N.C. Parents Angered by Gay Prince Book

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I totally agree with you on this. I think praying for people is a great thing I just think people (not you!!! ) sometimes are condescending with their "I'll pray for you" in that it comes off like "I know better than you do - I pray you will see that," etc. I think the intent is pretty much always good though. I mean who amongst couldn't use a little help from above. It reminds me of a few years ago when I went down the Amazon River to deliver school supplies to the local tribes and villages. My mother was so scared she had the Catholics, Espiscopaleans, Muslims, Jews, and who knows who else praying for my safe return - talk about overkill

That's what I meant by the whole "I'll pray for you"; it sounds condescending from certain religious people. You put it perfectly.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am curious - do you think that the govt.'s promotion of only essentially the Judeo Christian form of marriage is wrong in the sense that America is not a theocracy. Personally, I think that if the govt. promotes one (via tax benefits, etc.) it must promote them all from Old Testament polygamy to who knows waht else these people will think of That is why I think the govt. should in no way sanction any marriage by any institution I think the churches should marry and that is it. In other words, why is it so important to have Judeo Christian marriage validated by the Federal Govt.?

Good question. There are many things going on here. I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to help out people who are getting married. I don't think they should penalize those who aren't, though. Some people believe that NOT receiving a benefit is being penalized, but I don't think that's the case.

And frankly, the polygamy argument is already at the bottom of this slippery slope. Four, five consenting adults, right? What's the difference?

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
Christians who believed in slavery used the Bible, which not only condoned slavery but said it was okay to beat and kill the slaves, to justify the enslavement of Africans. IMO, if it wasn't for the Christians back in the day, we wouldn't have brought slaves over from Africa on big ships.

People of many faiths participated in the slave trade, and while I do not excuse these Christians (and others) from responsibility for their actions, I don't see how any of this demonstrates that Christianity caused the slavery problem. Christianity was twisted and used by slaveholders in this country, but if it were not Christianity, I believe the greedy and cruel would have found a different faith to distort and help them rationalize their choice.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by The Tower
So, all it takes for straight people to get "sin-free" sex is go to some drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas- but gays are barred from having sex forever?? Sounds like a crappy deal to me....

No wonder I'm an atheist.

Interestingly, its not the sex part that is focused on by Chistianity. It is the concept of conception. In general and in a nutshell, the Old Testament speaks of the menstrual cycle as the promise of life eternal or at least the extension of mankind. The discharge was considered a sad event because the possibility for life was lost. Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

Also, Jake - if you are reading, I would love it if you woul eloborate on what I said as I am unsure if I said it correctly, etc.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
I say a variation of this all the time - except I add a "doing" after "are." And I mean it.

ALL Of us have conceptions about what is right and wrong, a moral basis we work from. Some of us derive it from Christianity, some of us derive it from other areas. But all of us have places where we draw the line, things we deem as "wrong." So if calling something "wrong" makes you judgemental, thenaren't we all?

I think abusing a child is wrong... I think harming an animal is wrong... I think doing something harmful towards anyone is wrong.
If those feelings make me judgemental, then so be it.

But I do not think that expressing love and affection towards someone of the same sex is wrong.
I'm not talking about casual, anonymous sex here... I'm talking about a genuinely loving, caring relationship.

And I'm sorry, but I am not going to deny myself the right to LOVE SOMEONE, simply because "bible-thumpers" (not you, Nancy, but extremists) claim that what I am is a sin and that I should deny myself love and affection in order to gain admittance into Heaven.

I'm only human, but I live as good a life as possible, and I follow the Ten Commandments... but if none of that matters because I happen to express love towards someone of my own gender, then something is seriously whacked.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sodascouts
Good question. There are many things going on here. I don't think it's a bad thing for the government to help out people who are getting married. I don't think they should penalize those who aren't, though. Some people believe that NOT receiving a benefit is being penalized, but I don't think that's the case.

And frankly, the polygamy argument is already at the bottom of this slippery slope. Four, five consenting adults, right? What's the difference?

I know what you mean. In the end, I am not necessarily for the govt. not helping out married people by automatic assumtions like the Social Security benefits going to the spouse, etc. I just think that to exclude a gay or any other person from leaving these same benefits to their partner is wrong.

As for polygamy - I think that will be the next "big hurdle." Interestingly, polygamy was condoned in the Old Testament - so they may have a point

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
People of many faiths participated in the slave trade, and while I do not excuse these Christians (and others) from responsibility for their actions, I don't see how any of this demonstrates that Christianity caused the slavery problem. Christianity was twisted and used by slaveholders in this country, but if it were not Christianity, I believe the greedy and cruel would have found a different faith to distort and help them rationalize their choice.

- Jake

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

[The Tower]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"...

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, its not the sex part that is focused on by Chistianity. It is the concept of conception. In general and in a nutshell, the Old Testament speaks of the menstrual cycle as the promise of life eternal or at least the extension of mankind. The discharge was considered a sad event because the possibility for life was lost. Similarly, all Christian sex must be toward the specific goal of conception. Thus, it is not really the idea of free sex (althought that certainly is a great by product ) it is the concept of life extending, etc.

BTW - I am not saying I believe in this, I am just saying the reasons behind it, etc.

Also, Jake - if you are reading, I would love it if you woul eloborate on what I said as I am unsure if I said it correctly, etc.

I've never heard that about the promise of life eternal, etc.
The Hebrew Bible includes several instructions about spiritual cleansing, including the famous ones for the menstruating woman. In general, blood is to be avoided in Jewish life (i.e., the laws of kashrut/kosher diet). In an historical context, menstrual blood was used by many pagans in fertility practices, such as having the woman actually walk around bleeding on the fields. The early Hebrews set out to make laws to distinguish themselves from the pagans.
The purpose of sex in traditional Judaism does not have to be procreation. Orgasm is supposed to bring you closer to G-d in the literal sense. Just as Christians are instructed to emulate Jesus, Jews are taught to follow the example of G-d, who takes pleasure in creation (and who clothes Adam and Eve, buries Moses, etc.) and who gives humans the ability to enjoy sex for its own sake. Intercourse is not sinful within marriage (Have you seen the bestseller Kosher Sex?) and a husband is commanded to pleasure his wife before himself.
I think that's it in a nutshell, if I remember.

- Jake

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by sodascouts
God made everyone in his image. All of us are sinful. Does that mean God condones our sin?

There's nothing about homosexuality in the Ten Commandments, which I follow.
I may be a sinner, but not because I'm homosexual.

I was created in His image, just like anyone else. We all have different hair color, or eye color, or skin-tone... we're all of different heights and weights... but we're all created in His image.
Some people happen to be born heterosexual, and others are born homosexual... it's another variation caused by our genes, not by some random "choice" on our part.

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
We'll have to agree to disagree then.

You can't mean about whether I'm right.

- Jake

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
You can't mean about whether I'm right.

- Jake

Not at all. I think I'm right and you think you're right.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by The Tower
So, all it takes for straight people to get "sin-free" sex is go to some drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas- but gays are barred from having sex forever?? Sounds like a crappy deal to me....

No wonder I'm an atheist.

If you're definining sin Biblically, then yes.

And sinning is certainly a lot more fun. If that's what you want, and you don't want to be concerned with sin, then yeah, you've chosen a religion that will suit you. At least during your life.

[dissention]

Originally posted by The Tower
If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"...

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by The Tower
If christians truly believe this is the case, then there's probably only five or six people in "heaven"...

No, because sin does not keep you out of Heaven. if that were the case, there would be ZERO people in Heaven. Not believing Jesus keeps you out of Heaven. So there will be straight non-Christians in hell and Homosexual Christians in Heaven, according to the New Testament, as I said in a previous post.

The Bible does stress conception, but does not prohibit sex within marriage outside of the need to propograte the species! lol