Love thy neighbour and everyone else!

[bigbadmax]

Sorry but a thread within a thread has started so thought I would bring it to the fore as they say.

Can you be of a religion and still be bisexual?

In the Bible and Koran it is said to be un-natural for a man to lie with a man, ergo how can a double standard exist if you are bisexual...can you disobey your teachings or is it not a double standard?

love to get peoples viewpoints! expressed politely please.

[keefer728]

Without your knowledge Max, the Spirit did speak through your response on the other thread. For the past few days, and in particular on Thursday, this very question was being put to me. My presense here will be withdrawn, in the matter of bisexuality, which I now remove myself from. I will still be here, as a good friend visits here and it is a way for us to communicate. I am not one to shovel anything down anyones maw, and I do not believe that this was ever commanded of me concerning my faith. I stand here in awe of my God, as I knew He was not going to allow this to go on much further. I thank you, for putting this thread up in a manner that is easy to reply to. I will also reiterate, that you have been used by a power much, much larger than either of us realize. So cool to see this.

[bigbadmax]

Keefer I am not saying choose your religion or choose your sexuallity.

I am mearly asking whether the two can co-exist or are they so opposed to each other that one has to give to be true to the other?

I admire your honesty and upright thoughts on this subject and all others.

bbm

[keefer728]

Keefer I am not saying choose your religion or choose your sexuallity.

I am mearly asking whether the two can co-exist or are they so opposed to each other that one has to give to be true to the other?

I admire your honesty and upright thoughts on this subject and all others.

bbm

I know what you were asking, Max....I responded in a way that says; for a Christian, NO, the two can not exist together. This point is so well articulated in scripture that it leaves no place for head scratching. While on this topic, I do find something of agreeance with your point and all points that have been made concerning this "intollerance" that is percieved about the church. Outside of John the Baptist, no where in the NT, does it call for Christians to stand on corners, or anywhere else, berating people into believing or face death and damnation. The opposite is true. We are encouraged to live a life that is testimony to what we believe in gentleness and kindness. The Apostle Paul made it also very clear that we have no business judging people outside the church, that God is big enough to take care of that. We however, are commanded to make sure our own house is in order, and with that looming over us, I don't think most of us can spare any judgement on others.

[Long Duck Dong]

in simple terms, yes... as a religion does not dictate ones actions..... we choose to act the way we do......

the bible teaches that when two or more are gathered... that is a church ( parapahased ) and we see the same thing in people where you have 2 or more people gathered with a common thinking.... regardless of the reasoning for the gathering...... IE religion, a martial arts school, a gang pad, a pub......

each are different and individual but we * gravitate * towards what ever one suits us best... tho outside of religion, we call it sharing with people or out for a night on the town, even a swingers orgy......

as for the verse, it is unnatural for a male to lay with a male.... you have to ask yourself, who said it and when and what are they refering to..... and that is no different to reading a old thread where some things are not clear, so we read into it, what is meant and what the person was saying........

as with most religions and beliefs, the best answer is to go to the horses mouth and talk with the source of the belief.... in the same way that if we are unsure what a person is saying, we ask them to clarify what they are saying and mean, if we are unsafe....... well, I do..... I am not sure about everybody else......

religion is not and never has been a issue, its humankind that is the issue.... and I am sure that I will get told that I am wrong.... but honestly.... if religion is the problem, why do we see the same mentality in people that are extreme religious, moderate religious, mild religious, on the fence, mildly against structured religion.....etc etc etc

lets look at how many threads have dissolved in to religion bashing crap and judgement of religion by people that are quick to preach about the need for tolerance, acceptance and understanding of diversity.... and then tell me that its religious thinking that causes those people to act in the way they do......cos they are *attacking * religion, not defending it.... in the same way that religious people can fight back

so can you be of a religion and be bisexual, yes.... will others make a issue of it and rubbish your beliefs, yes.... will most of them be non religious people, ? yes....

[elian]

I think a person can be a Christian and have a sexual orientation other than straight. Does the Bible agree with it? No..but at least half the Bible was written in a time when the writers believed that the only thing women contributed to childbirth was an oven, or that is was immoral to eat pork or shellfish, mix different fabric types in clothing or mastrubate.

I know what God expects of me, and I know he loves me for exactly who I am even though sometimes I feel ashamed of loving other men.. The shame comes from other people in society, not God. I would direct your attention to the excellent movie "For the Bible tells Me So" - http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/index2.htm - I know typically we aren't allowed to advertise here but this movie directly confronts the idea of homosexuality (sorry bi's) vs Christian faith.

Some people will say, "Oh, but that movie is twisting the meaning of the passages." ..and my response is when you read the Bible you are interpreting the words through the lens of your own experience anyway so different interpretations are inevitable.. What I have felt in my heart is not.

The gender was PERHAPS a little bit of a mix-up, but God does not regret making me this way - having to question my sexuality let me see what it feels like to be a minority, to be on the outside looking in. What I once thought of as undeserved suffering has given me the gift of an open mind.

Anyway - By Mother Teresa

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.

Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.

Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.

Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.

Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.

Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.

Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten.

Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.

Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them, anyway.

[keefer728]

I think a person can be a Christian and have a sexual orientation other than straight. Does the Bible agree with it? No..but at least half the Bible was written in a time when the writers believed that the only thing women contributed to childbirth was an oven, or that is was immoral to eat pork or shellfish, mix different fabric types in clothing or mastrubate.

I know what God expects of me, and I know he loves me for exactly who I am even though sometimes I feel ashamed of loving other men.. The shame comes from other people in society, not God. I would direct your attention to the excellent movie "For the Bible tells Me So" - http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/index2.htm - I know typically we aren't allowed to advertise here but this movie directly confronts the idea of homosexuality (sorry bi's) vs Christian faith.

Some people will say, "Oh, but that movie is twisting the meaning of the passages." ..and my response is when you read the Bible you are interpreting the words through the lens of your own experience anyway so different interpretations are inevitable.. What I have felt in my heart is not.

The gender was PERHAPS a little bit of a mix-up, but God does not regret making me this way - having to question my sexuality let me see what it feels like to be a minority, to be on the outside looking in. What I once thought of as undeserved suffering has given me the gift of an open mind.

Anyway - By Mother Teresa

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.

Forgive them anyway.

If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.

Be kind anyway.

If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.

Succeed anyway.

If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.

Be honest and sincere anyway.

What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.

Create anyway.

If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.

Be happy anyway.

The good you do today, will often be forgotten.

Do good anyway.

Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.

Give your best anyway.

In the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them, anyway.

I think a person can be a Christian and have a sexual orientation other than straight. Does the Bible agree with it? No..but at least half the Bible was written in a time when the writers believed that the only thing women contributed to childbirth was an oven, or that is was immoral to eat pork or shellfish, mix different fabric types in clothing or mastrubate

Elian, the line about childbirth and an oven, what does that mean, exactly? Concerning the dietary laws of ancient Israel was for Israel and not for gentile nations. Concerning masturbation, nothing was said concerning it. What you are referring to, no doubt, is the story of Onan in the book of Genesis. Onan was killed by God, not for masturbating, but for denying his brothers wife the opportunity to have his name live on. I am not sure if you're actually stable, because you come out with some zany stuff, like the post yesterday about white people. As far as women are concerned, the ancient Israelites, and it still true today, we're very protected and venerated parts of the community as a whole. Where you got the baby in the oven notion can only come from complete ignorance of not only scripture, but of culture.

[bigbadmax]

I think a person can be a Christian and have a sexual orientation other than straight. Does the Bible agree with it? No..but at least half the Bible was written in a time when the writers believed that the only thing women contributed to childbirth was an oven, or that is was immoral to eat pork or shellfish, mix different fabric types in clothing or mastrubate

Elian, the line about childbirth and an oven, what does that mean, exactly? Concerning the dietary laws of ancient Israel was for Israel and not for gentile nations. Concerning masturbation, nothing was said concerning it. What you are referring to, no doubt, is the story of Onan in the book of Genesis. Onan was killed by God, not for masturbating, but for denying his brothers wife the opportunity to have his name live on. I am not sure if you're actually stable, because you come out with some zany stuff, like the post yesterday about white people. As far as women are concerned, the ancient Israelites, and it still true today, we're very protected and venerated parts of the community as a whole. Where you got the baby in the oven notion can only come from complete ignorance of not only scripture, but of culture.

Keefer the dietry laws are technically still in force in the UK, no meat on a fiday only fish, Lamb for important feasts such as Easter day, fasting such as Lent... they are not compulsory but are adhered to by many.

I think elian was trying to make the point that when the bible was written in medieval times, women were seen as second class citizens and were only seen as useful in only carrying children and menial tasks... I could be wrong but that's my interpretation.

[bigbadmax]

What you are referring to, no doubt, is the story of Onan in the book of Genesis. Onan was killed by God, not for masturbating, but for denying his brothers wife the opportunity to have his name live on.

I gotta read the bible more! begat this begat that AND NOW SWINGING! but I thought that was frowned on?

[keefer728]

Keefer the dietry laws are technically still in force in the UK, no meat on a fiday only fish, Lamb for important feasts such as Easter day, fasting such as Lent... they are not compulsory but are adhered to by many.

I think elian was trying to make the point that when the bible was written in medieval times, women were seen as second class citizens and were only seen as useful in only carrying children and menial tasks... I could be wrong but that's my interpretation.

That may hold some water, Max, if only the Bible was written in the 16th century AD. The Bible, both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures were scribed some 3 thousand to 1500 years earlier. They were TRANSLATED at this time. Major difference. And just so you don't go there......both the Jewish texts and the Christian texts are the most authenticated and numerous and historically accurate texts in the world.

[Realist]

Keefer, I've long thought you were an overly opinionated, mean-spirited, and arrogant member, here. As most of us, here, you have allies, antagonists, and those who resent your impolite and overbearing manner. I have held back my feelings and comments, because my opinions and feelings are mine alone. I speak only for myself.

In my estimation, Elian is one of the more gentle and genuine members on this site. Your attack on his mental state and his heart-felt reply to your question, is uncalled for and in extremely bad taste. In no way was his reply one that required that kind of retribution!

Not once, have I ever seen him respond as harshly, with less empathy, to anyone's query, as you have to his! You have, however, done it to others on a regular basis. Maybe, just maybe, some may have deserved your vehement replies to them, but this time you have definitely made a wrong call.

I don't care what anyone else says, in my estimation, you are an angry, vehemently opinionated person, who appears to have some mental and anger issues, yourself!

[bigbadmax]

That may hold some water, Max, if only the Bible was written in the 16th century AD. The Bible, both the Jewish scriptures and the Christian scriptures were scribed some 3 thousand to 1500 years earlier. They were TRANSLATED at this time. Major difference. And just so you don't go there......both the Jewish texts and the Christian texts are the most authenticated and numerous and historically accurate texts in the world.

I agree totally but they did have the same attitudes to women back in the original writings and the re-written versions but isnt there a missing set of documents that the Catholic church denies as true...which casts light on the first 28 years of Jesu's life....could be wrong but from a very dark recess of my memory, think this to be true

[keefer728]

I agree totally but they did have the same attitudes to women back in the original writings and the re-written versions but isnt there a missing set of documents that the Catholic church denies as true...which casts light on the first 28 years of Jesu's life....could be wrong but from a very dark recess of my memory, think this to be true

I am not a Catholic, Max. I have major issues with how the Vatican treats scripture vs. church law. The two can never live together. Christians are servants to Christ, not the Pope, pastor, or anyone else. Truth is, Christ came to abolish religion as it was, and to establish a relationship with God; personal, very personal, as a father to his son and daughter. It is said that religion is man seeking God. Where as faith is God seeking man.

[keefer728]

Keefer, I've long thought you were an overly opinionated, mean-spirited, and arrogant member, here. As most of us, here, you have allies, antagonists, and those who resent your impolite and overbearing manner. I have held back my feelings and comments, because my opinions and feelings are mine alone. I speak only for myself.

In my estimation, Elian is one of the more gentle and genuine members on this site. Your attack on his mental state and his heart-felt reply to your question, is uncalled for and in extremely bad taste. In no way was his reply one that required that kind of retribution!

Not once, have I ever seen him respond as harshly, with less empathy, to anyone's query, as you have to his! You have, however, done it to others on a regular basis. Maybe, just maybe, some may have deserved your vehement replies to them, but this time you have definitely made a wrong call.

I don't care what anyone else says, in my estimation, you are an angry, vehemently opinionated person, who appears to have some mental and anger issues, yourself!

Know what, Realist? I hardly knew that you were even here. Thanks for paying so close attention to me.....I think.

[Jobelorocks]

Well I am a practicing Catholic and a bisexual. I really have no issues with reconciling my religious beliefs with my sexuality. I believe that most of the rules about sex were made due mostly to culture rather than God's eternal law.

We have to remember that during these times women were still considered men's property and when they saw homosexuality (among Romans or whatever group) it was usually not in the context we see it today. A good documentary that helps explain some of these issues is "Fish Out of Water". I recommend it to all queer Christians dealing with these issues. Also I think God cares way more about how we treat each other and what we do with our resources, then what we do with our genitalia. Also whoever thought that a bunch of old virgins and/or celibates should be telling us what is sexually moral or immoral, is sadly mistaken. lol.

[benbidwell]

I will share the answer from my heart. So please do not walk on my heart.I could fill many pages but will narrow it down This applies to my walk in life.If i were a thieve and took a pencil God says the wages of sin of death. I am under the curse of death for my disobedience. So sin is sin and some sin mentioned is worse then other sin I can not look at myself as a little sinner comparing myself to others but it all lead to the same wages-Death.So do not compare yourself to others to lessen your own sin-disobedience. So if someone is gay, Bi,Straight etc we are all in the same boat. As hard as I try to live a life pleasing to my God I find myself falling short, I do not give up. My rest is not in myself that is false rest. My rest is in Jesus who did for me what i could not do for myself. Jesus knowing me and my struggles continues to Love me. He is Faithful. I look forward to be free from this body-Adamic Nature, And as HE promised He will finish the work He started in me. At His second coming.I have a peace that passes all understanding Thank you.Ben

[keefer728]

Well I am a practicing Catholic and a bisexual. I really have no issues with reconciling my religious beliefs with my sexuality. I believe that most of the rules about sex were made due mostly to culture rather than God's eternal law.

We have to remember that during these times women were still considered men's property and when they saw homosexuality (among Romans or whatever group) it was usually not in the context we see it today. A good documentary that helps explain some of these issues is "Fish Out of Water". I recommend it to all queer Christians dealing with these issues. Also I think God cares way more about how we treat each other and what we do with our resources, then what we do with our genitalia. Also whoever thought that a bunch of old virgins and/or celibates should be telling us what is sexually moral or immoral, is sadly mistaken. lol.

Only one problem with your thesis there, Jobe...where did the Roman Church get the basis of it's teachings? If you say the Bible, then you ran into the wall you put up. In the days of the scriptures, women were not considered property by the Israelites nor Christians, if that is where you are getting your information from.

[Jobelorocks]

Only one problem with your thesis there, Jobe...where did the Roman Church get the basis of it's teachings? If you say the Bible, then you ran into the wall you put up. In the days of the scriptures, women were not considered property by the Israelites nor Christians, if that is where you are getting your information from.

Not the Bible. The Catholic Church was the one who decided what would go into the Canon (the Bible) in the first place. Think about it, the Bible didn't form itself, men had to decide what went into Scripture and that was done by the Catholic Church. Then in the year 1517 Martin Luther started the Protestant reformation which led to the Protestant taking away the Apocrypha from their Canon. Let's not turn this into Protestant vs. Catholic here.

The Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church and we are all part of the same body of Christ and we certainly don't need any more division. I came from a very anti-Catholic Evangelical Fundementalist background and the more I learned about history, the more I started going towards the Roman Catholic Church.

In Middle Eastern culture and most other places for that matter prior to the New Testament, women were yes, seen as property of men. When Christians started teaching for men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, that was a revolutionary thought. Women couldn't hold property and had very few rights. Their role was to take care of the home and make babies, that is it.

[tenni]

Sadly, Max, I do not expect to read the thoughts of Muslims on this site as to their religion and bisexuality.

Catholics and others who call themselves Christians have a diverse interpretation on this issue. As Jobel is stating Protestants have a different understanding as to the word of God. I'm a former Catholic but once a Catholic always a Catholic in some respects. I've always seen Catholicism as different from all the variations of Protestantism. Jobel may correct me but the Catholic Church states that the "instructions" come directly from God and not the bible per sei. The voice of God comes through the Pope.

Whether Catholics and Protestants may live as bisexual and have compatibility with their religions I don't know. It does not impact me. My views on Catholicism are those of a young person as I left the Church around 16. I was born Catholic and did not chose it like Jobel. We were not encouraged to "read the bible" and see it as the word of God unlike some Protestants. Right or wrong that is the way that it was. As Jobel may be inferring it would be best for each person to make a statement of how they live as a bisexual and adhere to their religious beliefs. Not one of us is ordained to speak on behalf of interpretations of their religion. ( I don't think that we have Catholic priests here? he he)

[jamieknyc]

In Middle Eastern culture and most other places for that matter prior to the New Testament, women were yes, seen as property of men. When Christians started teaching for men to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, that was a revolutionary thought. Women couldn't hold property and had very few rights. Their role was to take care of the home and make babies, that is it.

On the contrary, Christianity ordered women to serve their husbands, taught that celibacy was preferable to marriage, and stripped women of their rights to a financial settlement in case of divorce and other rights that they held under Jewish law. As a practical matter, that did not make much difference in the long run because within thirty years after the death of the founder, the Greco-Roman types brought in by Paul muscled out the original group of Galilean fishermen and made Christianity into a non-Jewish religion. But get your facts straight.

[bigbadmax]

Any Jews here or any other denominations...would be good to hear their thoughts.

[darkeyes]

Women couldn't hold property and had very few rights. Their role was to take care of the home and make babies, that is it.

Until the late 19th century, and well into the 20th, with the advent of the campaign for women's sufferage, women's role in two world wars, them achieving the right to vote, and many campaigns which are still ongoing today, that was precisely the state for women in this country at least and in many other "Christian" countries in Europe and beyond, both Protestant and Catholic.. women were considered an appendage to the male and less than he was in both law and culture.. once wed, all that she owned became his, which for most wasnt much, but it enrichened many a poor nob who married well and for the most part she was, rich or poor, his to do with pretty much as he pleased...

[tenni]

I am unclear as to how women's civil rights historically is connected to bissexuality? How does this connect to religion and bisexuality?

darkeyes
If you wish to discuss women's civil rights would it not be better to start a new thread rather than fek this one up? ;)

[darkeyes]

I am unclear as to how women's civil rights historically is connected to bissexuality? How does this connect to religion and bisexuality?

darkeyes
If you wish to discuss women's civil rights would it not be better to start a new thread rather than fek this one up? ;)

I merely point out in reply to Jobe that our countries were no different to non Christian nations when it comes to women and their place in society.. but as you probably know a little piece of anti male discrimination which did exist was the fact that since Queen Vic didnt think 2 women could have nooky, it has never been illegal in this country or most commonwealth countries unlike all male roly poly..

I hardly think its fekking it up as u put it babes.. merely answering a point made within the thread... or didnt u read that part?

[Jobelorocks]

Until the late 19th century, and well into the 20th, with the advent of the campaign for women's sufferage, women's role in two world wars, them achieving the right to vote, and many campaigns which are still ongoing today, that was precisely the state for women in this country at least and in many other "Christian" countries in Europe and beyond, both Protestant and Catholic.. women were considered an appendage to the male and less than he was in both law and culture.. once wed, all that she owned became his, which for most wasnt much, but it enrichened many a poor nob who married well and for the most part she was, rich or poor, his to do with pretty much as he pleased...

I never said that women got those rights. I said it was a novel concept. I believe still in some of the conservative Christian communities women are still seen as property which isn't right. My point was that women were considered property more so back in the early years of the Christian church and def. before then.

And to those who are telling me to get their facts straight, in Jewish culture back in the day women would usually marry their dead husbands brothers so they wouldn't loose everything. They needed to find the next of kin most of the time so they wouldn't be left with nothing. Unless they had sons, who would then inherit everything their father had. Sometimes women would sleep with their dead husbands brother like in the story of Onan, so she could make an heir for her husband. So, there would be no point in those practices unless women really couldn't own things. Women were just a commodity used to make heirs, take care of the home, and serve their husbands. I would call that property.
(p.s. I brought this up because if you lie with a man as you would a woman, then how your society views women, would have a profound influence of how this could be construed and I was talking about these being more culture driven rules.)

[tenni]

"I brought this up because if you lie with a man as you would a woman, then how your society views women, would have a profound influence of how this could be construed and I was talking about these being more culture driven rules"

Ah, Ok. I see the connection all be it a bit of a stretch. Are we not discussing present day bisexuals and their religions? Sure historical sociological and Church doctrines may have connected women to what you write. Does the Church separate how it treats male bisexuality from female bisexuality in today's doctrines? I don't think that it does.

[jamieknyc]

I never said that women got those rights. I said it was a novel concept. I believe still in some of the conservative Christian communities women are still seen as property which isn't right. My point was that women were considered property more so back in the early years of the Christian church and def. before then.

And to those who are telling me to get their facts straight, in Jewish culture back in the day women would usually marry their dead husbands brothers so they wouldn't loose everything. They needed to find the next of kin most of the time so they wouldn't be left with nothing. Unless they had sons, who would then inherit everything their father had. Sometimes women would sleep with their dead husbands brother like in the story of Onan, so she could make an heir for her husband. So, there would be no point in those practices unless women really couldn't own things. Women were just a commodity used to make heirs, take care of the home, and serve their husbands. I would call that property.
(p.s. I brought this up because if you lie with a man as you would a woman, then how your society views women, would have a profound influence of how this could be construed and I was talking about these being more culture driven rules.)

I am not by any means versed in Christian theology, but as far as I know, there is nothing in the laws of the Church that says a woman is the property of her husband, or that she can't own property herself. That idea comes from English common law.

[jamieknyc]

"I brought this up because if you lie with a man as you would a woman, then how your society views women, would have a profound influence of how this could be construed and I was talking about these being more culture driven rules"

Ah, Ok. I see the connection all be it a bit of a stretch. Are we not discussing present day bisexuals and their religions? Sure historical sociological and Church doctrines may have connected women to what you write. Does the Church separate how it treats male bisexuality from female bisexuality in today's doctrines? I don't think that it does.

The Bible, and Jewish law, prohibits only male homosexuality. Thus is Jewish law, although it isn't exactly encouraged, there is no prohibition against being a lesbian.

LGBT advocates often make the assertion that the prohibition on homosexuality is a law that applies only to Jews, like kosher food. Those people are pretending that 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice didn't exist.

[Jobelorocks]

I am not by any means versed in Christian theology, but as far as I know, there is nothing in the laws of the Church that says a woman is the property of her husband, or that she can't own property herself. That idea comes from English common law.

No it does not and I never said that it did. I was saying that when it was taught in Christianity that men need to love their wives as Christ loved the Church (and this is great because not only did step down from Heaven and be clothed in the flesh of man, but he also suffered greatly and died for man) was a very novel thought. Women were always seen as less than and not as important and now they are being told to be willing to give up everything for their wives and to show them this unconditional deep love which is totally self-sacrificing. Now not everyone followed this teaching, obviously, but that is what they were called to do.

[Jobelorocks]

The Bible, and Jewish law, prohibits only male homosexuality. Thus is Jewish law, although it isn't exactly encouraged, there is no prohibition against being a lesbian.

LGBT advocates often make the assertion that the prohibition on homosexuality is a law that applies only to Jews, like kosher food. Those people are pretending that 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice didn't exist.

Ya, but Christians don't practice things like not cutting the hair on the sides of their heads or not making cloth with more than two fabrics. Just because something is in Jewish law, doesn't mean that it applies to Christians. Now since early Christians taught this as well, you have to look at why. Was it cultural or was it God's eternal law?

You have to look at what they saw as examples of homosexuality. It was generally in Roman society, when adult males had homosexual interaction with young boys primarily. Today we see loving relationships between two males and/or where people aren't abusing each other which is very different. They were being called not to conform to the practices seen in their society. They had no real conception of what we see as homosexual activity today, so how could they address that? They couldn't. Now we are beggining to understand sexuality more and must change our views on it now that we know more.

Although the fact that women are property isn't taught in Jewish law, but those examples of women marrying brother's, looking for next of kin, or sleeping with their dead husband's brother to make an heir are talked about in Old Testament stories. Also just because something isn't in a religion's law, doesn't mean the culture doesn't practice and/or believe in it. There are more things that dictate cultural rules other than religion. Women were considered property.

[bisocialnudist]

Can you be of a religion and still be bisexual?

My big problem with this whole argument is other people telling me what I have to believe . The question asked was can you (I) be of a religion and still bisexual. Yes I can. We only need to believe that in ourselves I do not need to prove to anyone else It should be enough for me to say given all the knowledge I have gained and after many hours of prayerful reflection I can be a faithful Christian and a bisexual. The bible was not handed to us on an IPAD written in easy to understand contemporary English. My understanding, and thats all that counts for me, is that fallible human beings have made mistakes in interpreting what was said, or it has been taken out of context.

There is nothing in my understanding of the bible or Christianity that says I can not be a faithful Christian and a bisexual. Others may have a different interpretation what the Bible says and what it means to be a Christian and thats fine but those others are just as human as I am and are in no better a position to tell me what is being said. Whole books have been written by people better versed in theology than I that prove to me that my understanding is not just some sort of wishful thinking on my part besides this is not an argument it is simply what I believe.

The greatest commandment of all and the foundation of many religions is love thy neighbor as thyself , I am a bisexual and I love my neighbor all of them. As for religion I am becoming a member of the United Church of Christ and they specifically affirm that I am welcome to fully participate in their religion bisexuality and all. Our sexuality is truly an amazing gift with so many aspects that go beyond what is needed for mere reproduction that there is no doubt in my mind that those of us given the gift of bisexuality are to celebrate all that it means.

Again this is what I believe I do not require others believe in my understanding and I ask that others not insist I believe in their understanding.

Mark

[tenni]

I've just paid a bit more attention to what Max wrote as the title of this thread. Now, this statement takes a Catholic/Christian commandment about Love thy neighbour as thyself concept.

Love may include sexual levels and expressing love in a more poly approach may exclude gender restrictions and monogamy. Why not? Love thy neighbour and everyone else if you hold such a spiritual perspective? :bigrin:'

It ain't Christian like though Dumpling....:eek:

[silberwolf1960]

I myself was brought up in the Christian religion growing up,when TV evangelist(s) were just getting started. I went to church and was even on the quiz team for a time. What turned me off from mainstream religions I didn't need someone telling me how and when I need to go to a building to raise my voice to the heavens and pay 10% of my wages for tithes.
I now worship a Goddess and a God, yes I'm Pagan. I follow the Wheel of the Year and so on, I am a solitary and when I do rituals I do them skyclad.
As far as bisexuality goes it is very accepted, because it is human nature and mine is a nature based belief.
One final thought. Having served in Iraq and seen first hand how the Islamic religion system is based on the Prophet Mohammed and the similarities from the Bible and Quaran, both mention Abraham and others cross paths in both books, I am content to be me and worship my deities.

[Gearbox]

In the Bible and Koran it is said to be un-natural for a man to lie with a man, ergo how can a double standard exist if you are bisexual...can you disobey your teachings or is it not a double standard?
It is impossible for a double standard to exist in any religion that has only one requirement, which is usually to accept so and so as your saviour.
You can not point at a Christian, Catholic, Muslim etc etc and expect him/her to be 'of a sort' other than a follower of 'X'.
A bisexual adulterous, murdering, thieving prostitute slave trader is as much a follower of 'X' as any other even if he/she doesn't follow the proposed teachings of 'X'.

One who abides ALL the teachings of 'X' but does not accept 'X' as their saviour, is simply destined for 'death eternal' etc.

So no! It's not a double standard to be religious and bisexual. Hurrah!;)

[elian]

I think that for a short time in our history men were naive enough to believe that all of life was contained in semen, and that the woman was merely used for gestation. They certainly were insecure enough to treat women as property and women are still denied their basic human rights in many parts of the world. If you don't think religion has anything to do with being able to justify that sort of behavior you are deluding yourself.

The dietary laws are a part of the Bible, as was the example of Onan. What? Oh, that part was only for the Jews?? Ok, well I need to pay more attention - which part is for the white people? The blacks? Muslims? Which part is for the middle class? Which part is for the wealthy?

The Bible has been misused to denigrate people and justify all sorts of behavior, but the message Jesus taught really doesn't require reading hundreds of pages of text..

You want to know what I think about black people, I love them. You want to know what I think about white people, I love them also and women as well. Do I understand all of the nuances of culture? No. Do I have human prejudices? Yes, but I'm trying to overcome those. I am only 35 years old and the history of the world has been around a lot longer than that.

God alone is the only one who truly knows my heart. I can understand that you want facts - I have none - only an unhappy feeling when I look at the way we have mistreated the world and all those I love. The constant bickering of three Abrahamic religions who CLAIM to be "the way" grates on the nerves. None of the news stories I hear about day after day, year after year seem to be particularily Holy. It's so much easier to destroy than create. I wish "righteous" people would stop worrying about who other people LOVE and start worrying about who other people destroy. Some of the commandments are actually pretty good, you would think that more people would want to try them out..

Of course, you never hear about the good Christian folks who quietly live out their lives by the example that Jesus taught..evil typically makes a lot more noise than good.

I think the big conflict comes from the fact that human beings are endowed with creativity and curiosity. I find it hard to believe that God would give human beings a desire to ask questions, with at least the appearance of free will only to say, "No - this is the way it must be." - how very cruel..unless of course God wasn't the one who took the humanity out of religion. I don't know what's worse, the human, the apple or the snake.

"Marketing" seduces us into believing we need it all, for ourselves only, immediately and that we are damn well entitled to have it. "Religion" reminds us that we are one part of the whole. That there is power walking within a compassionate community. To hold the gifts and talents we have with reverence and to appreciate the beauty of life that is too short to squander.

I could ramble on for five more paragraphs but you're probably tired of reading paragraphs that don't make any sense so I'll stop now and give someone else a chance to ramble. I hate writing stuff like this because it inevitably just ends up hurting someone else..

[Light_and_Dark]

I have this to say...First off most of what people see as Christian is not actual Christianity...as gear box stated Christianity is a belief in the laws of the bible....some of those laws on the outside may seem to contradict...In the end they all come down to Jesus stating that no matter how hard we try to obey his laws the most important thing is for us to believe in what he did. For all shall fall short of the glory of God.

When people say something is Christian then tie it to things that are not? Well....I tend to take issue with that personally...Similarly to Jobels statement that the Bible was put together by catholics....this is not true in term.....the bible was assembled from 45-80 ad roughly. Then initially translated during the reign of King John of England(if i remember correctly). The translation though taking place during a period of time where women were not considered equal still had to pass the inspection of catholic readers(people that could read both the latin and english version) to look for mistakes and correct them. So getting back on that point it is not stating that religious law states that women should be considered as property...that was as most have stated a cultural thing...in a time it was needed....No women of that era should not have been treated as harshly as most were but the need to protect them as they did was the easiest way to do so.

On another note Jobel the idea Jesus stated about loving your wife as he loved the church was not a novel concept...I implore you to read the Song of Solomon. That tells men how they are to treat their wives...most do not see it that way but that is the general feel of that book. On top of that read the book of Genesis something stated to be Gods direct word...That man and woman should be equal on different footing. This is purely my belief...

[pepperjack]

Sorry but a thread within a thread has started so thought I would bring it to the fore as they say.

Can you be of a religion and still be bisexual?

In the Bible and Koran it is said to be un-natural for a man to lie with a man, ergo how can a double standard exist if you are bisexual...can you disobey your teachings or is it not a double standard?

love to get peoples viewpoints! expressed politely please.

You claim to have a religion & to be at peace with what you believe & yet your posts indicate otherwise.

[pepperjack]

I have this to say...First off most of what people see as Christian is not actual Christianity...as gear box stated Christianity is a belief in the laws of the bible....some of those laws on the outside may seem to contradict...In the end they all come down to Jesus stating that no matter how hard we try to obey his laws the most important thing is for us to believe in what he did. For all shall fall short of the glory of God.

When people say something is Christian then tie it to things that are not? Well....I tend to take issue with that personally...Similarly to Jobels statement that the Bible was put together by catholics....this is not true in term.....the bible was assembled from 45-80 ad roughly. Then initially translated during the reign of King John of England(if i remember correctly). The translation though taking place during a period of time where women were not considered equal still had to pass the inspection of catholic readers(people that could read both the latin and english version) to look for mistakes and correct them. So getting back on that point it is not stating that religious law states that women should be considered as property...that was as most have stated a cultural thing...in a time it was needed....No women of that era should not have been treated as harshly as most were but the need to protect them as they did was the easiest way to do so.

On another note Jobel the idea Jesus stated about loving your wife as he loved the church was not a novel concept...I implore you to read the Song of Solomon. That tells men how they are to treat their wives...most do not see it that way but that is the general feel of that book. On top of that read the book of Genesis something stated to be Gods direct word...That man and woman should be equal on different footing. This is purely my belief...

Thank you for reconfirming about The Song Of Solomon!:)

[æonpax]

Regarding Catholics:

Sacred Tradition is the theological term used for the core beliefs in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox faiths, in reference to the fundamental basis of ecclesiastical church authority and teachings. Unlike the Protestants who subscribe to “sola scriptura” and whose faith is totally dependent upon the “written word” in the bible, Sacred Tradition is the oral teachings of Jesus Christ handed down to his apostles. - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

The Catholic objection to homosexuality (I’m grouping bisexuals with lesbians and gays for expediency) has its fundamental roots in the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas, in his treatise “Summa Theologica” I must add, these teachings also apply to heterosexuals, and to simply sum it up, any sex done without the intent of procreation is a sin. There are exceptions though.

The Catholic belief is that God wants what is his (or hers) and that is the “Soul”. This is part of what is called ‘Divine Law” which Aquinas outlined. Nothing must be done to prevent the sperm from uniting with the egg, which when it happens, at the instant, a “Soul” is created and again, that Soul is God’s.

In the case of heterosexuals, the Catholic church considers “birth control” with the intent of deliberately preventing procreation, as a greater sin than even abortion because you are denying God a soul or are violating “Divine Law.” Since they believe human life is created at the moment of conception, a Soul is formed, and God immediately lays claim to that soul. To have an abortion ex post facto, you are only violating “Natural Law” (see: Aquinas) or “mans law.”

As homosexuals cannot biologically procreate, there is no deliberate “intent” on denying God a soul, but it is still, sex that cannot procreate, hence, still a sin.

The Catholic church is accepting of homosexuality, so long as one remains celibate and they are always allowed into the church, celibate or not. Individuals, whom claim to be Catholic, condemning homosexuals, do not represent the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

[void()]

Will remain secular humanist without any religion, not even atheism, thanks. Concur, we ought not tell others to believe as we do. Mind your own, as I
mine.

[bigbadmax]

You claim to have a religion & to be at peace with what you believe & yet your posts indicate otherwise.

Pepper, be so kind as to disappear.

If you have a constructive criticism then feel free to add, however as you dont then bite your tongue.

I may dislike you, however, I have not made any comment about you in this thread and, as you will note I asked for people to be polite...something which you are not...you are :offtopic:

[darkeyes]

I'm never surprised that official Christianity doesn't take to bi or homosexuality or anything that doesn't fit into the "norm".. it isn't therefore surprising that some Christian peeps don't take to those who are not Christian, even allowing for the preachings of their "saviour"... why then, when I live in a religiously much divided society, much riven by hatred between two Christian denominations and all too aware of the history of that division, am I always taken by surprise at the lack of love between neighbours of the same religion, who may or may not be of the same branch of the faith?

[elian]

Hmm, I had an early Christmas dinner with some friends of mine. I was playing with one of the children while the adults were having a conversation in the next room about what it means to be LGBT and they got around to talking about how one of them was shamed, scorned and beaten by his very "devout" mother. He mentioned that while he was in the hospital watching over his lover who was in the late stages of HIV his lover actually said to him, "Jesus is massaging my legs." It looked to him as if light was traveling up and down the man's legs, but the devout mother could see nothing. I'm not sure why someone would make something like that up..and in just that way, unless they actually thought they were telling the truth.

I am convinced that the divine does not have the same fear, scorn and loathing of LGBT people that humans do, otherwise I would not be here. Not only was I tolerated, but lovingly encouraged to continue living. It wasn't my parents, or even my best friends that got me through my teen years..I was too afraid to tell any of them what I was really feeling..yet there was always a still small (sometimes loving, sometimes frustrated, sometimes pleading) voice there urging me to go on.

In the end judgement is a personal thing, I already know that I have deviated from the plan and for that I am sorry. After growing up abused it is hard for me to think that I would make a good father and a good husband..right now I just don't have the patience. For as much preaching as I do about love I find it hard to love yourself, especially without becoming self-righteous. I keep working at it every day, but I refuse to believe that I need to stop loving men. I don't have to have sex with everyone I meet but after having my mind forced open it seems natural to me to want to love both. If I have made a mistake I suppose it will be between God and I.

[elian]

I have one more experience that I feel compelled to share, then it will be time for shoveling snow.

Some time ago I took a trip to Washington DC to visit the Smithsonian, and the only museum I hadn't seen was the Native American museum. They had a very good introductory movie, and parts of it were nice but to be honest I found out that I would rather go to a pow-wow and celebrate living people instead of visiting a museum to see relics. (I saw the Mayan calendar while I was there and to be honest it didn't look very impressive at all.)

Well anyway, after I drove back I really wasn't feeling all that well - instead of aspirin I decided to sit down and try one of those crazy meditation exercises. I quieted my mind, slowed my breathing, closed my eyes and imagined gratitude, love and healing..

Now ever since I was a small child I have had a condition called "lazy eye" where one of the eyes still functions, but the brain basically ignores that input as if it is not there.. but when I opened my eyes I had true peripheral vision..everything was very clear.

I sat there for a while in awe, maybe even cried a little because what I was hoping for was a little clarity of mind and a little relief from a headache..

No memorizing verse after verse, no loud noises, no proselytizing, no self loathing.. just silence - love, gratitude and healing.. For me, that is what it took to know spiritual healing.

If it were true that would mean that ALL humans are capable of knowing that healing regardless of their faith. I am grateful for a universe that responds to love in a compassionate way.

[Light_and_Dark]

I'm never surprised that official Christianity doesn't take to bi or homosexuality or anything that doesn't fit into the "norm".. it isn't therefore surprising that some Christian peeps don't take to those who are not Christian, even allowing for the preachings of their "saviour"... why then, when I live in a religiously much divided society, much riven by hatred between two Christian denominations and all too aware of the history of that division, am I always taken by surprise at the lack of love between neighbours of the same religion, who may or may not be of the same branch of the faith?

Your post brings up other points...What is going on with the intolerance is something that is wrong...Christians that do this are as in the wrong with their own belief systems as what they say of the rest of the world...Christians are supposed to be the leading example of tolerance though over the years to many people have used the Christian religion to gain power and affect governments and create movements all just a little deluded from the truth...which with this delusion of truth mankind is allowed to give in to their baser behaviors which lead to intolerance and violence.

[keefer728]

Your post brings up other points...What is going on with the intolerance is something that is wrong...Christians that do this are as in the wrong with their own belief systems as what they say of the rest of the world...Christians are supposed to be the leading example of tolerance though over the years to many people have used the Christian religion to gain power and affect governments and create movements all just a little deluded from the truth...which with this delusion of truth mankind is allowed to give in to their baser behaviors which lead to intolerance and violence.

Where did you get the idea that Christians are to be tolerant? If I came over to you and gave you a good crack in the mouth, would you tolerate that? If a group was trying to seduce your child into a cult or a way of life that you knew was not of the Lord's will, would you tolerate that? If you see social injustice in the like of someones rights being taken away, would you tolerate that? Just what is it that we are supposed to be so tolerant of? I'm not sticking a finger in your face, but I always get a bit leary when I hear the word "tolerance" when it is used in the context of the Christian faith. This is not to mean that we are to be "intolerant" either. I believe the word that's missing here is discernment, and it being used with a good knowledge of scripture.

[elian]

Yes keefer, we are expected to make decisions with our life and to take responsibility for those decisions but knowing what is "true" and what is "right" is not an easy question to answer - maybe THAT is why people spend so much time pouring over sacred text and studying spiritual practice for a lifetime.

[bigbadmax]

Where did you get the idea that Christians are to be tolerant? If I came over to you and gave you a good crack in the mouth, would you tolerate that? If a group was trying to seduce your child into a cult or a way of life that you knew was not of the Lord's will, would you tolerate that? If you see social injustice in the like of someones rights being taken away, would you tolerate that? Just what is it that we are supposed to be so tolerant of? I'm not sticking a finger in your face, but I always get a bit leary when I hear the word "tolerance" when it is used in the context of the Christian faith. This is not to mean that we are to be "intolerant" either. I believe the word that's missing here is discernment, and it being used with a good knowledge of scripture.

Am I missing something? I thought that ALL religions teach tollerance, especially the followers of Jesus.

[keefer728]

Sorry Max. Did you actually read what was said?

[darkeyes]

Where did you get the idea that Christians are to be tolerant? If I came over to you and gave you a good crack in the mouth, would you tolerate that? If a group was trying to seduce your child into a cult or a way of life that you knew was not of the Lord's will, would you tolerate that? If you see social injustice in the like of someones rights being taken away, would you tolerate that? Just what is it that we are supposed to be so tolerant of? I'm not sticking a finger in your face, but I always get a bit leary when I hear the word "tolerance" when it is used in the context of the Christian faith. This is not to mean that we are to be "intolerant" either. I believe the word that's missing here is discernment, and it being used with a good knowledge of scripture.

There are many things we should not tolerate.. far more than you outline although I will come back to that, no matter what we believe..and what we will or will not tolerate very much depends on that which we believe... but the religion and belief system of another? Of course we should tolerate it, but more than that, for the word tolerance I have never felt quite appropriate or sufficiently accepting.. it is almost grudging that they believe differently from us.. as far as we can we should endeavour to understand the as human beings and if we can the things they believe which are dofferent from the beliefs we hold dear.. as human beings what unites us no matter what separates us is far more... some ideologies preach hate and that we should never tolerate but try and understand why and soften them.. I am not religious but accept the beliefs of others for what they are.. their beliefs.. I will argue with them and may hate their belief but in the end I will not hate them for it.. I am incapable of it.. we should all try and be incapable of hate for what another belives and try and understand both that belief and why it is believed..

Regarding intolerance of the smack in the mouth, there is no reason why anyone should do so.. I dont, but I don't respond in kind either, not because I am little or a woman but because I believe implicitly in non violence.. there are other ways of dealing with violent and potentially violent situations.. not hitting back isnt tolerating the assault it is one way of dealing with it.. turn the other cheek said your Christ.. I am no Christian but I have believed that ever since I was a child.. why just a cult keefer? Why not just change their basic beliefs? To islam for instance.. do we have the right to interfere with what our children believe? We may not like but in the end they are responsible for their actions and their own lives.. we may try and influence but what right have we to not tolerate what they believe or what religion.. or cult.. they decide to join??? We may not like nor approve but what right have we to lay the law down to them? Regarding taking the rights away from others, this happens all the time.. homosexuality is now legal but to achive that legality we removed from others the right to legally discriminate and not tolerate and in fact oppress..intolerance was not tolerated... to stop a people removing rights from others means their right to remove rights is removed.. who is right???

So while you are right in a sense, tolerance and intolerance are far more complex issues than you seem to realise... Duckie will understand what I am driving at... we fight for what we believe is right in accord with religion or ideology or just because that is how we are... we may however be wrong... no one is infallible.. human beings get a great deal wrong... Christians are no different... they are no better or worse than those of any other faith or those who have no faith.. like most they bumble along as best they can in a shitty ole world..

[bigbadmax]

[QUOTE=keefer728;220543]Where did you get the idea that Christians are to be tolerant? [QUOTE]

The other stuff is irrelevent, nothing to do with religious tollerence but social norms and tollerence.

[darkeyes]

Where did you get the idea that Christians are to be tolerant? If I came over to you and gave you a good crack in the mouth, would you tolerate that? If a group was trying to seduce your child into a cult or a way of life that you knew was not of the Lord's will, would you tolerate that? If you see social injustice in the like of someones rights being taken away, would you tolerate that? Just what is it that we are supposed to be so tolerant of? I'm not sticking a finger in your face, but I always get a bit leary when I hear the word "tolerance" when it is used in the context of the Christian faith. This is not to mean that we are to be "intolerant" either. I believe the word that's missing here is discernment, and it being used with a good knowledge of scripture.

There are many things we should not tolerate.. far more than you outline although I will come back to that, no matter what we believe..and what we will or will not tolerate very much depends on that which we believe... but the religion and belief system of another? Of course we should tolerate it, but more than that, for the word tolerance I have never felt quite appropriate or sufficiently accepting.. it is almost grudging that they believe differently from us.. as far as we can we should endeavour to understand them as human beings and if we can, the things they believe which are different from the beliefs we hold dear.. as human beings, what unites us, no matter what separates us, is far more... some ideologies preach hate for people and that we should never tolerate but try and understand why and soften them.. I am not religious but accept the beliefs of others for what they are.. their beliefs.. I will argue with them and may hate their belief but in the end I will not hate them for it.. I am incapable of it.. we should all try and be incapable of hate for what another believes and try and understand both that belief and why it is believed..

Regarding intolerance of the smack in the mouth, there is no reason why anyone should tolerate it .. I dont, but I don't respond in kind either, not because I am little or a woman but because I believe implicitly in non violence.. there are other ways of dealing with violent and potentially violent situations.. not hitting back isnt tolerating the assault it is one way of dealing with it.. turn the other cheek said your Christ.. I am no Christian but I have believed that ever since I was a child.. why just a cult keefer? Why not just a change of their basic beliefs? To Islam for instance.. do we have the right to interfere with what our children believe when they are old enough to do so? Even before? We may not like it but in the end they are responsible for their actions and their own lives.. we may try and influence but what right have we to not tolerate what they believe and what religion.. or cult.. they decide to join??? We may not like nor approve, but what right have we to lay the law down to them? Regarding taking the rights away from others, this happens all the time.. homosexuality is now legal but to achieve that legality we removed from others the right to legally discriminate and not tolerate and in fact oppress..intolerance was not tolerated and yet to achieve toleration there had to be intolerance... to stop a people removing rights from others means their right to remove rights is removed.. who is right??? Is that tolerance or intolerance or both?

So while you are right in a sense, tolerance and intolerance are far more complex issues than you seem to realise... Duckie will understand what I am driving at... we fight for what we believe is right in accord with religion or ideology or just because that is how we are... we may however be wrong... no one is infallible.. human beings get a great deal wrong... Christians are no different... they are no better or worse than those of any other faith or those who have no faith.. like most they bumble along as best they can in a shitty ole world..

I argue with the world about many things yet the most important thing to me is that we love and try and understand one another.. by understanding we create a better world, and by having compassion and understanding of the beliefs of others we have an opportunity to end the ceaseless cycle of destruction and hating at which our species is so good.. we do not have to accept the beliefs of others for ourselves... only accept that they are their beliefs and only through dialogue can we ever hope to understand and progress to a more stable, peaceful and tranquil world.. at all levels, from you and I, Keefer, so far apart on so many things, to the great nations and causes of this world....

[Light_and_Dark]

alright keefer i am going to address you since you asked me a question in response to my answer to dark eyes and the point i was trying to make is being skewed a little some bits of my answers are in theirs...

No in all reality I would not ALLOW someone to crack me one in the face...has nothing to do with tolerance...Tolerance would be lets say off all other tacks that my belief system says that liking chocolate pudding was a sin...and you keefer happen to like and eat chocolate pudding regularly...When i come visit you and tell you of my beliefs you can either.

A: rub it in my face and make fun of me.
B: keep yourself stocked not wanting to give into my beliefs.
C: other options :)

Anyway if you chose option B. my show of tolerance would be to know you understand my position and drop it at that point understanding you enjoy something i consider a sin and letting you hold to your own beliefs...I could still maintain a friendship with you at that point even an unstrained one but only as long as i am tolerant of things outside my bubble. This is what i meant by Christian tolerance.

[keefer728]

alright keefer i am going to address you since you asked me a question in response to my answer to dark eyes and the point i was trying to make is being skewed a little some bits of my answers are in theirs...

No in all reality I would not ALLOW someone to crack me one in the face...has nothing to do with tolerance...Tolerance would be lets say off all other tacks that my belief system says that liking chocolate pudding was a sin...and you keefer happen to like and eat chocolate pudding regularly...When i come visit you and tell you of my beliefs you can either.

A: rub it in my face and make fun of me.
B: keep yourself stocked not wanting to give into my beliefs.
C: other options :)

Anyway if you chose option B. my show of tolerance would be to know you understand my position and drop it at that point understanding you enjoy something i consider a sin and letting you hold to your own beliefs...I could still maintain a friendship with you at that point even an unstrained one but only as long as i am tolerant of things outside my bubble. This is what i meant by Christian tolerance.

7 Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people-- 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you." 1Cor. 7-13

I fully agree with you, Light; there are too many noses in the air when the church gets confronted with sins that are right in your face. I haven't really ever met a Christian with such attitudes, but I know they are out there and en masse. For anyone reading this, I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat, but the passage here in 1 Corinthians speaks to some of the thoughts I've seen put out and how the Church proper views this.

[bigbadmax]

Maybe its just me, but what relevence is this to the original question.

You can quote as many poems and passages as you like, however does it proove anything towards the original question......can you be religious and bisexual?

[pepperjack]

Pepper, be so kind as to disappear.

If you have a constructive criticism then feel free to add, however as you dont then bite your tongue.

I may dislike you, however, I have not made any comment about you in this thread and, as you will note I asked for people to be polite...something which you are not...you are :offtopic:

False accusations from an adversary are to be expected and I've grown accustomed to them. Not long ago, I was in court because of this very thing and won the case, hands down! The irony of this story is that my accusers were claiming to be born again Christians and ended up looking like absolute fools in court.

[keefer728]

Maybe its just me, but what relevence is this to the original question.

You can quote as many poems and passages as you like, however does it proove anything towards the original question......can you be religious and bisexual?

It probably is just you, and you need to really just simmer down there, pal. Man, take your meds, take a chill pill..go for a walk, just simmer down.

[bigbadmax]

Keefer, not on any meds.

Just because I dont see the relevence for your posting dont get sarky with me.

[bigbadmax]

False accusations from an adversary are to be expected and I've grown accustomed to them. Not long ago, I was in court because of this very thing and won the case, hands down! The irony of this story is that my accusers were claiming to be born again Christians and ended up looking like absolute fools in court.

mmm no surprises there then pepper......in court! with your high and mighty attitude...but in the bible belt the religious one will always win!

[keefer728]

Are you now the Hall Monitor? I was speaking to light and dark.....I think that was pretty obvious.

[bigbadmax]

Keefer,

dont quote me and then pretend to aim it at others. You need to be on meds or take a chill pill or go for a walk or summit!

[Jobelorocks]

Keefer,

dont quote me and then pretend to aim it at others. You need to be on meds or take a chill pill or go for a walk or summit!

I second this. He is telling you to simmer down, when you really aren't freaking out or anything close.

[pepperjack]

mmm no surprises there then pepper......in court! with your high and mighty attitude...but in the bible belt the religious one will always win!

Once again, you seem to have missed the point, as I suspected you would, because you're so blinded by your dislike of me. The "religious ones", my accusers were so-called born again, regular attendees of church. I was quietly & somewhat anxiously trusting in God to get me through that ordeal and He did. Sorry if you have a problem with my self-confidence. You don't seem to have a problem with aeon's grandiosity. And is your reference to Bible belt and religious one evidence of your bigotry toward Christianity? I think so.

[bigbadmax]

Pepper, for the record I am a ROMAN CATHOLIC, not a christian. I have my faith but it does not rule my life, I am master of my own destiny.

I am not bigotted towards christianity, just people like you who hide behind scripture or text to suit their own viewpoints...when it suits them.

Your opinion has just shown its true colours by attacking yet other members of this site.

[bigbadmax]

Pepper.

Pray tell wher aeon has posted their opinion on this thread? again you are wrong.

[Jobelorocks]

Pepper, for the record I am a ROMAN CATHOLIC, not a christian. I have my faith but it does not rule my life, I am master of my own destiny.

I am not bigotted towards christianity, just people like you who hide behind scripture or text to suit their own viewpoints...when it suits them.

Your opinion has just shown its true colours by attacking yet other members of this site.

Roman Catholicism is just a sect of Christianity. In fact all other Christian groups are off shoots of Roman Catholicism as you can learn in any college history class. I think you mean Protestant. I don't know why people say that Catholics aren't Christian. We worship the same God, have the same savior, and follow most of the same teachings.

[bigbadmax]

Roman Catholicism is just a sect of Christianity. In fact all other Christian groups are off shoots of Roman Catholicism as you can learn in any college history class. I think you mean Protestant. I don't know why people say that Catholics aren't Christian. We worship the same God, have the same savior, and follow most of the same teachings.

Nope I am Roman Catholic, protestant is Church of England or Church of Scotland in the uk. I do not follow Christ, I follow the trinity, not the one.

Hence I am Roman Catholic and you are true, Christians are offshoots of Catholocism in one form or another, just as Jews would argue that Catholocism is an offshoot of judaism and possibly at a very longshot, of Islam. Oh dear I hear pepper already questioning this one LMAO.

[Jobelorocks]

Nope I am Roman Catholic, protestant is Church of England or Church of Scotland in the uk. I do not follow Christ, I follow the trinity, not the one.

Hence I am Roman Catholic and you are true, Christians are offshoots of Catholocism in one form or another, just as Jews would argue that Catholocism is an offshoot of judaism and possibly at a very longshot, of Islam. Oh dear I hear pepper already questioning this one LMAO.

No, that is the Anglican Church which is one Protestant group dear. But any way, some Protestant groups are, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Non-Denominational, ect. ect. ect. The name Protestant comes from protest, meaning those who are in protest with Catholic teachings and/ or the Church. The Protestant reformation for example was started by a German Monk, Martin Luther in 1517 whose beliefs were formed into the Lutheran Church. Protestants aren't just the Anglicans.

Catholicism is a Christian sect. Also pretty much all Protestant groups also follow the Trinity. Most Christian groups believe in the triune Godhead.

[Light_and_Dark]

Actually Christianity is the basis on which catholicism was originally based on....catholicism today is nothing of what it was when founded....when it first bore the title catholic it was the same as christianity....but as things went on they both seperated..christianity itself is merely a belief system catholicism is a religion and their is a difference....btw bbm christians are supposed to believe in the trinity....but as with any tri body each part does a different function Christ is the one you follow...in following him you follow the three....a body gets no where without its legs nor builds anything without its hands or thinks to move its legs or hands without it brain/soul. Just a bit of info....their are massive differences between NON DENOMINATIONAL Christians and any sect of christianity(ie protestant or catholicism.)

Just figured I would point that out for you..

[Jobelorocks]

Actually Christianity is the basis on which catholicism was originally based on....catholicism today is nothing of what it was when founded....when it first bore the title catholic it was the same as christianity....but as things went on they both seperated..christianity itself is merely a belief system catholicism is a religion and their is a difference....btw bbm christians are supposed to believe in the trinity....but as with any tri body each part does a different function Christ is the one you follow...in following him you follow the three....a body gets no where without its legs nor builds anything without its hands or thinks to move its legs or hands without it brain/soul. Just a bit of info....their are massive differences between NON DENOMINATIONAL Christians and any sect of christianity(ie protestant or catholicism.)

Just figured I would point that out for you..

If you read anything from the Church fathers you will find out otherwise. I know that is what I use to believe until I learned more. That is a common misconception among protestants.

The teachings of the Eucharist, praying to Saints, works + faith, the Pope, ect. are all documented as very early teachings. So if you think that modern protestant thought was like original Christianity, then there was no Christianity for over a 1000 years in Church history between the early church and the protestant reformation and it really doesn't make any sense to think that.

[pepperjack]

Pepper, for the record I am a ROMAN CATHOLIC, not a christian. I have my faith but it does not rule my life, I am master of my own destiny.

I am not bigotted towards christianity, just people like you who hide behind scripture or text to suit their own viewpoints...when it suits them.

Your opinion has just shown its true colours by attacking yet other members of this site.

Ok, so Roman Catholic is not Christian. What an absolutely telling comment! So what is your deity then? Personally, I'm nondenominational; I just believe. I have leaned on the teachings of Jesus throughout my life and have good reasons for believing that He was what He claimed to be. Hiding behind scripture? If I claim to believe in God, what could I be hiding from? I've been putting myself out there, into an unpopular & controversial position. Why would I do that? I'm not a masochist. I have more than enough stress in my life. And as for aeon, I only mentioned her because it was through her posts that you and I began to clash.

[Light_and_Dark]

If you read anything from the Church fathers you will find out otherwise. I know that is what I use to believe until I learned more. That is a common misconception among protestants.

The teachings of the Eucharist, praying to Saints, works + faith, the Pope, ect. are all documented as very early teachings. So if you think that modern protestant thought was like original Christianity, then there was no Christianity for over a 1000 years in Church history between the early church and the protestant reformation and it really doesn't make any sense to think that.

Similar teachings to what the protestants use now were used BEFORE catholicism....Catholics did not come about until rome backed off on persecuting christians...the pope and all that WERE in some of the earliest of teachings but did not start appearing until after christians started leaving the catacombs...shortly after Ceasar himself converted and began the establisment of the holy roman empire...Or the Roman Catholic church......there were stages to it...

First base christianity taught straight from the original disciples of Christ while they began writing the bible and establishing churches...then the persecution began in extreme earnest pushing the entire movement underground..then they came to the fore and gave their belief system a government type structure and the name of catholicism. That catholicism is not even the same religion as catholics today as that group changed the laws and strictures over time.

[bigbadmax]

Ok, so Roman Catholic is not Christian. What an absolutely telling comment! So what is your deity then? Personally, I'm nondenominational; I just believe. I have leaned on the teachings of Jesus throughout my life and have good reasons for believing that He was what He claimed to be. Hiding behind scripture? If I claim to believe in God, what could I be hiding from? I've been putting myself out there, into an unpopular & controversial position. Why would I do that? I'm not a masochist. I have more than enough stress in my life. And as for aeon, I only mentioned her because it was through her posts that you and I began to clash.


Pepper please read the reply to Jobel....Roman Catholics are not christian's as we do not follow Christ, we follow the trinity of Father,Son(Jesus) and the Holy ghost(or spirit).

If you have gleened help from your deity than I am glad that you have found comfort and strength and do not decry that.

My favourite saying is "may your God be with you" as we all need help now and again and, there is always a non judgemental, supportive entity to do this for those that believe.

Now the person attributed to the above is Dave Allen, an Irish comedian who was infamous for taking the mickey out of catholicism, moreover Irish Catholics.

[elian]

One of my favorite resources is the soulforce website..

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian
http://www.soulforce.org/resources/four-step-journey-into-soulforce

[pepperjack]

Pepper, for the record I am a ROMAN CATHOLIC, not a christian. I have my faith but it does not rule my life, I am master of my own destiny.

I am not bigotted towards christianity, just people like you who hide behind scripture or text to suit their own viewpoints...when it suits them.

Your opinion has just shown its true colours by attacking yet other members of this site.

We're all masters of our destinies when we choose to exercise our freedom of choice in conjunction with or opposed to our religious convictions,whether we have them or not.

[bigbadmax]

No, that is the Anglican Church which is one Protestant group dear. But any way, some Protestant groups are, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Non-Denominational, ect. ect. ect. The name Protestant comes from protest, meaning those who are in protest with Catholic teachings and/ or the Church. The Protestant reformation for example was started by a German Monk, Martin Luther in 1517 whose beliefs were formed into the Lutheran Church. Protestants aren't just the Anglicans.

Catholicism is a Christian sect. Also pretty much all Protestant groups also follow the Trinity. Most Christian groups believe in the triune Godhead.

Jobel, Catholicism is not a sect. Maybe the Roman Catholic church in the USA teach differently to that of Europe but we are definately Catholics, not any of the others you mentioned.

Having had the privilige of meeting PJP the 2nd, one hopes that I know what faith I am. Especially as i have a bm medal from him.

[keefer728]

Pepper please read the reply to Jobel....Roman Catholics are not christian's as we do not follow Christ, we follow the trinity of Father,Son(Jesus) and the Holy ghost(or spirit).

If you have gleened help from your deity than I am glad that you have found comfort and strength and do not decry that.

My favourite saying is "may your God be with you" as we all need help now and again and, there is always a non judgemental, supportive entity to do this for those that believe.

Now the person attributed to the above is Dave Allen, an Irish comedian who was infamous for taking the mickey out of catholicism, moreover Irish Catholics.

Max; I think the Pope would cringe to hear that said that he isn't a Christian. Having said that, many in the evangelical field of Christianity, do not find the Catholic Church to be in line with Biblical Christianity and consider it a cult as one would the Mormon Church or JW's. I have always though it odd that Catholics will only identify as such and not as a Christian......and that's pretty telling, wouldn't you think? Catholics follow, in a very lazy way, what would be considered the cornerstones of Christianity, Christ is Lord, he died, he rose and he ascended into Heaven. What Biblical Christians reel from is the idolitry of the RCC in it's worship of Mary and the saints. How the church views the Lords supper and the bread taken as the body of Christ is pretty spooky, too. The RCC actually believes that Christ dies, on command of a priest, every time communion is served. Now that is some mind bending authority they think they posess. A mere mortal, calls down the Author of Life and commands him to die again and again...wow!!

[pepperjack]

Pepper please read the reply to Jobel....Roman Catholics are not christian's as we do not follow Christ, we follow the trinity of Father,Son(Jesus) and the Holy ghost(or spirit).

If you have gleened help from your deity than I am glad that you have found comfort and strength and do not decry that.

My favourite saying is "may your God be with you" as we all need help now and again and, there is always a non judgemental, supportive entity to do this for those that believe.

Now the person attributed to the above is Dave Allen, an Irish comedian who was infamous for taking the mickey out of catholicism, moreover Irish Catholics.

Catholics not being Christians, just like Mormons, makes absolutely no sense to me. I have belonged to both churches. A little irreverent humor here: Q_ Why did God invent alcohol? A_ So the Irish wouldn't rule the world.:bigrin:

[Jobelorocks]

Jobel, Catholicism is not a sect. Maybe the Roman Catholic church in the USA teach differently to that of Europe but we are definately Catholics, not any of the others you mentioned.

Having had the privilige of meeting PJP the 2nd, one hopes that I know what faith I am. Especially as i have a bm medal from him.

Hun, I said all those groups are Protestant, I don't know why you thought I said they were Catholic. I said that we are a Christian group just like Protestants. We are all Christian just different sects. I have no clue where you are getting your information.

Pope John Paul the second happened to be very big on a teaching called Ecumenism which is unity among Christian groups Protestant and Roman Catholic alike. He considered Roman Catholics a Christian group as do pretty much all Bishops, Priests, and all Roman Catholic leadership. Go and ask your priest if Roman Catholics are Christian.

[Jobelorocks]

Pepper please read the reply to Jobel....Roman Catholics are not christian's as we do not follow Christ, we follow the trinity of Father,Son(Jesus) and the Holy ghost(or spirit).

If you have gleened help from your deity than I am glad that you have found comfort and strength and do not decry that.

My favourite saying is "may your God be with you" as we all need help now and again and, there is always a non judgemental, supportive entity to do this for those that believe.

Now the person attributed to the above is Dave Allen, an Irish comedian who was infamous for taking the mickey out of catholicism, moreover Irish Catholics.

Well through following the Trinity we also follow Christ because He is part of that trinity. Any priest will tell you that Catholics are indeed a Christian group.

[bigbadmax]

Max; I think the Pope would cringe to hear that said that he isn't a Christian. Having said that, many in the evangelical field of Christianity, do not find the Catholic Church to be in line with Biblical Christianity and consider it a cult as one would the Mormon Church or JW's. I have always though it odd that Catholics will only identify as such and not as a Christian......and that's pretty telling, wouldn't you think? Catholics follow, in a very lazy way, what would be considered the cornerstones of Christianity, Christ is Lord, he died, he rose and he ascended into Heaven. What Biblical Christians reel from is the idolitry of the RCC in it's worship of Mary and the saints. How the church views the Lords supper and the bread taken as the body of Christ is pretty spooky, too. The RCC actually believes that Christ dies, on command of a priest, every time communion is served. Now that is some mind bending authority they think they posess. A mere mortal, calls down the Author of Life and commands him to die again and again...wow!!

wow some really sweeping statements there.....Firstly that the priest does not "command" the death of christ everytime we have communion. It is the transfiguration of the blood of christ and the flesh of christ so that we become one with him.

We are not "lazy" followers and do take our religion very seriously...look at history and see the medicis and queen Mary. I know very devout catholics that never walk in a church and will only ever kneel.To say we are lazy is your naivity.

I can't talk for other religions but the disdain is known...look at the religious divides in places like Northern Ireland and Scotland (football teams mainly).

[bigbadmax]

Well through following the Trinity we also follow Christ because He is part of that trinity. Any priest will tell you that Catholics are indeed a Christian group.

The many priests I socialise with would state that we are Roman Catholics, not Christians, as we do non't just follow Christ. Obviously there is theological difference in Europe than the continent of North America.

[Jobelorocks]

Max; I think the Pope would cringe to hear that said that he isn't a Christian. Having said that, many in the evangelical field of Christianity, do not find the Catholic Church to be in line with Biblical Christianity and consider it a cult as one would the Mormon Church or JW's. I have always though it odd that Catholics will only identify as such and not as a Christian......and that's pretty telling, wouldn't you think? Catholics follow, in a very lazy way, what would be considered the cornerstones of Christianity, Christ is Lord, he died, he rose and he ascended into Heaven. What Biblical Christians reel from is the idolitry of the RCC in it's worship of Mary and the saints. How the church views the Lords supper and the bread taken as the body of Christ is pretty spooky, too. The RCC actually believes that Christ dies, on command of a priest, every time communion is served. Now that is some mind bending authority they think they posess. A mere mortal, calls down the Author of Life and commands him to die again and again...wow!!
I don't think you have a clue about Roman Catholicism dear. I used to be a Non-denominational and used to be sadly mistaken myself about what Catholics actually believe.

No we do not worship Mary and Saints as if they were gods, we simply believe that we should honor them because they were holy people and an example of how we should live our lives. We ask them to pray for us because they are our brother's and sister's in Christ. So just as I would ask my Mom to pray for me, I ask other Christians in heaven to do so as well.

In short yes we believe in transubstantiation. Christ said this is my body and this is my blood. We translate that more literally. We don't believe that Christ dies over and over again, that is a false notion that I used to believe as well. They used to teach me that too and when I studied on my own I found out it is utterly false. It is a debatable issue, but I won't go into it further. So I will just say this, we are doing our best to obey Christ when we are taking in the Eucharist (Communion).

Also beliefs that were even close to yours arose around 1517 during the Protestant reformation (and by the way Martin Luther believed in the literal translation of this is my body and my blood)and that would mean for over a 1000 years there was no Christianity. Once I realized that, I realized Catholics were truly Christian.

[Jobelorocks]

The many priests I socialise with would state that we are Roman Catholics, not Christians, as we do non't just follow Christ. Obviously there is theological difference in Europe than the continent of North America.

That is funny because Pope John Paul the second believed that Roman Catholics are Christian and should be united with other Christian groups (protestants and such).

[tenni]

As a Catholic child sitting in Church way back, the priest referred to us as Catholics or "Believers of Christ". I never heard us referred to as Chistians. Others were referred to as "non believers" and that included all Protestants.(it might even have been pronounced as "Protest" _ants as in those who protested against the Catholic(Roman) church. Just so you know that was before the Ecumenical movement.:bigrin: .

Now, that is long before Jobel converted to Catholicism I'd guess. Your Catholic faith is based on post Ecumenical movements thoughts. You are really very good at your awareness though Jobel.

Oh, my. Lots of schisms here. I agree with Max. Roman Catholicism is the Church that Peter built his church. I believe that Catholic means "one".

There are several splinter groups such as the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church (Greek Orthodox Catholic, Russian Orthodox are a few of the sub groups). In the Orthodox view, the Assyrians and Orientals left the Orthodox Church in the first few centuries after Christ, and later the Catholics did the same, becoming the largest ever group to leave the Church. The Roman Catholics probably don't agree with the Eastern Orthodox churche. This event is known as the East–West Schism, and it is traditionally dated to the year 1054, although it was more of a gradual process than a sudden break.

The Lutheran Church is a more drastic break from "the" Church which the Roman Catholic Pope has claimed. Most other forms of Protestants came from Luther's break with the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect that Anglican or Church of England is closer to Roman Catholicism than any form of Protestanism sprouting from Luther? The Church of England (Anglican) split directly from the Roman Catholic Church under Henry V111 as most know.

There were a couple of Popes hang'n around through history. I recall one Pope set himself up in Avignon France (not sure about that exact place) while another Pope was in Rome...somewhere along the historical line.

And the "Bible" was written by the Church fathers compiled Gospel accounts and letters of the apostles combining it with the Hebrew Bible books over the first three centuries after the established the Church in the first century. That was written under the Popes after Peter..which was the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church. The oldest surviving copy of that Christian bible are Greek manuscripts was from 4th century.

Is it any wonder that the OP's question can not be dealt with so many schism?

[Jobelorocks]

Actually the Anglican Church was started by the English King Henry I believe, because he wanted a divorce, but the Pope wouldn't grant him one, so he started his own Church and granted himself a divorce. Their beliefs and liturgy are very similar to Catholic beliefs and liturgy.

[tenni]

Yes Jobel that is correct. It all happened around the time of Martin Luther and apparently is seen as part of the Protest movement against the Roman Catholic Church. That Pope must have gone to bed with a lot of headaches...:bigrin:

[keefer728]

I don't think you have a clue about Roman Catholicism dear. I used to be a Non-denominational and used to be sadly mistaken myself about what Catholics actually believe.

No we do not worship Mary and Saints as if they were gods, we simply believe that we should honor them because they were holy people and an example of how we should live our lives. We ask them to pray for us because they are our brother's and sister's in Christ. So just as I would ask my Mom to pray for me, I ask other Christians in heaven to do so as well.

In short yes we believe in transubstantiation. Christ said this is my body and this is my blood. We translate that more literally. We don't believe that Christ dies over and over again, that is a false notion that I used to believe as well. They used to teach me that too and when I studied on my own I found out it is utterly false. It is a debatable issue, but I won't go into it further. So I will just say this, we are doing our best to obey Christ when we are taking in the Eucharist (Communion).

Also beliefs that were even close to yours arose around 1517 during the Protestant reformation (and by the way Martin Luther believed in the literal translation of this is my body and my blood)and that would mean for over a 1000 years there was no Christianity. Once I realized that, I realized Catholics were truly Christian.

I know EXACTLY what Catholics believe. I was raised in the Catholic Church and left when I was 30.

[Jobelorocks]

Well you have either been taught a gross perversion of what Catholics believe in your past. I am sorry for that, but what you think they teach is not what is in the Catechism at all. They are common misconceptions I hear from protestants all the time.

The official Church teachings certainly don't say that we worship saints as you would a god. We use the word worship, but we have an extremely different definition of word then most think. It is showing them worthy of honor. We honor them and ask them to pray for us. Actually the Hail Mary is primarily derived from scripture and how she was addressed to by angles and such and followed by asking her to pray for us.

Also we don't believe that Jesus dies over and over again with each Eucharist. That is silly and NOT what is taught. We do offer up the Eucharist to the Lord each time we do it, but that doesn't mean Christ dies over and over again. The Priest asks that the Lord blesses the Eucharist and will make it the body and blood of Christ because we translate this is my body which will be given up for you and this is my blood which will be shed for you more literally then many Protestants. Some Protestant groups (like Anglicans and Episcopalians) see it this way as well.

These are misconceptions that you will even see with some misinformed Catholics and those who aren't practicing. I am a rather recent convert, but I did research for many years before hand. In my RCIA classes they went over all this (which included reading straight from the Catechism) and they talked about these common misconceptions and how they are false, which is what I learned from my outside studies as well.

[Hephaestion]

I know EXACTLY what Catholics believe. I was raised in the Catholic Church and left when I was 30.

Dats what you tink! You may have lost fait' in God but he has not lost fait' in you. An' what's more, yer kids is ours too.

.

[darkeyes]

I believe that Catholic means "one".



It comes from the Greek Tenni..and means universal...

Many churches including the presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Orthodox churches use the Apostles Creed as a declaration of faith.. this recognises the devotion of the flock to the Christian faith and although the expression Holy Catholic Church is used, this refers to the universal nature of the church and the Christian faith and not any allegance to Rome and the Papacy..

I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell.

"The third day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

"I believe in
the Holy Ghost;
the Holy Catholic Church;
the Communion of Saints;
the Forgiveness of Sins;
the Resurrection of the Body;
and the Life Everlasting

I have heard it spoken at weddings but more at christenings and I do get some funny looks when I am silent throughout its rendition.. not bad for a little athiest hey?

[tenni]

darkeyes
Yes, and where do you think that the Church of Scotland got this Apostle's Creed?

"The apostles never heard such a creed, however, much less spoke it. We can trace the development of the Apostles Creed from the early rule of faith; so, we know it did not come from the apostles but developed later. In fact, Tertullian specifically mentions that his rule of faith is "somewhat ampler" than that given by the apostles (De Corona 3, c. A.D. 200). We also know that Rufinus wrote a commentary on the Apostles Creed just after A.D. 400"

The Church of Scotland traces its roots back to the beginnings of Christianity in Scotland, but its identity is principally shaped by the Reformation of A.D. 1560.

Therefore the Church of Scotland took this creed from an older Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox churches are sometimes called, collectively, "the Church of the Councils." They base the foundation of their faith on the seven ecumenical councils and, thus, they accept the Nicene Creed—formulated by the Council of Nicea and authorized by the Council of Constantinople—but not the Apostles Creed, authorized by no council at all until the Roman Catholic Council did so. It was formalized by the Council of Trent, but that was a 16th century Roman Catholic council, not accepted by the Orthodox churches. That Council was about the same time as the Reformation creating the Church of Scotland. (this is all cut and paste and if you disagree go google. Have fun)

Therefore it appears that the Church of Scotland used the Roman Catholic Apostles Creed version? To continue to argue that this or that splinter church from the Catholic church (all be it Eastern Orthodox or Roman or other form of Catholic) is mute and a waste of time/energy. None of the Reformation splinter churches date back much further than 1500 while Catholic Churches predate them by centuries. Clearly, other splinter churches did not believe that the Catholic Churches were universal (btw that meaning might be semantically argued but who cares)

What has The Apostle's Creed to do with bisexuality and religion?

[Jobelorocks]

Actually when I talk to my priest about things we use Catholic to refer to the universal church and that includes Protestants as well. We use Roman Catholic to refer to our group. They were also very clear about this when discussing the Nicene Creed with us in RCIA (which is Catechism and Confirmation classes all rolled into one for adults converting) when we say We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Nicene Creed is similar to the Apostle's Creed, but is substantially longer. If these two creeds aren't the very definition of what is believed by most Christians, I don't know what is. If you would like to read the Nicene Creed you can do so here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm .

[tenni]

Again Jobel we can see by comparing our perspectives the difference between pre and post Ecumenical Council of the 20th century. My thoughts and experiences about Catholcism predate these recent two (?) Councils. Interesting.

That plus my catecism classes were those given to a child in a brain washing approach. I also was the product of what was called "a mixed marriage". One parent Roman Catholic and one parent Protestant. This mixed marriage was frowned upon by priests. The non Catholic was expected to "convert" for the sake of the souls of the children. If the non Catholic converted the marriage would be acknowledged by Rome. Otherwise, the couple would be eternally living in sin. I was not educated in a Catholic School which was also frowned upon. Therefore my perspective on religion has no impact on my thoughts(well except huge Catholic guilt) on my bisexuality.

I'm guessing Jobel but you probably do not have what is called "Catholic Guilt"? ...lol It is the product of brainwashing about sin and right and wrong. It has been referred to similar as "Jewish Guilt"...lol The attitude that most of what you do is wrong even if intellectually you know otherwise. Add homosexual activity to the mix and you have a nice little guilt mess. ;)

[Jobelorocks]

Well I was raised in an Evangelical Fundementalist "non-denominational" Church which heaped on the guilt about things even more than what I see in the Catholic church. I don't agree with all the Churches views on sexuality. I think that many scriptures aren't put into full historical context and that some rules are more cultural than God's eternal laws. I think that God cares way more about how I treat others (with Love, respect, and charity. I do fail at this sometimes.) and what I do with my resources, then what I do with my genitalia. I agree with Catholic Theology and a majority of their morality, but there are a few things I disagree with.

The Church changes, like in it's attitude towards Protestants, which I believe is a very good change. I believe unity among the Christian groups is very important. The Church needs to continue to change as we gain more knowledge about different issues, like sexuality, or how they changed their mind about the firmament and how the universe is set up due to more knowledge we have gained through science.

[darkeyes]

darkeyes
Yes, and where do you think that the Church of Scotland got this Apostle's Creed?

"The apostles never heard such a creed, however, much less spoke it. We can trace the development of the Apostles Creed from the early rule of faith; so, we know it did not come from the apostles but developed later. In fact, Tertullian specifically mentions that his rule of faith is "somewhat ampler" than that given by the apostles (De Corona 3, c. A.D. 200). We also know that Rufinus wrote a commentary on the Apostles Creed just after A.D. 400"

The Church of Scotland traces its roots back to the beginnings of Christianity in Scotland, but its identity is principally shaped by the Reformation of A.D. 1560.

Therefore the Church of Scotland took this creed from an older Catholic Church.

The Eastern Orthodox churches are sometimes called, collectively, "the Church of the Councils." They base the foundation of their faith on the seven ecumenical councils and, thus, they accept the Nicene Creed—formulated by the Council of Nicea and authorized by the Council of Constantinople—but not the Apostles Creed, authorized by no council at all until the Roman Catholic Council did so. It was formalized by the Council of Trent, but that was a 16th century Roman Catholic council, not accepted by the Orthodox churches. That Council was about the same time as the Reformation creating the Church of Scotland. (this is all cut and paste and if you disagree go google. Have fun)

Therefore it appears that the Church of Scotland used the Roman Catholic Apostles Creed version? To continue to argue that this or that splinter church from the Catholic church (all be it Eastern Orthodox or Roman or other form of Catholic) is mute and a waste of time/energy. None of the Reformation splinter churches date back much further than 1500 while Catholic Churches predate them by centuries. Clearly, other splinter churches did not believe that the Catholic Churches were universal (btw that meaning might be semantically argued but who cares)

What has The Apostle's Creed to do with bisexuality and religion?

Tenni.. I wasnt trying to give u or ne 1 else a lecture just pass on information.. I know the history of the Kirk very well since it is a part of our history and I did go to school not so long ago.. equally I know of the schisms in the Kirk which has resulted in the formation of other presbyterian churches in this country.. the Protestant churches were inndeed formed during reformation but churches exist, such as the Orthodox and certainly the Coptic church from long before the 16th century and I believe that church considers itself the true heir to the early church.. mind u they probably all do.. the Apostles Creed as I understand it is a belief that the faith is universal, and that the church, in all its forms is truly catholic.. not Roman... but universal and is in truth but one branch of a family which is united in the general belief that Jesus died on the cross, and was resurrected to save us all..

That I do not adhere to the faith is well known, and don't particularly care what anyone believes.. that is their affair.. but what I find interesting is that so many religious people have so many different opinions and make so many different claims often quite heatedly about what is supposedly one faith... I see and hear it every day with the Protestant/Catholic divide in my own country and when I listen to and witness so much hate among people (in Scotland) supposedly of the same faith, it comes as no surprise to me that there is such suspicion and hatred of the faiths of others who are not Christian.. conversely, while there is some hatred to those of non christian religions such is the overwhelming hatred and bigotry between many in both the Catholic and Protestant communities, this is relatively small beer and those of other faiths tend not to be overly bothered by prejudice to the degree that occurs in the southern part of this island which suffers so much less from the cancer of Protestant/Catholic bigotry.....

Similarly, having heard and witnessed similar division among other faiths in my own country such as Shia and Sunni Islam I shake my head and to be honest am glad I do not believe in God....

[pepperjack]

Well I was raised in an Evangelical Fundementalist "non-denominational" Church which heaped on the guilt about things even more than what I see in the Catholic church. I don't agree with all the Churches views on sexuality. I think that many scriptures aren't put into full historical context and that some rules are more cultural than God's eternal laws. I think that God cares way more about how I treat others (with Love, respect, and charity. I do fail at this sometimes.) and what I do with my resources, then what I do with my genitalia. I agree with Catholic Theology and a majority of their morality, but there are a few things I disagree with.

The Church changes, like in it's attitude towards Protestants, which I believe is a very good change. I believe unity among the Christian groups is very important. The Church needs to continue to change as we gain more knowledge about different issues, like sexuality, or how they changed their mind about the firmament and how the universe is set up due to more knowledge we have gained through science.

Agree with you about comment concerning treatment of others;a favorite scripture I ponder and try to employ, but sometimes fail: " He hath showed thee , O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to deal justly,and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.

[elian]

Agree with you about comment concerning treatment of others;a favorite scripture I ponder and try to employ, but sometimes fail: " He hath showed thee , O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to deal justly,and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" Micah 6:8.

A lot easier said than done when you're all hopped up on "hormones" an' "emotions" an' such.

I also had a bunch of rather impolite things I wanted to say about "The Church" but I've decided to hold my tongue for once.. Getting angry doesn't really solve anything.

[pepperjack]

A lot easier said than done when you're all hopped up on "hormones" an' "emotions" an' such.

I also had a bunch of rather impolite things I wanted to say about "The Church" but I've decided to hold my tongue for once.. Getting angry doesn't really solve anything.

Exactly, Elian, which is why I said I have failed at times trying to put this into practice. Men will be men.

[npitt]

Well, I have a lot of friends who choose to be non practicing just because the religion they were previously, did not support their gender. And though that is a sad sight to see, they really have no control over it. What they could probably do is to still believe on that supreme being without having a label of what domain they are specifically from. Just something to hold on to, if you ask me.

[Jobelorocks]

Similar teachings to what the protestants use now were used BEFORE catholicism....Catholics did not come about until rome backed off on persecuting christians...the pope and all that WERE in some of the earliest of teachings but did not start appearing until after christians started leaving the catacombs...shortly after Ceasar himself converted and began the establisment of the holy roman empire...Or the Roman Catholic church......there were stages to it...

First base christianity taught straight from the original disciples of Christ while they began writing the bible and establishing churches...then the persecution began in extreme earnest pushing the entire movement underground..then they came to the fore and gave their belief system a government type structure and the name of catholicism. That catholicism is not even the same religion as catholics today as that group changed the laws and strictures over time.

Wow, not according to pretty much every reputable Historian. I never bought the whole underground church thing. There were heretical groups, but nothing like what you see in Protestant teachings today. How about you give me a groups name of one of these underground groups and then we can figure out what Historians say they actually believed. So I can either trust all of my History professors and books from College or you. What do you think I am going to believe?

When I was part of the Evangelical Fundamentalist group I was raised in this is what they taught. I soon realized as I grew older and did my own research, that Historians don't agree with this at all. It seems on par with conspiracy theories, which tend to be false.

I may sound mean, but this was fed to me all through out my childhood and early adulthood and when I found out it was all lies, I was very angry. I always knew that something was off there. When the outside secular sources tend to agree with the Catholic Churches account of how these things happened (meaning there were some heretical groups that all faded pretty quickly) then I am inclined to side with that. I trust the experts more than those who believe there was a renegade underground "true Christian" group that was around for over a thousand years.

[keefer728]

Jobe, you sound amazingly like someone else here.

[bigbadmax]

Keefer name that name, dont sit on the fence.......it has broken glass on it and will cut yer arse lol

[Jobelorocks]

Honestly I don't care who I sound like. If I am being sensible, then who cares? Sorry if I side with what the experts (Historians) have to say. If I have a medical problem I go to a doctor, if I have a financial problem I go to an accountant or a financial adviser, if I have a question about physical fitness I go to a personal trainer or other physical fitness professional , if I have a historical question I go to the historians. Experts tend to know best.

[darkeyes]

Sorry if I side with what the experts (Historians) have to say. If I have a medical problem I go to a doctor, if I have a financial problem I go to an accountant or a financial adviser, if I have a question about physical fitness I go to a personal trainer or other physical fitness professional , if I have a historical question I go to the historians. Experts tend to know best.

I agree, consult histories and historians Jobe.. but histories and historians have as many different interpretations and opinions as there pebbles on a beach.. some are even quite decent too.. some less so.. so we should always be careful about histories and historians and any who sets themselves up as an expert of any kind... historians are human beings and have the subjectivity of human beings however much they attempt to be objective... 5 scholars or historians studying quite the same historical document can, often with some justice interepret the meaning of that document quite differently from each other... as the ole sayin goes.. u pays ya money an' takes ya choice.. always be wary of histories, historians and experts...;)

Always approach what historians and experts say with a questioning mind and a healthy degree of cynicism and scepticism...:)

[Hephaestion]

"......Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah......."


Indeed the Catholic Church is ancient. However, if one inspects the aspects of Christianity, the indication is that the original induction was through the Orthodox traditions.

There are some key parts of the faith that are embedded in Greek e.g.
The Bible (O Biblos=The Book)
Genesis (I Genesis= the birth / creation)
Christ (O Christos = the annointed one)
Eulogy (Eulogia = the blessing)
Kyrie Eleyson (Kyrie eleison imas = Sire have mercy upon us)
Eucharist (eucharisto = thanks)
Martyrs (I martyres = the witnesses)

The Emphasis lays upon the term ROMAN Catholic Church indicating that it bestowed legitimacy and credbility on the invading successors to the rump western part of the Roman Empire.

Rome's true headquarters and the Emperor were relocated to the more stable and cultuired eastern part of the Empire i.e Constaninople (Contanino Polis - Constantine's City). The Roman Empire revelled in the culture of Greece. Historians have traditionally liked to re-lable this as the Byzantine Empire because a place called Rome was in the western part and Constantinople was predated by a town called Byzantium.

The history of Europe is driven by the mythical ambition of resurrecting the glory of the once unified 'Rome' and the so called Pax Romana (culminating in the 3rd Reich). Europe's identity is fuelled by the adopted embedded binding force which is Christianity and one cannot have more than one flavour of this. Conveniently, the east (and therefore Orthdoxy) is weakened as it falls to the Turk having been aided by the double dealings of the supposed rescuing Catholic brothers.

The Pope's supremacy was seen as a nuisance by many. Humility upon the religious side did not come easy in its fine tradition of war-ing barons. There were competing Popes at times. With supremacy comes tax and riches, comvenient for a broke king with ideas beyond his purse (Henry VIII). Despite this, Henry VIII remained a Catholic all of his life and the Anglican Church straddles Catholicism and Protestantism alhtough lumnpig with the latter.

Roman Catholicism was all about political power hence the schisms which have prevailed to this day. There is more likelyhood that Protestantism and Orthdoxy will join than the Roman Cathollic church and any others.

All of the criticisms made (and there are more unsaid), there are many brave and devout Christians in the RC church that have shouldered many burdens and difficulties in the pursuance of good for their fellow man. But history is history, just as the Greeks liked to play in the nude (Gymnastics) wear skirts and strappy sandals (nowadays swapped for pompommed clogs) and sodomize each other in their love for fellow man.

Skirts sodomy and strappy sandals - mmmm!

[keefer728]

"Always approach what historians and experts say with a questioning mind and a healthy degree of cynicism and scepticism" And when all else fails, Fran.....what, make the rest up? I would have to believe that you are joking. If you're not, just say you were.

[Light_and_Dark]

Wow, not according to pretty much every reputable Historian. I never bought the whole underground church thing. There were heretical groups, but nothing like what you see in Protestant teachings today. How about you give me a groups name of one of these underground groups and then we can figure out what Historians say they actually believed. So I can either trust all of my History professors and books from College or you. What do you think I am going to believe?

When I was part of the Evangelical Fundamentalist group I was raised in this is what they taught. I soon realized as I grew older and did my own research, that Historians don't agree with this at all. It seems on par with conspiracy theories, which tend to be false.

I may sound mean, but this was fed to me all through out my childhood and early adulthood and when I found out it was all lies, I was very angry. I always knew that something was off there. When the outside secular sources tend to agree with the Catholic Churches account of how these things happened (meaning there were some heretical groups that all faded pretty quickly) then I am inclined to side with that. I trust the experts more than those who believe there was a renegade underground "true Christian" group that was around for over a thousand years.

Umm..you forget the persecutions of the EARLY christians...before there ever was a unified church...ie when the christians experienced things like torture and being fed to beasts in the gladiator arenas. The cultural world at that time was NOT tolerant to a new belief system. Your post tries saying those things did not exist...and sorry but to believe that is to deny alot of written history. It was not a heretical group of christians it was the first group of christians.

The very first Christian church technically was the Church of Christ( no not the current one today it has no relation) the first Christian church was preached to and led directly by Christians...

[keefer728]

Oye Vey! The church was growing well before any formal establishment of it in the 5th century. In Acts 11 and v. 26 we see that they were "first called Christians at Antioch" Now that was in the first century AD, hundreds of years before the RCC, and the church was made up primarily of Jewish believers in the Messiah. During this time Paul was appointed Apostle to the gentiles while Peter was appointed a missionary to the Jews. Now, that's history.

[darkeyes]

"Always approach what historians and experts say with a questioning mind and a healthy degree of cynicism and scepticism" And when all else fails, Fran.....what, make the rest up? I would have to believe that you are joking. If you're not, just say you were.

I am not saying what you appear to think I am... but I am saying that there are almost as many interepretations of history as there are historians.. some are more objective than others, some approach a history from their own particular viewpoint laced with political, religious and moral constrictions and even outright bias, some quite appallingly corruptably so.. some with the blessing of the state and even written at the bequest and instigation of the state or of some vested interest within the state.. no history is or can be completely objective but it can be and sometimes is without doubt deliberately subjective, and a travesty of what was the reality.. so to the reading of history I say question what u read and read more and different... funnily enough.. it is not unknown or unusual for historians just to make things up... charlatans exist in the field of history just as they do in any other field of human knowledge and endeavour... no Keefer.. about this I do not joke... I question with both cynicism and scepticism where appropriate far too much what I am told about both present and past...

[Jobelorocks]

Umm..you forget the persecutions of the EARLY christians...before there ever was a unified church...ie when the christians experienced things like torture and being fed to beasts in the gladiator arenas. The cultural world at that time was NOT tolerant to a new belief system. Your post tries saying those things did not exist...and sorry but to believe that is to deny alot of written history. It was not a heretical group of christians it was the first group of christians.

The very first Christian church technically was the Church of Christ( no not the current one today it has no relation) the first Christian church was preached to and led directly by Christians...

I never said those events didn't exist, I just believe as Historians do as well, that they were just the early Catholic Church with the same beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church today. Just because they had a different name at the time really means nothing. What is important is what they actually believed. The prayer to saints for instance is documented as early as 100. Other beliefs that are thought as distinctly part of Roman Catholic thought were around back then as well.

You were saying they had the same views as Protestants do today, which you find is totally untrue if you read any of the early Church Fathers. They also believed things like Mary was without sin (no this does not make you a god otherwise Adam and Eve would have been gods before the fall). Protestant thought as you see it today didn't exist until the 1500's. Also Sola Scriptura didn't exist in the early Church because people formed the Bible. How can we be Sola Scriptura if men gave it it's authority in the first place. Someone had to decide what was Canon or not.

[Light_and_Dark]

Actually the catholic church of today is nothing similar to the beliefs of the catholic church during the founding...period...you argue that and i will lose respect. I am not saying that the protestant beliefs of today are the same as back then...never said that at all...the early catholic chuch(ie its first 300 years roughly) are the same as the early christian church. After 300 years the catholic church began changing its own doctrine nothing major at first but things began to landslide as europe moved into the dark ages.

No...the catholic church is a RELIGION as i stated in my first statement you argued against Christianity is a BELIEF. There are is a distinct difference, the first and second church were based on a BELIEF structure. The catholic and a majority of churches protestant or any of the other ones you want to bring up are a religion. I am not saying it is either right or wrong to be part of a church merely stating that the catholic church came from the original christian movement then evolved into what it is today.

I never bought the whole underground church thing. There were heretical groups, but nothing like what you see in Protestant teachings today. this statement you made right here brought my reply about your lack of belief.

[Jobelorocks]

Well, we have gathered many traditions along the way but the main beliefs have not changed. Christianity is a religion and a belief. Look at the definition of religion here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion . Also I do believe as we understand more we do make slight changes to beliefs, but generally these aren't theological and tend to be tertiary beliefs. For example that we used to believe in the firmament and eventually through scientific exploration we learned that was not the case.

There was in the early church prayer and honor of saints (generally martyrs during early Church persecution), literal translation of this is my body and this is my blood (the teaching was there even though we did not come up with the word to represent this teaching until later), and also you find such beliefs as Mary was perfect, and we even see apostolic succession (You even see this in Scripture. Acts 1:15-26 where Matthias takes the place of Judas as a new apostle.). These are all thought of as Romanistic thought ( even though you see some of these beliefs in other Chritian groups.)

I thought you were referring to what some believe that there was this underground "true Christian" church between the early Church and the reformation. Some don't recognize Roman Catholicism Christian at all, which would mean there was no church for over a thousand years between the early church and the reformation which is ridiculous. Some try to explain this away by saying there was an underground Church during this period which was the "true Christian" Church. This belief is totally false and any respected and generally accepted Historian will agree.

[Light_and_Dark]

see communications issue...but no a good portion of the core beliefs changed during the dark ages and previously...and no.

[funseekingcouple]

I came across this and was taken back by it. Lol to be honest I use to be a Sunday school teacher and my husband at one point was a youth leader. The bible not only teaches that to lay with the same sex is wrong but it also teaches that to even think to be with anyone but your own partner is a sin. As far as sitting on the fence? well most of us live in the flesh. How many times have we walked past a person or seen a image on TV or the internet and said daum Id like to bleep bleep bleep them. So what does one do in this ever changing world with religieon? Personally I believe in God, I dont go to church but I do read the bible and most of all Jesus is my savior. I have already realized I will always fall short in the glory of God. So I have to just pray that God will forgive me of my transgressions. But as the fence goes I cant deny myself atleast im being honest. how many Christians do you know that have thought about and wanted to do the things we do. Again to think is to live in sin.

[darkeyes]

Again to think is to live in sin.

I must have been about 8 and my primary school Head gave us a talk about sin and mucky thoughts.. or even just naughty thoughts.. now ole Jackie Fnacker Pants as we used to call her wasnt just a head teacher, she was also a lay preacher in the Kirk and what she told us is that the thought isn't the sin.. the doing is the sin.. it kind of stuck in me mind that lesson and have actually had it reinforced over time by several peeps who are devout members of the Church of Scotland and of the Scottish Episcopal Church... diff matter when I talk to RC's tho... dubble bubble for just the mere thought...

..all I can say is I must live one helluva sinful life if just thinkin rude an naughty means Fran is a bad girl... so I let it all wash over me and live me life tyvm...

[bigbadmax]

Maybe controversial but I had a post confession chat with my priest and firm friend when I was in the Royal Navy...(Fran will have read about him as he was maliciously accused of assaulting an off duty female police officer aprox
'98 in Scotland ...she came on to him and he pushed her away, saying he was a priest...well that's another story).

I asked him if it was a sin to have sex with a married woman who was sepperated and going through a divorce...so a tricky one to answer...he asked me if it was a "friend" asking and I said no, twas I.

He asked me what I thought and I stated that I had no remorse as we were consenting adults and if any sin was committed then it was sex out of wedlock...."well theres your answer then, as sin is only there if you know its a sin and you dont repent, which you have just done".

Now the main difference between Military priests and non military is that they are more exposed to certain situations and their confessional can often be a bar or somewhere public where standard priests will only absolve in the confesional.

not sure if this helps or hinders.

[Gearbox]

not sure if this helps or hinders.
It actually hinders! It hinders a great deal! I hope your happy now!:tongue:

10000's of cheating husbands will flock at my door after hearing this, demanding sex because they claim not to know it's a sin!:eek:
I've only got a few condoms left, and am already using baby lotion as lube!

That priest has a LOT to answer for!!!;)

[darkeyes]

Maybe controversial but I had a post confession chat with my priest and firm friend when I was in the Royal Navy...(Fran will have read about him as he was maliciously accused of assaulting an off duty female police officer aprox
'98 in Scotland ...she came on to him and he pushed her away, saying he was a priest...well that's another story).

I asked him if it was a sin to have sex with a married woman who was sepperated and going through a divorce...so a tricky one to answer...he asked me if it was a "friend" asking and I said no, twas I.

He asked me what I thought and I stated that I had no remorse as we were consenting adults and if any sin was committed then it was sex out of wedlock...."well theres your answer then, as sin is only there if you know its a sin and you dont repent, which you have just done".

Now the main difference between Military priests and non military is that they are more exposed to certain situations and their confessional can often be a bar or somewhere public where standard priests will only absolve in the confesional.

not sure if this helps or hinders.

For God' sake Maxie... in '98 I was still at school an then a student doin wot 18 yo schoolgirls an students do.. studyin' hard.. goin 2 students union.. partyin.. clubbin..pubbin... an "stuff".. not sayin' I didnt read boutcha m8.. am sayin' that 2 much wos happnin in me life for it 2 register...13 years ago is a long time... an 13 years ago.. I wos doin a helluva lotta luffin me neighbour an every1 else..:tong:

... k.. havta b honest.. everybody else me fancied that is....:bigrin: ..but am ashamed 2 say... after copious amounts of mind alterin' an addlin' plonk an cognac, the occasional spliff... a few normally I wudn touch wiv the proverbial 10' bargepole.. :eek:

[Jakentn]

I believe you can. I am very spiritual and active in my church. I understand that I am made imperfect and am to strive to be my best, yet will always be tempted. Much like any other sin we all may struggle with, envy, lust, etc. we must remember we are not perfect and are not expected to be.

[bigbadmax]

It actually hinders! It hinders a great deal! I hope your happy now!:tongue:

10000's of cheating husbands will flock at my door after hearing this, demanding sex because they claim not to know it's a sin!:eek:
I've only got a few condoms left, and am already using baby lotion as lube!

That priest has a LOT to answer for!!!;)

Dear dear my little gear, NEVER use baby lotion as lube....it feks the rubbers!

[elian]

He asked me what I thought and I stated that I had no remorse as we were consenting adults and if any sin was committed then it was sex out of wedlock...."well theres your answer then, as sin is only there if you know its a sin and you dont repent, which you have just done".


Hmm, that's a very interesting line of reasoning. So it's only a sin if you know it's wrong? Of course if other people tell you it's wrong, do you then know it is a sin?

This sort of leads back to the Kabbalistic idea that when people pray the creator doesn't listen to their tongues, but rather the creator listens to what is in their heart. Do people also have enough innately born conscience to know something "feels" wrong "in their heart" without being told?

[Gearbox]

Dear dear my little gear, NEVER use baby lotion as lube....it feks the rubber
:eek: I didn't know that! Shit!
Thanks Uncle Max.xxxxx

[æonpax]

The intention of my first post was to explain the theological basis for the Catholic objection to homosexuality, as I learned it in the Catholic Theology class I took. While it may be of little interest to most, it’s beats the explanation I used to get as a child being brought up in an evangelical Baptist environment, which was: because the Bible says so.

Now, when it comes to words and phrases, there is an etymological history to the words; Christian, Catholic, Catholic Church and Roman Catholic.

The first recorded use of the word “catholic” (Greek for ‘universal’) came as early as 1 AD and was used by lay Christians. The first use of the term, “Catholic Church” in an ecclesiastical sense, was by St Ignatius in the 2nd century, AD.

Up until 1054, there was no one official “home” for the Christian church but in that year there was a schism between the Western and Eastern church which was divided along the lines of the old Roman Empire. The east called itself the Eastern Orthodox Church with it’s headquarters in Constantinople and the west used the name “Roman Catholic Church” with it’s home in Rome. This name had to do with political, ideological and geographic difference and was not used as an official designation outside the churches hierarchy. To the lay, they were still Christians.

It wasn’t until the 16th century and the “Protestant Reformation” that the term “Roman Church” or “Roman Catholic Church” came into the common lexicon. It was actually the Protestant exegesists who popularized the phrase “Roman Catholic” which was many times used pejoratively or idiomatically to signify Catholics who owned their loyalty to the Pope in Rome.

In the modern common usage, Roman Catholic can be used interchangeably with Catholic and means basically the same thing. However, like most things, there are exceptions. For example,


there are/were many Catholics upset with the changes in their church brought about by the Second Vatican Council such as in the “Missa Ordo” (Catholic Mass) and the change from the Tridentine (Latin) Mass to “Mass in the Vernacular” (English for example)

the encyclical written by Pope Paul VI entitled Humanae Vitae which was a re-affirmation of the church’s teaching on birth control,

as well as other liturgical changes such as altar girls, female lecterns, communion in the hand, etc.

In these cases, those who call themselves Roman Catholics imply a preference to the Traditional Mass and rubrics, among other things.

[pepperjack]

Hmm, that's a very interesting line of reasoning. So it's only a sin if you know it's wrong? Of course if other people tell you it's wrong, do you then know it is a sin?

This sort of leads back to the Kabbalistic idea that when people pray the creator doesn't listen to their tongues, but rather the creator listens to what is in their heart. Do people also have enough innately born conscience to know something "feels" wrong "in their heart" without being told?

In the secular world if one inadvertently violates a law, unaware that the act is illegal, the police will say, " ignorance of the law is no excuse " and may pursue charges anyway. The Mormons believe that conscience is The Light Of Christ in the human soul.:2cents:

[pepperjack]

Hmm, that's a very interesting line of reasoning. So it's only a sin if you know it's wrong? Of course if other people tell you it's wrong, do you then know it is a sin?

This sort of leads back to the Kabbalistic idea that when people pray the creator doesn't listen to their tongues, but rather the creator listens to what is in their heart. Do people also have enough innately born conscience to know something "feels" wrong "in their heart" without being told?

An afterthought here; I once read a wise quote by author/humorist Mark Twain:" I learned one thing; you can't pray a lie."

[void()]

I came across this and was taken back by it. Lol to be honest I use to be a Sunday school teacher and my husband at one point was a youth leader. The bible not only teaches that to lay with the same sex is wrong but it also teaches that to even think to be with anyone but your own partner is a sin. Again to think is to live in sin.


26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/


If we are made in such an image, then is it that the image is flawed, or our thinking of the image? Obviously, many would say God is perfect. If so, being made in His image, we are as well. Then, along comes sin. God might be perfect, we could have been if not for sinning. We are told we can choose to sin or not. Maybe choice is the sin?

Many also say God is all knowing (http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm). I still argue against free will (http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will).

Yes we might seem to have the free will to choose. This does not mean God is not like us. In fact Genesis 1:26-27 says directly we are made like Him. So it is no mistake to deny omnipresence of God, He is like us, His word says so.

This is but one reason I left Christianity, blatant contradictions, being told I do not nor could not understand. How many different ways are there to read the same thing? A white elephant is a white elephant, a spade is a spade. And it comes back to Genesis 1:26-27, we're made in his image.

We're flawed. So, then it only seems correct to think He is also. We're made like Him.

Must go now.

[keefer728]

If we are made in such an image, then is it that the image is flawed, or our thinking of the image? Obviously, many would say God is perfect. If so, being made in His image, we are as well. Then, along comes sin. God might be perfect, we could have been if not for sinning. We are told we can choose to sin or not. Maybe choice is the sin?

Many also say God is all knowing (http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm). I still argue against free will (http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will).

Yes we might seem to have the free will to choose. This does not mean God is not like us. In fact Genesis 1:26-27 says directly we are made like Him. So it is no mistake to deny omnipresence of God, He is like us, His word says so.

This is but one reason I left Christianity, blatant contradictions, being told I do not nor could not understand. How many different ways are there to read the same thing? A white elephant is a white elephant, a spade is a spade. And it comes back to Genesis 1:26-27, we're made in his image.

We're flawed. So, then it only seems correct to think He is also. We're made like Him.

Must go now.

What is meant by the usuage of "in his image" is mans capacity to love. God is spirit, an ethos; in the Greek, ego. We can see this is the NT in 1 John 4 where it's said "we love because he loved us first" Simply meaning, as it is, it isn't simple, that in order for man to understand God's eternal love for us, it has to be that we are capable of understanding the love of God. And you make the mistake of assuming that you were a Christian, which many do. It is not possible for a Christian to leave, or lose his faith. You may have been raised in a Christian doctrine, but you can't lose something you never posessed to begin with. The Bible is the only book ever written, that can blind the reader, if that person does not come to it with a blank page in their heart and a willingness to have it written upon. For arguments sake, I defy you to find one contradiction in the entire Bible. You can't, because it simply isn't there.

[darkeyes]

What tosh you do speak at times, Keefer..

[tenni]

What is meant by the usuage of "in his image" is mans capacity to love. God is spirit, an ethos; in the Greek, ego. We can see this is the NT in 1 John 4 where it's said "we love because he loved us first" Simply meaning, as it is, it isn't simple, that in order for man to understand God's eternal love for us, it has to be that we are capable of understanding the love of God. And you make the mistake of assuming that you were a Christian, which many do. It is not possible for a Christian to leave, or lose his faith. You may have been raised in a Christian doctrine, but you can't lose something you never posessed to begin with. The Bible is the only book ever written, that can blind the reader, if that person does not come to it with a blank page in their heart and a willingness to have it written upon. For arguments sake, I defy you to find one contradiction in the entire Bible. You can't, because it simply isn't there.

Interesting perspective. I do wonder if you acknowledge that your belief system is not universally accepted by all followers of Christ? It is one interpretation that has some truth to it but I doubt that it would fit exactly under Roman Catholicism. I may be wrong though. It reminds me of the closed minded perspective of my childhood priests who stood at the altar and spoke of my Protestant school friends as non believers. Exclusion and stating who or who is not X is not love imo. Once baptised, a Catholic you are a Catholic. First Communion and Confirmation as a Catholic are just the finishing touches.(again I may be wrong as it was a long time ago) So those who are not like you Keefer are not Christian? Well, there you go Catholics are not Christian...:tong:

Unless ex communicated (not sure if it must be official) I believe that a Catholic may only go as far as to state that they are non practicing Catholics. The Church may find them in sin. I know that at one time if you did not do your Easter Duty that was very serious and wrong.

[keefer728]

Tenni; for one, I am not a Catholic. Two, I'm not a Catholics judge. Their faith should be in Christ, not the church. Now some will twist what I just said there.

[tenni]

Keefer
Again, I am on thin ice of my memory of Catholicism of a past era but "The Church" is Christ. The Pope speaks on behalf of the Church. It is simply your perspective and your Protestant Church's interpretation just as the Catholic procedures and beliefs are their belief about the Christian God and Christ. The Catholic Church is full of dogma and you seem to be writing dogma yourself? At best you are expressing a belief on this Christian love concept.

[keefer728]

Nothing dogmatic on the Bible, Tenni. I am a believer in the Bible far beyond what any church says. It is my idea to find a church that best represents the Bible and the teaching thereof. Personally, a non denominational evangelical church is what I am attracted to.

[Light_and_Dark]

If we are made in such an image, then is it that the image is flawed, or our thinking of the image? Obviously, many would say God is perfect. If so, being made in His image, we are as well. Then, along comes sin. God might be perfect, we could have been if not for sinning. We are told we can choose to sin or not. Maybe choice is the sin?

Many also say God is all knowing (http://www.parentcompany.com/awareness_of_god/aog12.htm). I still argue against free will (http://carm.org/questions/about-doctrine/if-god-all-knowing-and-he-knows-our-future-then-how-free-will).

Yes we might seem to have the free will to choose. This does not mean God is not like us. In fact Genesis 1:26-27 says directly we are made like Him. So it is no mistake to deny omnipresence of God, He is like us, His word says so.

This is but one reason I left Christianity, blatant contradictions, being told I do not nor could not understand. How many different ways are there to read the same thing? A white elephant is a white elephant, a spade is a spade. And it comes back to Genesis 1:26-27, we're made in his image.

We're flawed. So, then it only seems correct to think He is also. We're made like Him.

Must go now.

If you free hand a self portrait is not the portrait in your image? If you decide to change some things is the portrait different but still in your image? If you drew a picture of yourself and changed somethings like the color of your eyes(free choice to be your full potential or choose not to be) is the image itself not of you but not what is called a picture perfect image. To make us in his image is not to make us perfect but to make us appear to be him with the potential to be greater then OURSELVES. Most people see a contradiction there because they are looking to deep.

All knowing does not mean that he chooses for you means he knows what choice you are going to make before you make it...you are free to choose either way he merely knows what you are going to choose before you are ever presented the choice and yes even humans can do similar things..I do need to find a link to the story i read about a preacher showing that example to one of his members...Those things are not contradictions merely statements of knowledge.

[elian]

Once baptised, a Catholic you are a Catholic. First Communion and Confirmation as a Catholic are just the finishing touches.(again I may be wrong as it was a long time ago) So those who are not like you Keefer are not Christian? Well, there you go Catholics are not Christian...:tong:

Unless ex communicated (not sure if it must be official) I believe that a Catholic may only go as far as to state that they are non practicing Catholics. The Church may find them in sin. I know that at one time if you did not do your Easter Duty that was very serious and wrong.

Yes, they have a really good business strategy - birth control is forbidden and if you are born into a Catholic family you are Catholic by default If you just happen to not be baptized and you accidentally die you get to float around in purgatory for a while..

With respect to "omni presence" and "free will" - I tend to believe in a sort of quantum leap view of the universe .. that when a person is presented with a choice there are possibilities that superhuman presence could calculate out, but not a dead fixed timeline - unless of course in making the "wrong" choice we keep being pulled back to the same threshold to cross over until we improve ourselves.

Rabbi Kushner who I've quoted before (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124582959) seems to think that if God had to CHOOSE between being all powerful and all loving that he thinks God chose "All Loving"; that the divine is full of compassion, but either cannot or chooses not to interfere in the development of humankind beyond natural order.

The really off the wall stuff postulates that we were originally bred as intergalactic slaves, supposedly the fallen angels interbred with humans and gave humans powers they were never intended to have. Some even postulate that WE are those fallen angels, trying to learn how to stand back up again. I have to admit, being bi and all, the idea of being the "black sheep" sort of has a sickeningly seductive quality to it. I would much rather NOT be full of sin, but why should I deny it? I just hate the idea of someone telling me I'm full of sin simply because I choose to love another person..I guess it happens all the time, and not just to LGBT folks.

Other folklore I've heard is that long before you got here, you got to choose some of the events you would confront in this life and the lessons you are to learn. For me this isn't so hard to believe, if your higher self, your best self could truly see the patterns that exist throughout the world, could see your soul and what it would truly benefit from..why not have some input.. I'm not talking "gets a new car", I'm talking "Learns to live with a compassionate heart".

That's not to say that I like to see suffering in this world but it would be more tolerable to know what God has already said to me once, "I won't give you anything you can't handle."

Of course my 84 year old neighbor lady was a lot more devout, she could quote you a book, chapter and verse that corresponds to that saying without having to blink an eye. She is, I assume now up in heaven - her faith served her well I think.

Death is one of the major reasons people adhere to faith and recent events lead me to believe that although none of us live forever it is a blessing to celebrate a life well lived, a life lived with compassion and conviction - to live, laugh, love and learn with a grateful (graceful?) heart to the best of our ability is all that is ever asked of us.

[tenni]

Nothing dogmatic on the Bible, Tenni. I am a believer in the Bible far beyond what any church says. It is my idea to find a church that best represents the Bible and the teaching thereof. Personally, a non denominational evangelical church is what I am attracted to.


I'm just wondering but if two organizations(churches) who are followers of Christ and the Christian bible have differing perspectives /interpretations would they not be following a dogma of that particular organization(church)?

I don't know about Evangelicals but those that I have heard and referred to themselves as Evangelicals do tend to sound dogmatic. Maybe by being a non denominational Evangelical you are able to see through certain dogmas?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers.

[elian]

The problem with dogma is it limits human potential. If you ALWAYS go around thinking you are a wretched creature full of sin, that things can never change, you are lower than low and never able to even get close to being good like God then it's hard to learn to appreciate the positive power of the human spirit to encourage others and change things for the better.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, who am I to say what is "better" ?

Maybe that is why Christians celebrate Jesus so much, since I think of him as a historical person and an enlightened presence maybe it's hard for me to understand the metaphor that Christians place on him through their faith. It just seems sad because I attend church on the high holy days of the passion so it seems that they preach so much about his DEATH, but it is the example of his LIFE and what he stood for that I find inspiring..not his death.

[elian]

I would much rather NOT be full of sin, but why should I deny it?

..a long time ago someone programmed into me the idea that the less mistakes I make, the closer to God I could be.

As you might imagine it's been hell because human beings are DESIGNED to fail..that's how we learn. What a self-defeating prophecy to live with growing up. I would be a lot less neurotic if I could understand that I am worthy and loved by the divine just as I am.

[Hephaestion]

Only ever the "Orthodox Church" Aeon, not the "Eastern Orthodox Church".

.

[Gearbox]

..a long time ago someone programmed into me the idea that the less mistakes I make, the closer to God I could be.

As you might imagine it's been hell because human beings are DESIGNED to fail..that's how we learn. What a self-defeating prophecy to live with growing up. I would be a lot less neurotic if I could understand that I am worthy and loved by the divine just as I am.
You do come across as self persecuting you know?:eek:

'Designed to learn' isn't 'designed to fail'. How could it be, when it serves it's purpose?
Mistakes are just mistakes, and they are made by experiencing you as you are, here as it is. Your not supposed to be a perfect living God. What would be the point in that?:tongue:
What you could do (IMO) is to get rid of that fear and start loving who/what you are, before you ask God to do it for you.
Maybe that's what your here to learn? Maybe your here to make love to me?lol Either way it's never a bad thing to purge fear, so try that first.;)

[elian]

You do come across as self persecuting you know?:eek:

'Designed to learn' isn't 'designed to fail'. How could it be, when it serves it's purpose?
Mistakes are just mistakes, and they are made by experiencing you as you are, here as it is. Your not supposed to be a perfect living God. What would be the point in that?:tongue:
What you could do (IMO) is to get rid of that fear and start loving who/what you are, before you ask God to do it for you.
Maybe that's what your here to learn? Maybe your here to make love to me?lol Either way it's never a bad thing to purge fear, so try that first.;)

Good advice, I'll have to stop talking long enough to consider it properly. This time of year makes me sort of cranky. Thanks <hugs>

[pepperjack]

Good advice, I'll have to stop talking long enough to consider it properly. This time of year makes me sort of cranky. Thanks <hugs>

Elian, apparently you've never read Psalms 139:14, "...for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." Also, 139:16 " Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect." Speaks to self-esteem; context is quite nice also.

[keefer728]

I'm just wondering but if two organizations(churches) who are followers of Christ and the Christian bible have differing perspectives /interpretations would they not be following a dogma of that particular organization(church)?

I don't know about Evangelicals but those that I have heard and referred to themselves as Evangelicals do tend to sound dogmatic. Maybe by being a non denominational Evangelical you are able to see through certain dogmas?

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization. It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers.

Why would I, as a member of a church, want to dispute, doubt or diverge from what is being preached or the corporate beliefs of said church? There are tenants of the faith that are undisputable, as Christ is the Author of life and without a profession of faith in him, then one is lost and facing God's wrath. Where there is room for discussion are non essentials to the value of faith. One can argue for a young earth and one can argue for a long earth. That's just one example but it's not a value that would dictate ones belief in Christ or the doctrine held by the church.

[elian]

Elian, apparently you've never read Psalms 139:14, "...for I am fearfully and wonderfully made..." Also, 139:16 " Thine eyes did see my substance yet being unperfect." Speaks to self-esteem; context is quite nice also.

Thanks gear and pepper, it's easy to forget when you're exposed to too many of the naughty things in this world. I'm not really keen on 139:21-22, I think in human terms there's nothing to be gained by outright hatred of your "adversary" except blindness.

I had forgotten about this ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DODKTN3O2s