Yes! Gay marriage finally legal!

[StoneHappyMonday]

Why not ask your buddy Doris the same question? She's the one who did her nut just because I suggested her little campaign against papasomni should be taken to its own thread. Which is all I did.

Anyway, boring...



Awww, how sweet! I'm touched.

I don't have any of yours.

You really are a child aren't you. You thrive on attention like a 3 year old. Even when the attention is a whole forum of people thinking you're the biggest wanker who walked the Earth. You're right. That *illness* of yours fits you like a glove. Have another go down Oxford Road eh? Better luck this time.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Raas, you still haven't addressed my post.

I understand 'the basics' quite well as it happens. Probably better than you. I know all about the historical context of the bible and the customs of the people of the Levant around the time of the OT. It has very little bearing on the scriptures I have quoted.

Please answer my posts instead of being evasive, yeah?

And thanks for getting us back on topic.

i addressed PART of your post because there's no point going into it all when you haven't got over the basics.

NO you don't have a good understanding of the bible else i wouldn't be having to update it for you. You might have read into it's hisotorical context,but you clearly have no clue about how NT corrects the OT and why Christians do not preach these outmoded verses... else i wouldn't have to spend ages responding to your ignorant response to my post.

I hope by now you've grasped this point. Probably not.


I'll get back to ur sexual immorality quotes a little later. No I'm not being evasive i just have some breakfast to eat. Granola and muesli with sprinkled coco

 

[Sammy G]

NO you don't have a good understanding of the bible else i wouldn't be having to update it for you. You might have read into it's hisotorical context,but you clearly have no clue about how NT corrects the OT and why Christians do not preach these outmoded verses.

Raas, everything I quoted was from the NT...

I've quoted from a couple of gospels and from the Pauline Epistles. Are you saying that neither of these are relevant to Christian doctrine?

Funny, because I thought they were central pillars of that doctrine.

 

[Raasyvibe]

No Sammy, I was responding (very fully) to this:

As usual, Christian scripture wriggles out of this through its very ambiguity, which is perhaps the biggest factor in its survival

That was your response to me, who was discussing the clashes between OT and NT. I felt the response was very ignorant... and would rather focus on the discussed point, before digressing to the sexual perversity and homosexuality (which is gonna be a big topic), I indeed, promised though that would ensue.

 

[Marmalade]

You really are a child aren't you. You thrive on attention like a 3 year old. Even when the attention is a whole forum of people thinking you're the biggest wanker who walked the Earth. You're right. That *illness* of yours fits you like a glove. Have another go down Oxford Road eh? Better luck this time.

He's been cruising for negative attention from me for months and months but I finally cracked when it was obvious he had lied verbatim about stuff, and wouldnt rectify the situation, all less than a month after my mum died and I told him it was causing me distress. Which I have the txts to prove

He'll not stop provoking negative attention because it's the only way he can get any. Loneliness is a terrible place to be but it doesnt warrant this kind of behaviour from him.

I'm out of here until he stops this kinda shit

 

[Sammy G]

I felt the response was very ignorant... and would rather focus on the discussed point, before digressing to the sexual perversity and homosexuality (which is gonna be a big topic), I indeed, promised though that would ensue.

There's nothing to discuss.

I've identified some less ambiguous (and more relevant) passages of the Bible, in response to you attempting to divorce the New Covenant from the Old. Which is where I (and countless scholars) find the Christian scriptures to be ambiguous. I've attempted to address actual explicit Christian doctrine.

Therefore, the whole issue of the New Testament's ambiguity with regard to the relevance of the Old Covenant is a moot point. Ya dig?

Now how about those quotes from the New Testament, eh?

 

[Raasyvibe]

BBL, am out n cant really do all this on mobile

 

[Shambles]

Big Baby Jeebuz wonders what all the fuss is about...

NSFW:

 

[rickolasnice]

Way to do your standard thing of avoiding the actual question as: YOU'RE WRONG.

I mentioned things from the OT because the message from god about homosexuality is contained within the OT. You replied with the "Oh rickolasnice you biased jesus hater how many times!?" as if I don't understand your belief that the Old Testament is full of outdated laws and misinterpretations of God so for the last time raas: I fckin get it, ok? It's stupid, and doesn't make sense, but i understand you believe that it does.. ok?

Where in the bible does Jesus mention homosexuality?

If you want you can use the many passages from John the Apostles letters but then surely I can bring up his ideas that women should be subordinate to men, they should be silent in church and if they are bald or have short hair they are disgusting and shouldn't be praying.. He also seemed to have a liking for Titus.. A ruthless Roman Emperor responsible for crushing the Jewish Rebellion.

If you are going to use the bible to gain moral guidance then you have to accept that it comes with everything else in it.. Jesus doesn't do away with slavery and Paul is constantly talking about slaves having to be good slaves so even if you pick your morals from the NT.. you're gonna have a bad time.

So.. What's it to be?

A) Yes the letters from Paul in the New Testament make it clear what God's stance is on homosexuality and yes women should be subordinate to men.
B) Jesus may not have specifically mentioned it but i know he was thinking it
C) Shut the fck up i pick and choose what parts I want to believe in.

Go over to the theology thread please I have a nice paper i'd like you to read

 

[parttime crackhead]

Like I said, proven idiot.

 

[shimazu]

using the Bible as proof for what is proper morality is really effective in modern times I hear

I could quote stuff I say on bluelight as proof of proper morality but its really just my opinion still. and the bible is basically the opinion of one of the most corrupt organizations of all time so Im good with the fact that I never read their best selling fictional work although I do give them bonus points for turning a cold shoulder during the Holocaust.

 

[EddieJessup]

The church at the end of my road, and I live in a very conservative area,
has a gay Reverend(Queens Cross in Aberdeen).
Do you go to church Raas?
Why don't you come and explain to him (an ordained minister),
how he doesn't understand christianity

 

[Raasyvibe]

Sorry to forget this thread, Christmas shenanigans 'n all...

ooooook....here we go;

There's nothing to discuss.

I've identified some less ambiguous (and more relevant) passages of the Bible, in response to you attempting to divorce the New Covenant from the Old. Which is where I (and countless scholars) find the Christian scriptures to be ambiguous. I've attempted to address actual explicit Christian doctrine.

Therefore, the whole issue of the New Testament's ambiguity with regard to the relevance of the Old Covenant is a moot point. Ya dig?

Now how about those quotes from the New Testament, eh?

Big Baby Jeebuz wonders what all the fuss is about...

NSFW:

Way to do your standard thing of avoiding the actual question as: YOU'RE WRONG.

I mentioned things from the OT because the message from god about homosexuality is contained within the OT. You replied with the "Oh rickolasnice you biased jesus hater how many times!?" as if I don't understand your belief that the Old Testament is full of outdated laws and misinterpretations of God so for the last time raas: I fckin get it, ok? It's stupid, and doesn't make sense, but i understand you believe that it does.. ok?

Where in the bible does Jesus mention homosexuality?

If you want you can use the many passages from John the Apostles letters but then surely I can bring up his ideas that women should be subordinate to men, they should be silent in church and if they are bald or have short hair they are disgusting and shouldn't be praying.. He also seemed to have a liking for Titus.. A ruthless Roman Emperor responsible for crushing the Jewish Rebellion.

If you are going to use the bible to gain moral guidance then you have to accept that it comes with everything else in it.. Jesus doesn't do away with slavery and Paul is constantly talking about slaves having to be good slaves so even if you pick your morals from the NT.. you're gonna have a bad time.

So.. What's it to be?

A) Yes the letters from Paul in the New Testament make it clear what God's stance is on homosexuality and yes women should be subordinate to men.
B) Jesus may not have specifically mentioned it but i know he was thinking it
C) Shut the fck up i pick and choose what parts I want to believe in.

Go over to the theology thread please I have a nice paper i'd like you to read

Like I said, proven idiot.

using the Bible as proof for what is proper morality is really effective in modern times I hear

I could quote stuff I say on bluelight as proof of proper morality but its really just my opinion still. and the bible is basically the opinion of one of the most corrupt organizations of all time so Im good with the fact that I never read their best selling fictional work although I do give them bonus points for turning a cold shoulder during the Holocaust.

The church at the end of my road, and I live in a very conservative area,
has a gay Reverend(Queens Cross in Aberdeen).
Do you go to church Raas?
Why don't you come and explain to him (an ordained minister),
how he doesn't understand christianity

Come on guys, have you forgot this threads meant to be about attacking Raas and his beliefs...... ermm, gay marriage I mean

@raas - a pleasure to be around

Raas, you still haven't addressed my post.

I understand 'the basics' quite well as it happens. Probably better than you. I know all about the historical context of the Bible and the customs of the people of the Levant around the time of the OT. It has very little bearing on the scriptures I have quoted.

Please answer my posts instead of being evasive, yeah? And I don't mean 'address the same thing as you did last time and avoid the crux of my argument'.

And thanks for getting us back on topic.

Raas, everything I quoted was from the NT...

I've quoted from a couple of gospels and from the Pauline Epistles. Are you saying that neither of these are relevant to Christian doctrine?

Funny, because I thought they were central pillars of that doctrine.

OK, er... I've responded to all of this in detail, here:

NSFW:

 

[rickolasnice]

Copy and paste raas.. just press back then copy + paste

 

[Raasyvibe]

Now, get stuck in... While you let us big boys - me, Sammy_G and Rickolasnice - come out to play, and battle it out with answers consisiting of many years of thought, research, biblical references and use big words like "tangential".


_____________________________________________

The church at the end of my road, and I live in a very conservative area,
has a gay Reverend(Queens Cross in Aberdeen).
Do you go to church Raas?
Why don't you come and explain to him (an ordained minister),
how he doesn't understand Christianity

Eddie, it's important to remember that we're all human and equal regardless of sexual orientation. If a minister has a sexual desire towards men, he is no worse than a minister with a sexual desire towards woman. However, in the same way my religion opposes me lusting over some hot, big -titted, eastern European lady, so the gay minister should not be looking express his desire for young, handsome men.

In it's heart, Christiannity serves to free us from sexual desires. To divorce us of the animilstic background we have come to know, but find ourselves and progress as beautiful spiritual creatures.

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

_____________________________________________________

I've identified some less ambiguous (and more relevant) passages of the Bible, in response to you attempting to divorce the New Covenant from the Old. Which is where I (and countless scholars) find the Christian scriptures to be ambiguous. I've attempted to address actual explicit Christian doctrine

Sammy, I was never trying to divorce the old covenant from the new.

Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil

But the Bible clearly divorces itself of the brutality which became intertwined with the law.

For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

______________________________________________________________

raas.. please tell me at what point in the bible it mentions acts of sexuality being an abomination..

Sure. The New Testament refers to "sexual immorality" on multiple occasions including Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21, Acts 15:20 and 29, and many more.

Christians think that God thinks man on man action is icky because of the old testament, not the new.

Sorry that's completely wrong.

“ For this reason [idolatry] God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for even their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature, and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error

____________________________

Where in the bible does Jesus mention homosexuality?

Jesus many times shows opposition to fornication/sexual immorality. Google the links. Later in the NT it is expounded that homosexuality is considered "lust", which Jesus opposed.

If you are going to use the bible to gain moral guidance then you have to accept that it comes with everything else in it.. Jesus doesn't do away with slavery and Paul is constantly talking about slaves having to be good slaves so even if you pick your morals from the NT.. you're gonna have a bad time.

So you're saying, if I adhere to what the NT says about homosexuality, I must also adhere to what else it says about woman being subordinate and being a proponent of slaves, yes?

I think when Paul talks of slaves, he's referring to what in our day and age is workman. Can you give me relevant verses on this and the NT misogyny, so I know what I'm addressing exactly?

 

[rickolasnice]

Neither Matthew nor Mark explicitly mention homosexuality..

They both mention sexual immorality but that's just the point I am trying to make? What counts as sexual immorality? Does the NT say homosexuality is immoral? It is you that is deciding that those passages relate to homosexuality.

The other 2 examples were written by Paul which, like I said, we may as well go back to treating women as second class citizens if we are going to take his writings as moral guidance. So if we are to take one part (an ambiguous passage from 2 of the gospels) as moral guidelines then why can we not take it all? Slavery? OK. Women less than Men? Sure.

Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:

"Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily... "
Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

And our pal Paul:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."[1 Cor. 14:34–35]

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."[1 Tim. 2:11-12]

There are many more I just cba right now.. maybe in a bit.. and no raas you can't go changing the definition of words as to twist the morality of the bible into what you think it should be.

And for the record:'

for·ni·ca·tion (fôrn-kshn)
n.
Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

(Any attempt to make fornication into a thing of homosexuality stems from the church, not the bible).

And homosexuality and lust are not the same thing. Besides, marriage would never happen is lust wasn't playing a part.. Even Paul agrees:

1 Corinthians 7
Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

And so we are left with you interpreting "sexual immorality" with homosexuality even though Paul (and others) clearly think it's a sex before marriage issue.. Other than a couple of ambiguous passages, none of which mention homosexuality specifically, Jesus doesn't have a big enough problem with it to mention it. We also have your re-defining of the word "fornication" which, to be fair; i know was redefined by the church and not yourself, but let's just be clear, it means: Sex between two partners that are not married.

Yet Jesus clearly thinks it is OK to beat your slaves as told be Luke:

Luke 12
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

NSFW:

Jesus follows that passage with:
49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and what constraint I am under until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”..

Maybe he was just in a bad mood that day and didn't mean to say those terrible things

(By the way during the translation of the bible the hebrew for slave was translated to servant (except for when it suited the agenda).. So whenever you read "servant" in the bible.. read "slave.

Side note; Paul disobeying scripture about slaves (not in the way you might think)

NSFW:

Deutronomy 23:15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them

Paul's Letter to Philemon 1
10 I beg you for my child, whom I have become the father of in my chains, Onesimus, 1:11 who once was useless to you, but now is useful to you and to me. 1:12 I am sending him back. Therefore receive him, that is, my own heart, 1:13 whom I desired to keep with me, that on your behalf he might serve me in my chains for the Good News.

Basically, Paul send a slave back to a mate of his.. who is also Christian.. so clearly slavery was ok among Christians.. but not only that.. Paul sent the slave back to the master, rather than following the (for once) moral advice of Deuteronomy and setting him free.

 

[Raasyvibe]

(edit - see you've elaborated on ur post, i'll address the rest 2moz)


ricko, you have to consider the age of the book and it's context when applying it to modern day -

Paul and Slavery

http://voices.yahoo.com/was-apostle-paul-pro-slavery-74443.html?cat=9

Therefore, the part of the world Paul worked in was deeply immersed in Greek and Roman culture. And since the Romans borrowed and assimilated Hellenistic culture into their empire, Paul's mission field was essentially a Greek one.

According to Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia, "Slavery was an essential component throughout the development of Ancient Greece. Most of the ancients considered it not only essential, but quite natural: neither the Stoics nor Early Christians called the practice into question."

Slavery was such a common part of everyday life in the Greco-Roman world of the 1st century A.D. that few questioned it. As Wikipedia points out: "No author of antiquity calls the existence of slavery into question; at most they admit that certain slaves may have been unjustly enslaved."

However, Paul's telling servants to obey and honor their masters is not necessarily the same as telling masters to go out and buy more slaves. It most certainly doesn't constitute an endorsement of pre-American Civil War slavery of the 18th and 19th centuries or the human trafficking taking place today in Sudan. It is simply ludicrous to hold Paul responsible for the many types and manifestations of slavery that followed the writing of his letters by hundreds, even thousands of years.

Paul and misogyny -

Again, you have to read a little more around it - Here Paul clearly speaks of equality in men and woman -

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The passage in I Corinthians 14: 33b-35--where it is said that women should not speak at all--is generally conceded by scholars today to have been an interpolation from the next generation after Paul. It was not part of the original text


I'll write more on this 2moz. It's nearly 6am and im very tired

 

[rickolasnice]

What about the letters from Paul which say, pretty much, the same thing?

Awww come on raas I'm on stims and the only other person I had to talk about this stuff before was cremated on Monday (Rip Ozzy)..

Pasted from the same page you got your info from:

Although he accepted the practice that women could speak in church worship assemblies, Paul demanded that they should do so with veiled heads to indicate their continued secondary status in the order of creation (I Cor. 11:5).

So although Paul may have been a bit less "get back in the kitchen" (by being able to speak and become involved in church) than may seemed he still stood the stance that women should be subordinate to men (or at least, his writings portray him as having this view)

And he had no problem with slavery and preaches many times over: Be good slaves! Your quote doesn't really refute the fact he had no problem with slavery. Sure he may have treated them well, and even taught others to do so, but slavery is slavery, and slavery is wrong.

Sooo.. are we taking moral guidance from the writings of Paul the apostle or not? Before we get side tracked into a different debate.

 

[parttime crackhead]

You quote the "nice" bits or the bits that fit in with your views, then tell everyone who quotes some not so nice stuff that it either doesn't count or they simply don't understand it, despite them coming across as far more intelligent than youself. Stupidest argument ever Raas.

 

[Raasyvibe]

What are you talking about, PTCH? I've quoted the nice bits and the bad bits to show how they work together to show a logical progression of mans understanding of God, in the Bible (Culminating in Christ)... I did this to clear up the common Biblical misunderstandings from posters earlier in the thread.

Get back to your book, sonny

NSFW:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0745963013/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=