“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” Ez 23:20

Praise the Pornographic word of God!

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 9:22 AM

And what’s wrong with sex and writing about sex? Are you trying to say it’s immoral?

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 9:43 AM

I notice it’s been a long time since you’ve invited me to accept Jesus Christ into my heart. Are you ashamed of it?

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 10:26 AM

I’ve never invited you to do that and don’t plan on ever doing so. You’re already familiar with Christ and don’t need my prodding to renew your faith if you ever choose to do so.

Sure, if you ever wanted to talk to me about becoming a Christians I won’t turn you away, but I’m not stupid. You’re not interested, and that’s OK. Telling you to become a Christian won’t change that.

Are *you*?

I never have. And really Song of Songs is a much better porn book. Nearly the whole thing is about sex. Though I’m not surprised that you’d pick the one that talks about a large penis.

And if it weakens some Christian’s faith, then it’s even better!

If a Bible verse can weaken a Christian’s faith, then clearly that Christian had a weak faith to begin with.

Is there no criteria for being a Christian

Sure, but one’s actions are not always an indicator that a person has met that criteria.

Sin is a willful disobedience of God. Is that gay person intending to disobey God by having sex with someone of the same sex or not? I can’t answer that question without knowing the specific gay person, and even then I still may not know.

For me, it all comes back to something Paul said. I quote it, but it’s really the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 8. If you’re not familiar with the chapter, I’ve provided a link.

Paul makes the point there that it isn’t the action which causes a person to sin but the intent in that action.

I will have no reason to do so if Christians stop choosing to make the abuse of gays be a central part of their faith.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Again, you’re focusing on a very specific group of Christians who have pissed you off. As I’ve said repeatedly, you’re painting too broad of a brush there, one that doesn’t apply to even most Christians.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 10:58 AM

I have to comment on this because Paul changes much if he thinks that unintentional sins are unimportant.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 11:38 AM

Actually, it’s Jesus who changed all of this. And yeah, it was groundbreaking stuff that only Christ could change.

The Sermon on the Mount was a radical sermon.

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Jesus made it clear that it’s not about what you do but what’s in your heart.

Paul further explains this in Romans. The law, or rather things you keep bringing up from the Old Testament, was useful in explaining sin to people who lived before Jesus.

Before Christ we did not have the Holy Spirit and could not have a personal relationship with Christ, one that, as I’ve just said, now explains to us when we are disobeying God.

So they needed the law.

We don’t.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 11:52 AM

Matthew 5:17-19.

Krydor on November 14, 2007 at 12:06 PM

I haven’t forgotten that scripture, but I don’t believe it means what you believe it does. If it did then why tear the separating curtain at His death? Why allow Gentiles at all, something that happened because of a vision Peter had where he was told to eat unclean meat.

Was Peter making stuff up as well?

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 12:12 PM

That’s what Paul said. Too bad Jesus and the Old Testament god don’t agree with him (or you). So saith the Christ:

“It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law.” Lk 16:17, words of Christ

That doesn’t mean what you believe it does, but you don’t seem willing to engage in honest debate here since you ignore any points that contradict yours.

Despite your claims that Christians abuse gays, you’re the only one spewing hate here.

Also, there was no “Old Testament” at the time, so there’s that as well.

Actually there was. It just wasn’t called the Old Testament. It was called the law.

I’m just applying human motives to what you see as divine intervention.

Then why stop just because I’ve pointed out a flaw? Keep going with it. What was this man’s motivation to be executed in the same manner he executed others? What was the motivation of the men who accepted that he no longer wanted to kill them?

How did the disciples go from wimps hiding out after Christ’s death to men who were willing to be crucified upside down?

Did they make some money off of it, or were they just amazingly insane?

Did a fine job of alienating the Jews, but that was not a growth market.

Before making that assertion maybe you should read a little more of Acts. It tends to disagree with you.

And stop capitalizing “him” and “he”. It’s pretentious.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 1:23 PM

No, it’s just a grammatical choice. I pointed that out just yesterday.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 2:06 PM

The flaw being that some other guy had a vision no one else saw? That’s the flaw? This means, naturally, that Mohammed’s vision was also true, right? How does one discern the truth of the aforementioned visions? Well, you get to pick the ones you think are true, I suppose.

My keyboard must be broken, because that’s not what I wrote at all.

Jesus says that the Law is to be maintained
Paul says ‘law schmaw’

Are you looking at the same Bible Christians are?

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law

And you say this contradicts Jesus, yet Jesus Himself broke the laws of the Old Testament.

Now it happened that He was passing through some grainfields on a Sabbath; and His disciples were picking the heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands, and eating the grain.

But some of the Pharisees said, “Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

And Jesus answering them said, “Have you not even read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him,

how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the consecrated bread which is not lawful for any to eat except the priests alone, and gave it to his companions?”

And He was saying to them, “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered.

The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him.

But He knew what they were thinking, and He said to the man with the withered hand, “Get up and come forward!” And he got up and came forward.

And Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to destroy it?”

After looking around at them all, He said to him, “Stretch out your hand!” And he did so; and his hand was restored.

Of course now you can just say that it’s a contradiction that proves the Bible is wrong, but that’s because you think scripture is simple when it is not.

No one can explain to my satisfaction the whys of this.

Krydor on November 14, 2007 at 2:33 PM

That’s because you’re not a Christian. Scripture is meant to be understood through the Holy Spirit.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 2:49 PM

It’s a grammatical error and a way for Christians to show off to each other how faithful they are. It’s a choice to be pretentious and to show “puffed up” faith.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I don’t know where you received your education, but it isn’t an error. I’ve pointed this out more than once.

It’s not an error to capitalize references to God, and it’s not an error to refrain from capitalizing references to God. It’s merely a choice.

Call it pretentious if you choose, you have the freedom to insult people in this country, but you do not know why a person does something so simple as capitalizing a pronoun. And it’s a little arrogant for you to assume that you do.

You get angry at Christians who presume to know you and know why you disagree with Christianity yet have no problem prejudging Christians you don’t know.

Alternatively, if you stop abusing gay people then my attacks will come to a screeching halt.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I have never abused a gay person in my entire life.

If that’s what I wrote, then I retract it. Let me be clear: my goal is to weaken the faith of individual Christians, and I will attempt to do so stridently and relentlessly.

I fail to see the difference. Maybe you can explain it.

The point is that Jesus and the Old Testament God state that the Old Law is in effect whereas Paul states that it isn’t. Whose view should take precedence?

Actually, that’s the whole point.

1. Paul has not abolished the law, which is something I’ve pointed out just above.

2. Jesus even points out the the Law was merely a tool. He used it as the reason for why He was able to work on a holy day.

That’s really unfair of you. Which points have I ignored? Again, put up or shut up.

I responded to that exact statement of yours yesterday and was completely ignored.

You stated that no human did what Jesus did when that simply isn’t true. You attempted to assert that asking for something in the name of Jesus is a magic key to getting anything you want when that clearly was not the case when Jesus Himself asked God for something and was denied.

(I notice you seem fain to discuss it, surprise surprise)

You must have a blocker up that doesn’t allow you to read scripture, because those are precisely the comments of mine you are skipping. Maybe you aren’t seeing them, but I certainly haven’t shied away from a discussion of the Bible.

Furthermore, you seem to be dodging the question as to whether or not gays can be Christians without repenting of their homosexuality, which looks to me like you’re wanting to have your cake (pretend that Christians don’t hate gays) and eat it too (maintain that homosexuality is an abomination). Which is it, you duplicitous Christian?

You take my honesty for duplicity. That makes conversations difficult.

How can I make it any clearer to you? A Christian is not a Christian because of rules that must be followed. A Christian is a Christian because he or she has a relationship with God.

Can a homosexual have a relationship with God and continue having anal sex?

My answer is that God deals with people as individuals. That’s the whole point of having a personal relationship with Christ. Loundry, talk to God and see for yourself. If you can have a relationship with God and not feel compelled to stop putting your member into your partners anus, then you’ve got your answer. If however you begin to feel guilty about the sexual acts, then that is your answer.

God isn’t a bunch of rules printed on a book. He’s an actual being who can interact with people.

Worst of all, need I remind you that the Westboro baptist church did NOT become the bete noire of the right until AFTER he starting protesting soldiers’ funerals?

That church is basically a large incestuous family. How many churches with memberships less than triple digits are well known anyway? They brought themselves into the spotlight by protesting funerals.

Are Christian conservatives now being held accountable for not knowing about idiotic churches that exist in America?

And need I remind you that denigrating and abusing gays is a top priority for political Christian groups? Focus on the Family, for instance?

I don’t know your Focus on the Family reference. I haven’t listened to that program since I was ten, maybe even younger.

But if by abuse and denigrate you mean disapprove of homosexual activity, then you’ll never be pleased.

You wrote earlier that gluttony is a sin. Does that mean you are abusing fat people?

Or what about the vegans who think omnivores are immoral. Are they abusing people who enjoy steak?

Obviously in both of those cases disapproval of the action can result in abuse, but I’ll have to disagree with you if you claim disapproval automatically creates abuse.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 3:33 PM

If a neighbor raised their children to not eat meat as part of a dietary and spiritual belief, that’s great. If they raise their children to call meat-eaters immoral, that’s a problem.

dedalus on November 14, 2007 at 3:56 PM

I agree, and I say this as someone who is married to a vegetarian. It makes dinners a little difficult, but it doesn’t have to be acrimonious.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 4:13 PM

The ad hominem is an expected part of “Christian love”.

Actually, that comment was sincere. I do not know if you were taught something different wherever it is you were taught.

But hey, what’s your excuse for insulting others? Atheist love?

I was never taught that third person pronouns or possessive pronouns were to be capitalized.

That answers the question then, but that doesn’t change the facts. The fact is just what I’ve stated on numerous occasions. Feel free to look it up yourself if you don’t trust me.

If I wanted to “weaken Christianity as much as possible”, then I would choose to do something slanderous, libelous, or otherwise felonious to prominent Christian leaders. That is NOT my goal. I hope you see the difference now.

I see how you see the difference now, but don’t you see how convincing Christians to nearly abandon their faith is detrimental to Christianity?

1) We have to follow the old law
2) We do NOT have to follow the old law

If the answer (above) is #2, then who made it so that we do NOT have to follow the old law?

A) Paul
B) someone else

It’s a little more complex than that, but for brevity’s sake, 2 and B, with B being Jesus Christ.

1. Where did Jesus say the law was “merely a tool”?
2. If it’s “merely a tool” and not really the law, then why did Jesus call it a “law” and also say that it would last until heaven and earth would disappear?

Just look into what Christ said about working on the Sabbath and what He said about the law.

And no, Jesus never used the word “tool” since that’s an English word; however, the implications of those two instances are that the law was to be used in the same manner Christians are to use the Holy Spirit, as a means to free ourselves from sin.

Please forgive me. Sometimes I miss posts.

So you’re human then. Good, so am I. If you’ll keep that in mind when posting with me, I’ll do the same for you.

I pointed out that Jesus’ followers have never done anything remotely as amazing as the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus, and this point stands.

Actually, if you had found my post, you’d see that this is not true. Peter and the other disciples not only cured the sick and spoke in foreign languages they’d never studied but also raised the dead as well.

If you need me to prove it with the passage I provided earlier, I’m sure I can scroll up and find it.

But Jesus said it would be “greater” than what he did, so maybe you’ll walk on lava or something rad like that.

Is walking on lava really greater than walking on water? Lava is nearly solid. Anyone can walk on it. They’d just lose their feet in the process.

Besides, the walking on water thing might not even have been a miracle if you talk to certain physicists.

I never said that asking something in the name of Jesus was a “magic key” and you know it. I maintain that Jesus said he would give you “anything” if you asked it in his name, and that is clearly false.

Maybe we’re just getting into semantics here, but I really do not see how you’re saying something different.

What do you mean when you say in His name?

So claim you. But that is NOT something that other Christians will maintain. Other Christians will claim that you MUST be baptized (by immersion?), for instance. Your opinion is just one drop in the bucket as to answering the controversial question, “What must I do to be a Christian?” So, in that sense, you can’t make it any clearer because it’s already a dirty, muddy mess and the thousands of Christian sects stand testament to that fact.

1. You asked me, so I gave my answer. I’m not a schizophrenic, so I’m only speaking for myself.
2. I can point out scripture on this if you want. But there are so many verses, so I won’t waste anyone’s time on this if you’re already bored with this thread. I’ve done that too many times already.

I realize that’s really popular among evangelical Christians nowadays, but will you admit that it is an extra-biblical invention?

I can’t admit that, because I don’t believe it.

Just like what I wrote above, this too would take many verses to fully explain, but the short version has to do with the tearing of the curtain in the temple as Jesus died. It was the curtain that provided a separation between God and man, and it was torn from top to bottom.

I see more scriptural support for predestination than I do for this “personal relationship” that gets so much attention in Christian circles.

I’ve only known one verse to support predestination, and even that one can be looked at in a different way when put in context of the entire Bible.

I’m slightly curious about what you’re referencing.

Not all homosexuals have anal sex.

Many heterosexuals have anal sex.

I’m aware that heterosexuals have anal sex. I was not aware that any homosexuals did not though. Sorry for the generalization and for the double negative. I’ve known gay men, but obviously I haven’t known all gay men.

Either way, my statement still stands. A heterosexual can ask him or herself the same question.

Very interesting. Are you claiming that gay anal sex is only a sin if the individual in question feels guilty about it / feels like it’s impeding his personal relationship with God? I’ve never had a Christian claim that to me before.

Basically, yes, but I’m not just saying it about gay anal sex. I’m saying it about every aspect of a person’s life.

Some people think a Ouija board is just a board game, but some see it as an invitation to evil spirits. The latter are sinning if they use that game, while the former are not.

No. I’m claiming that many Christian conservatives feel a lot of sympathy for WBC as long as they’re merely saying, “God hates fags”.

That’s hard to judge since they were relative unknowns before their soldier protests. You have your personal experiences with Christians, and I have mine. In my experiences I’ve never known a Christian who would ever think that is OK.

They’re a very influential Christian lobbying group and they are viciously anti-gay. They’re not the only one. The once who want to denigrate gays are almost exclusively Christians. I don’t understand how this can be news to you.

I know the group, and I know how they view homosexuality. I do not know how they’ve abused homosexuals. What have they done?

That doesn’t mean you then have to tell others how low and crappy they are for doing the thing that you don’t do. That’s abuse. And just because it’s your “religious belief” doesn’t excuse it.

Loundry on November 14, 2007 at 4:40 PM

We can agree then. I don’t see an excuse for trying to make others feel worthless either.

Esthier on November 14, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Well, you should be applying it to this. But you aren’t. You are using one point of reference, the Bible. You should also try reading the Bible for yourself, and not relying on agenda driven demagogues to tell you what it means.

Loundry made it clear that he wanted a debate based on the Bible. So, in my discussion with him, I’m only using the Bible.

If you want me to have a separate discussion with you based on things other than the Bible, we can do that, but I was talking to him when you responded to me and tailoring the discussion to his request.

I’ve also noticed that you’ve decided that the Law is now, once again, holy as Jesus claimed. So, is the Law the Law or is the Law invalid? If it is invalid, why do the words of Paul outrank the words of the Son of God?

You’re clearly misunderstanding what I’ve written. Maybe you could back up and show me why you believe I’ve switched my position so that we can be on the same page here.

Now, also, we have an admission that the Gospels might be inaccurate with regards to what Jesus said. Perhaps we might go a step further and apply that to his actions? You know, the miracles? Maybe someone lost some of that in translation? No? Just the stuff you can’t reconcile. How convenient.

I never said that. You made it a point that only the words of Jesus are accurate in all of the Bible. That’s an illogical point to make considering how the words of Jesus came to be written down. That was my only point.

I don’t believe they’re inaccurate, but I also don’t believe the rest of the Bible is inaccurate. You’ve yet to make either point.

The law not being changed? Don’t you be so silly, some guy had a fit on a road in Syria and changed all that.

Yeah, I never wrote that. You’re seeing something entirely different in my posts than I am, which is a shame. I’m trying to be as clear as possible here but must be failing in that regards.

If one bit is allowable to be questioned based on the inaccuracy of an oral tradition, then guess what? So is the rest of it. All of it. From 6 days to make the earth, to the improbable wandering about for 40 years on a 3 week trip, to Revelation.

Yeah, I don’t disagree here, which is why I find your logic of only allowing the words of Christ into the debate a little absurd. If the validity of the words of Paul are to be called into question, why are you convinced the red letters are perfect?

That was your assertion not mine.

You’ve opened the door to the possibility the New Testament is inaccurate in order to preserve your interpretation of Pauline doctrine. Now, the rest of it is as well. Fantastic.

Not even remotely close to what I’ve been trying to say. Is it possible you’ve got me confused with someone else?

Oh, and Christians allowing themselves to be killed in a myriad of ways is no biggie. Happens all the time, and continues to happen even to this day. The promise of something greater on “the other side” is a pretty powerful tool when your day to day life is a fairly crummy one. Temple of the Sun, Jim Jones and Heaven’s Gate come to mind.

That’s hardly the point I was making. You asserted that the only reason people were turned off from Christianity is because they wanted to eat pigs.

Are you really trying to tell me that people are more willing to be imprisoned, stoned, crucified and burned than they are to give up bacon with their eggs in the morning?

Do you really think people are that masochistic?

Esthier on November 15, 2007 at 9:45 AM