenting adults. I view that as progress.
so, if i wanted to humble you, i should punish you directly, instead of making you watch the things you care about suffer. Seems cruel, yeah, but it's what it takes to get through to a person sometimes. and again, here's a question, did david know what would happen for his sin? he had a covenant with God. Would it be better that he wasn't punished for his sins/crimes?
See, i understand that some people will find fault with anything. This isn't meant as an attack on you but this is what i'm seeing. You said earlier that david didn't seem to care at all that his son died, but when i corrected that, now God is terrible for punishing his son.
I'm a parent. My sons know the rules. I don't change the rules. That's not fair, just as God hasn't changed the rules. It is known that before Jesus, the price of breaking the rules is death. I don't recall it ever saying that breaking the rules would lead to one death. But as you mentioned, God knows everything. Let's say for a second that God is a story. I don't believe it, but let's say that's the case. God sees everything and knows everything, and we know that God judges a person's heart.
A man does an unspeakable crime. Let's say rape and murder of an innocent. But the thing is, this has happened multiple times. The wife and children knew about it, but they never commented or came forward. They allowed it to happen. We don't know their heart, but God does. Say that only the man who committed the crime is killed. You think the wife isn't responsible for not turing the husband in knowing what he was doing? and the children, God already knows if the children will follow in the footsteps of the parents. So, would a good God allow these children to grow up and hurt others, and lead to their own punishement? Or would He spare them what would come in the future? Is that a choice you or I could make? Do we have a right to judge.
Btw, something was bothering me and i'm not sure that i've mentioned it. When Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross, he rose from the grave 3 days later. In that time, He went to the dead, all those who had died before, and offered them the same salvation that is offered to us. God forgives sins if a person repents and turns away from their sins, so even cain and adam may be in heaven. We don't know, but if they accepted Jesus when they had the chance, then they will be there. God is a loving God and always gives us a chance to be saved. That is why He sent His son to earth in the first place.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
May God bless you all.
On the idea of punishing the children, you can see I listed more than a dozen instances where that was done in the Old Testament. Phrases like "leave no living thing" directing religious leaders to slaughter children appear repeatedly. When God floods the world, he kills babies and children. In some cases, God not only directs the slaughter of a particular group of people but directs that they be killed generation after generation (i.e., punish the children and future children). There are lots of examples, and it is a challenging issue. I also have trouble reconciling Old Testament God with Jesus on these types of issues.
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Marriage between man and a woman, and nothing outside of the marriage (threesomes and such). Beyond that, a husband belongs to his wife, and his wife belongs to her husband. So long as they consent, it is fine. i have never read that oral and others is not allowed.
The bible also says not to withhold sex from your husband/wife, except on health problems. That a man should satify his wife and woman should satisfy her husband.
The Church should be involved with its members but shouldn't be setting policy for others. The Church shouldn't look to the government to police compliance of its members with Church doctrine and should instead set its own values, rules, etc. to guide members of the Church. If two consenting adults want to do something like have premarital sex that the Church doesn't allow, then don't be a part of the Church. If the Church doesn't approve of that behavior then shun them, shame them, excommunicate them, etc. But government shouldn't start trying to enforce things like sodomy laws because then you start getting situations where adultering politicians are using those laws to attack gays and it becomes a breeding ground for corruption and hypocrisy.
Adultery is the same way. Who tries to enforce those laws against the John McCains, Newt Gingrichs and Bill Clintons of the world? No one. But the Church isn't required to tolerate it and shouldn't tolerate behavior like that where the faith doesn't permit it. But let the Church administrate that moral/religious authority and let people choose what Church they will attend. Don't put laws on the books that are going to be inconsistently and prejudicially enforced.
i think i will get into views of the church tomorrow, but from what i've seen, it's typically the catholic church that tries to wrap itself up with the gov't. I know it's not limited to them though.
and will answer you this. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. You know that God has numbered my days and yours and everyone elses, right? God decides when we die. So yeah, a child died. And yeah, it goes back to adam, because he introduced sin into the world, it goes back to david who sinned against God knowing. And that's what God used to reach david.
But once more, do we know more then God? can we fathom His mysteries? The depth of His love, understanding, meaning? Can we comprehend His will?
But, you say God does evil things. Have you ever talked to God? Asked Him why these things happened? You may not believe in Him, so what do you risk or lose by asking Him in prayer? Ask Him to show you, to show you if He's there, and why these things happen. If nothing happens, you'll know, but keep your eyes open to see if He answers you, even if it's not in a way that you expect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick
From a biblical perspective, there is nothing clear and it is a matter that has been interpreted both ways historically.
Jesus came for the sinners, not the saints. He came to me when i was but a sinner, and i was convinced i would have to give up video games. I know this sounds stupid but i was brought up being told it was bad by preachers and such. In the end, God never asked me to give them up, but I have lost my desire to play as much as i used to. I also enjoy them much more. God surprises people.
As far as what the bible says, is to abstain. If you really do want to know God, come to Him as you are. If he does put a conviction on you to draw closer to Him and seek forgiveness for your sins, and He gives you the desire to step back and review the homosexuality/bisexuality aspect of it, then just abstain for awhile and see where it leads you. That would be the biblical advice i would give you.
Personal advice is slightly different. Read the bible and talk to God. Pray and talk to Jesus and ask him to forgive you of your sins and admit you are a sinner. forget about the homosexuality being a sin right now, because the bible says that He has placed the law on our hearts. if you don't feel it's a sin, but you know that you have sinned by lying, stealing, murder (which is to hate another as well as the act of murder), or adultry (which is to look lustfully upon another, husband and wife excluded i believe but i may be wrong). If you know you've commited any of those, as i have lied, i even stole once, i have hated another, even if only in a moment or over a long term, and i've deffinately been lustful.
Just pray and say, Jesus, i believe you are Lord. I know that I have sinned and I ask that you forgive me, and that you will come into my life and help me. I know that you died for my sins, and ask that you will set me free. Please allow me to stand before the Father in heaven, as your word says that you are the way, the truth and the light, and that NO man comes before the Father except through you.
If you pray that and you mean it and believe it, then it is done. Then talk to God, and don't worry about being formal or anything, just speak your heart. I find it best to do it in private, especially at first, but then i'm not social. Ask God to help you to understand Him and what He has for you. Tell Him of your doubts and your worries and just listen for the still, small voice of God that will speak to you. Pray and listen, just like any conversation, and read the bible so that you'll know the voice of God. If it's for you, then persue it and see where it leads. If you don't like what you find, then you can walk away. God doesn't take away our free will. But give it a week or two, experience it and be patient. Don't go crazy with it, but experience it and see what effect it has. And if you walk away, i promise that nothing will change except that you will have a greater knowledge of God. But if you do it, do it sincerely.
I do hope this helps, and if you try it, awesome. If not, that's still cool. I'm not trying to pressure you, this is just what i believe and the game reference is that I came to God expecting alot of things. He surprised me then, and still surprises me now. He loves us more then anyone ever can.
If this makes you feel pressured or feel that my answer went the wrong way from what you were asking, i aploligize and please correct me.
Lol, as far as discover God by yourself or telling you, I would rather you learn on your own. If i tell you, i may be wrong, or have prejaducies that wouldn't help you. I mean, if you need help, i'll be happy to help, but our relationship with God is a very personal thing. i can go into that later if you want me to, i don't mean private, just personal.
Hehe, homosexuality to God. Well, as far as how you ask, the bible says that men and women give in to their sexual perversions and men lay with men and women lay with women. If you look at it, in nature, and if you accept that God created us, men and women fit together biologically, mentally, emotionally, and spirtually. As far as biologically, the basic hole and filling (not be be crass, just keeping it basic lol), but then on reproduction, i was reading a study on cloning humans today, and the study was saying how complicated it is, how many failures there are. That it requires a man and a woman to properly create offspring because men produce alot of things, as do women. The men, supposedly, shape the size of the placenta? I'm still looking into it.
Mentally. Men and women think differently. I think between the two, there is balance. Men are more focused on a single thing, rather good or bad (like focused on family or on the football game) and women are more designed towards multitasking. My wife motivates me to expand myself all the time, and i motivate her to limit how much she tries to do and rest.
emotionally. I think this one is obvious, and again, balance, but again, will give details.
Spirtually. Two become one. God gives each the pieces that they need to bring them together in perfect unity. I can expand tomorrow, getting sleepy lol.
as far a it goes, sex is supposed to be for marriage. And to be honest, it could be that since marriage in God's eyes is for man and woman (two joining to be one, returned from 1 becoming 2 when i was talking about adam earlier), i think just the act of sex is part of it. But romantic love is only for husband wife. There is brotherly/sisterly love and many kinds of love.
Sorry, i guess i'm not making much sense now. Hehe, please ask me what doesn't make sense and when i get home from work tomorrow, will try to do a much better job explaining.
regarding your last post- what you are describing (apart from biological anatomy and procreation) is idealized situation consisting of archetypes.
archetypes are not real people, most people are more masculine or feminine but neither completely. there are obviously many bad straight couplings despite the fact that they can have children together.
very simple- i propose that LGBT people are perfectly capable of described mental, spiritual and emotional union you describe.
As I haven't been edited by the kindly moderators thus far I'll just go ahead and say what I meant in the first place: the survey was about anal sex, not oral or general "sodomy" as a whole.
It states that "about 40% of heterosexual Americans aged 15 to 44 have or have had anal sex." With that in mind, why should sodomy be such a taboo? I wonder if most homophobia is male originated for reasons that I can definitely not get away with going into.
I do like stories like this, we're only animals, simple as that. Give it a few millennia and maybe we'll just be another gap in the fossil record.