is it possible to be christian and bisexual?

[Resurrection]

is it possible to be christian and bisexual? I know the bible hates homosexuals and lesbians but is it OK to be bisexual and christian?

[canuckotter]

is it possible to be christian and bisexual? I know the bible hates homosexuals and lesbians but is it OK to be bisexual and christian?
The Bible also hates people who eat shellfish or trim their beards. Just a few sentences away from the "hate them thar faggots" bit, actually. :)

The answer: Yes, it's entirely possible to be Christian and queer (of any sort). Different branches of the church have different views on what sorts of things are acceptable, of course, and some churches would love to organise a lynching if they found out about a member being bi. Others openly welcome queer members.

Others can fill you in better on the theology, but the short version is, if Christ were to walk in your front door and find you having sex with a loving, committed partner of the same sex, he probably wouldn't care.

[TaylorMade]

Yeah.

According to Christian teaching, we are ALL sinners, and that's who Christ came for.

CO, most people will explain away that part by saying that it's in the OT, and a passage in Acts contravenes the shellfish thing.

*Taylor*

[shameless agitator]

Of course it is unless you're one of the Fred "God hates fags" Phelps type of christians

[the sacred night]

Actually, a lot of people don't believe that "the bible hates homosexuals" at all. A number of often-cited passages are unclear on the issue, for example the story of Sodom. The story, as far as it can be considered to involve homosexuality at all, involves homosexual rape, and so when the act is condemned, one could very easily argue that it's being condemned because it's rape, not because it's homosexuality. I don't know a lot of detail about the other passages, but I do know there are similar arguments about a lot of passages from the Bible. Almost every time the Bible even mentions homosexuality, it's an act of rape, ritual sex in cults, incest, or some other such thing that would be a sin even if committed by heterosexual couples, so one can argue that the Bible really doesn't say anything at all about a loving, committed relationship between two people of the opposite sex.

Then there are also Christians that don't believe the entire Bible word for word, but still believe in Jesus as their savior, and they might exclude the parts that they think make homosexuality look like a sin. Then there's the dispute about what constitutes "the entire Bible," since there are some books of it that are not used by some sects because they don't believe they are really part of what God intended to make up "the Bible."

[pcrunchy]

It's possible, but if you ask me it involves some serious mental gymnastics.

[TaylorMade]

It's possible, but if you ask me it involves some serious mental gymnastics.

Best. Answer. Evah.

*Taylor*

[julie]

is it possible to be christian and bisexual? I know the bible hates homosexuals and lesbians but is it OK to be bisexual and christian?

does the 'bible' hate homosexuals n lesbians?...

i just trust the underlying theme of unconditional love.. xxxx

[entropy]

I think the more interesting question to me is: Why would you want to be?

Not true of all christians, but it represents the belief of a lot of them: http://www.asafeplace.org/default.aspx?pid=2 . It's a faith-based camp for people to learn to live hetero lives. I can't help but think that without religion, they'd have no defense to the reason that they've created this psychologically abusive hell for good normal people who already have enough to deal with.

It's a logical fallacy to believe that religious people have more morals than atheists, and completely unfounded. I can explain why over history people would have looked to religion for their own sanity, but I can't explain what they would have done without it. If you were sick during the plague, the first place anybody would have gone to is a church to pray. Religion is a man-made delusion with no practical applications anymore, and we have enough science now to get rid of it, so let's.

[TaylorMade]

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Faith is one of those things that cannot be measured or put in a test tube, yet I (at least) can testify to it's power in my own life. To automatically dismiss it as impractical based on emperical evidence alone shows you may not have a full understanding of what faith is. It's personal and does not preclude intellegence.

*Taylor*

[izzfan]

Hi, how to be Christian and bisexual? Well, I personally do not consider myself a christian however I have grown up around christians and did religous studies& ethics as one of my A-levels [UK higher education 16-18] mainly for the philosophy aspects of it [gave up religon when I was 15-16]. Nevertheless, its a controversial area but many biblical verses about it seem to be taken heavily out of their original historic/social context. I mean one possible interpretation of the old testament thing about men not sleeping with each other is that it was originally intended to stop pederasty amongst soldiers and has nothing to do with consensual activity between adults of the same sex [someone told me this during a discussion of the subject in an ethics/philosophy lesson a year or two ago, don't know how true it is]. As for the new testament criticisms of gay/lesbian/bi people, they tend to come from Saint Paul [NOT Jesus!] and St.Paul's theology seemed to be very anti-sex in general [there are a number of theories about why this is but this is hardly to place to be discussing christian eschatology etc...].

I mean there is a joke letter that is circulating the internet [I saw it on this forum a while ago] which is addressed to George Bush or some leading religious conservative and it talks about how good the bible is at condemning gay/bi ppl and then asks bush/conservatives for advice about the bible. The questions are stuff like "I diligently give burnt offerings in my garden in accordence with [old testament verse] but the neighbours complain about the smell, should I smite them?" its intended to be humerous but it raises a serious point.... I mean many of the old testament rules have been viewed as 'outdated' or 'irrelavent' by most Christians - I mean technically you're not supposed to wear clothes of two fabrics, have a goatee beard [well, that's me damned to hell then lol] etc... perhaps the rule about bisexuality/homosexuality fits into this category of 'obsolete' rules.

Also bisexuality is present throught nature - so I would personally argue that total heterosexuality [kinsey 0] or total homosexuality[kinsey 6] are probably more 'unnatural' than bisexuality lol.

Entropy, just looked at the site you posted - its certainly disturbing reading. I dread to think of the psycholgical damage programs like that do. I mean, its basically putting people back in the closet. And being 100% in the closet is not good for you [I mean, I still have a lot of self-hatred about aspects of my sexuality. However this tends to be about BDSM fantasies (still mostly in the closet about these) and cross-dressing rather than same-sex attractions]. I mean all these camps/retreats do is fill people with a sense of internalised homophobia which can lead to all sorts of problems [drink/drug problems etc...]. Seriously, read this bit http://www.asafeplace.org/default.aspx?pid=19 this guy has some real issues (eg; self-hatred etc...) and filling his head with religious dogma and homophobia really won't help him.

Izzfan :flag3:

[nothings5d]

I think the more interesting question to me is: Why would you want to be?

Not true of all christians, but it represents the belief of a lot of them: http://www.asafeplace.org/default.aspx?pid=2 . It's a faith-based camp for people to learn to live hetero lives. I can't help but think that without religion, they'd have no defense to the reason that they've created this psychologically abusive hell for good normal people who already have enough to deal with.

It's a logical fallacy to believe that religious people have more morals than atheists, and completely unfounded. I can explain why over history people would have looked to religion for their own sanity, but I can't explain what they would have done without it. If you were sick during the plague, the first place anybody would have gone to is a church to pray. Religion is a man-made delusion with no practical applications anymore, and we have enough science now to get rid of it, so let's.

Agnosticism at it's finest.

Oh, I'm agnostic by the way...

[entropy]

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. Faith is one of those things that cannot be measured or put in a test tube, yet I (at least) can testify to it's power in my own life. To automatically dismiss it as impractical based on emperical evidence alone shows you may not have a full understanding of what faith is. It's personal and does not preclude intellegence.

*Taylor*

It's personal but it has real effects on other people and I think that my problem with it is that most religion doesn't have a healthy foothold in society. Your own testimony to your faith is just proof of what the belief can do for you, not that you believe in anything that's true or any unique benifit for society. Meaning, I think it's important to ask the question that if nobody had faith in religion would the world be a better place? Certainly religion has caused a lot of problems in the past, but it's also done unmeasurable good. My thoughts on it are just that society has moved beyond when we have to have supersticious beliefs in the supernatural.

Also, I don't think I challenged anybody's right to be religious with what I said, I just asked a question about why somebody would want to. I fully support however people making their own responsible, informed decisions regarding their social responsibility without religion being a part of it. I think you have to be able to prove why the principles and beliefs of religion are good without religion as part of your discussion to be a responsible believer. Religion however grabs a foothold with people in childhood, and hardly any of the people involved in it can have discussions about aspects of religion without pointing back to ideas they understood as children but live as adults.

[TaylorMade]

Actually, much of my Christianity didn't "come home" to me until AFTER I was an adult, along with general concepts like belief in original sin and forgiveness. I merely just nodded along as a kid, and never really understood.
What I've learned is that many who don't hold faith don't understand those who do because I think many who hold faith are starting with totally different postulates, so debates like this always get confusing and potentially hurtful.

Everyone needs an anchor. For some, it's faith in a Deity or something bigger than oneself, for others it's science and the tangible. For many it's a good even mix of both. You can call your anchor a buoy if you wish, but it's still an anchor. And that's why we need religon in all positive forms that we can allow.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

I think the answer most important to me is still that I think society can be even better without religion, and that the people who find it could find something more tangible that would be based on what they could defend without referencing an ancient publication. I'm not saying that religious people are more or less intelligent that anyone else, just that time spent defending religious ideas that you haven't decided to agree with based on the defense that you're going to present for it is time wasted in the first place. And no matter how you look at it, it's not thinking for yourself.

I will say though that I support people who use religion positively in their lives, since it's not the moderates that concern me. It's the lack of concern for realism in the fundamentalists that is really troubling.

my :2cents:

[TaylorMade]

I think the answer most important to me is still that I think society can be even better without religion, and that the people who find it could find something more tangible that would be based on what they could defend without referencing an ancient publication. I'm not saying that religious people are more or less intelligent that anyone else, just that time spent defending religious ideas that you haven't decided to agree with based on the defense that you're going to present for it is time wasted in the first place. And no matter how you look at it, it's not thinking for yourself.

I will say though that I support people who use religion positively in their lives, since it's not the moderates that concern me. It's the lack of concern for realism in the fundamentalists that is really troubling.

my :2cents:

I tried more tangible things... and honestly, they didn't serve.

And honestly, I believe alot of things that are indefensible. And I never gave a damn. To me, THAT is thinking for myself. People are free to believe as they wish as long as they don't do violence to me or my family, and allowing them that freedom without insult or censure is paramount in my mind.

*Taylor*

[flexuality]

Actually, much of my Christianity didn't "come home" to me until AFTER I was an adult, along with general concepts like belief in original sin and forgiveness. I merely just nodded along as a kid, and never really understood.
What I've learned is that many who don't hold faith don't understand those who do because I think many who hold faith are starting with totally different postulates, so debates like this always get confusing and potentially hurtful.

Everyone needs an anchor. For some, it's faith in a Deity or something bigger than oneself, for others it's science and the tangible. For many it's a good even mix of both. You can call your anchor a buoy if you wish, but it's still an anchor. And that's why we need religon in all positive forms that we can allow.

*Taylor*

Well put. :)

I like this:

"And that's why we need religon in all positive forms that we can allow."

I'll get back to this later....gotta run. :rolleyes:

[Moto1]

In my opinion, as that of an enlightened agnostic; Christianity and other religions based in part on what Christians call 'The Old Testament', have no grounds for calling homosexuality a sin. Here (http://www.box.net/shared/qytr3b6v3f) is a link to an article I came across a year or so ago, where these sections are scrutinised in some depth. It is not my only basis for my own interpretation of the Old Testament thusly, but I think you will certainly find it interesting!

[Solomon]

I think the more interesting question to me is: Why would you want to be?

Not true of all christians, but it represents the belief of a lot of them: http://www.asafeplace.org/default.aspx?pid=2 . It's a faith-based camp for people to learn to live hetero lives. I can't help but think that without religion, they'd have no defense to the reason that they've created this psychologically abusive hell for good normal people who already have enough to deal with.

It's a logical fallacy to believe that religious people have more morals than atheists, and completely unfounded. I can explain why over history people would have looked to religion for their own sanity, but I can't explain what they would have done without it. If you were sick during the plague, the first place anybody would have gone to is a church to pray. Religion is a man-made delusion with no practical applications anymore, and we have enough science now to get rid of it, so let's.

sorry entropy, gotta disagree with ya there. science has actually reached a point where they can no longer discount the possibility of a higher power.

the DVD ' What The Bleep Do We Know' explains this so much better than i possibly could, but i will say that it's not what most christians would believe, and yet it's the one and the same, at the same time lol.

[entropy]

When has science ever tried to prove or disprove the existence of god?

I don't really know what the movie talks about, but I do have a link (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2) to an interesting article that contains a lot of response written by scientific america to some of the things christians try to say to support ID vs evolutionary biology.

[FriedDuck]

i am catholic and bi.

[Solomon]

When has science ever tried to prove or disprove the existence of god?

I don't really know what the movie talks about, but I do have a link (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2) to an interesting article that contains a lot of response written by scientific america to some of the things christians try to say to support ID vs evolutionary biology.

i'm not sure that they were looking to prove or disprove the existence of god, but when they look down to a scale 10 to the negative 33 of a centimeter, and they see particles, the behaviour of the particles absolutely breaks the laws of the known physics.

particles can be in multiple positions at the same time, and completely entangled except when they're being observed. in other words a particle can be in three thousand positions (the EXACT SAME PARTICLE) at the exact same time, and when they observe the particle it reverts to one position.

have you heard of the double slit experiment with light? they've done that experiment with particles as well. what they found with that experiment is that particles will actually travel in a wave pattern, until they try to observe the traveling. then it travels in a linear path. if they travel at all.

but the thing is, is that particles are the building blocks of matter, and everything. how is it that these things are capable of being aware of being observed? what can the ramifications mean?

[entropy]

I looked up the Double-slit experiment on wikipedia and didn't find any information that supported that...

I did find thought a lot of theories for the behavior of the particles that was observed in the double-slit experiment.

Copenhagen's interpretation was introduced in 1927, and it's the most popular:


The Copenhagen interpretation posits the existence of probability waves which describe the likelihood of finding the particle at a given location. Until the particle is detected at any location along this probability wave, it effectively exists at every point. Thus, when the particle could be passing through either of the two slits, it will actually pass through both, and so an interference pattern results. But if the particle is detected at one of the two slits, then it can no longer be passing through both—its presence must become manifested at one or the other, and so no interference pattern appears.

[bi-robin-calif]

Well, yes, it certainly *is* possible to be Christian and bi!

Just so long as you realize, of course, that if you actually *act* on your bi tendencies, you'll spend eternity alternating a week in hell (for your homosexual actions) and a week in heaven (for your straight actions). :bigrin:

I find it extremely difficult to conceive of any kind of creator who would *create* you the way you are, and then condemn you for *being* the the way you were created.

Too many so-called Christians worship the violent, spiteful, capricious God of the Old Testament, as opposed to the kind, all-loving God of the New Testament.

And as far as those self-righteous hypocrites such as Phelps, Falwell, etc., here's a little story:

I once saw one of them on television berating gay sex. He said the worst thing about gay sex and what made it so attractive, is that it is more intense and feels better than straight sex.

Of course, the interviewer didn't ask the logical follow-up question: "How do *you* know?"

And if you *do* end up in hell, I'll look you up when I get there! We'll be in great company.

[canuckotter]

i'm not sure that they were looking to prove or disprove the existence of god, but when they look down to a scale 10 to the negative 33 of a centimeter, and they see particles, the behaviour of the particles absolutely breaks the laws of the known physics.
... not quite. The particles break the laws of Newtonian physics, even relativistic (a.k.a. Einsteinian) physics, but it's all perfectly normal for quantum physics. They still don't understand why things behave that way (more on that in a second) but they understand the what well enough for quantum physics to have a significant impact on certain aspects of technology, such as computer chip design. Understanding of the fundamental behaviour of these particles could lead to an understanding of the birth of the universe and potentially unlock the door to fabulous new possibilities, including some of the most ambitious wet dreams of science fiction writers.

Back to the question of why... There are some fun theories, ranging from variants of string theory to the notion that the universe is in fact a hologram. No, I don't pretend to understand these theories. I'm a computer nerd, not a theoretical physicist. But the point is that there's no need for God in any of it, at least to our understanding so far. Which isn't to say that God doesn't exist, mind you, it's just that there's been no evidence yet.

[canuckotter]

It's possible, but if you ask me it involves some serious mental gymnastics.
I'd disagree. There are plenty of good reasons to disregard those very few sections of the Bible that seem to be clear on the "fags is evil" stuff, and most of them boil down to the fact that people haven't been translating the Bible correctly.

And there are Christian denominations that have absolutely no problem with gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc. One of the largest churches in Canada is the United Church, which has been celebrating gay marriages for a long time now. My father-in-law's a minister in the United Church and I asked him about it one day... Basically, his response is that the whole point is love, not hate. Jesus never said anything about queers, but had plenty to say about passing judgement...

[FerSureMaybe]

Well, I'm a Christian and a bisexual, so I guess it's impossible. I agree with the mental gymnastics though. Sometimes it's hard for me, and I argue with myself about. Some days, I think it's a sin, and other days I think that God would want me to be happy as long as I'm not hurting anyone or myself. On the days that I think it's a sin, I just look at myself as no worse than someone that tells someone they're pretty when they look like another species. As for people that believe that homosexuals/bisexuals are damned forever and ever and ever..that's not true. Even if it is a sin(I don't think it is today), all sins are equal and have been paid for.

Yep.

[Solomon]

in regards to the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know?" i'm not a scientist, and even if i were i'd still have a hard time with trying to explain the specifics about what they're talking about lol.

and Copenhagen's interpretation doesn't seem to actually conflict with what they're saying, however it might be noted that Copenhagen's interpretation has also been accepted with variations.

however, on the DVD they don't just talk about the effect of quantum mechanics on a computer chip level, they don't get into alot of specifics (i'm confused enough already lol) but they also delve into different aspects of possible effects within the human body/ specifically the mind and how thought can create our realities, etc...

it's truly a fascinating thing to watch! they even approach the subject of how thinking can actually alter water crystals. apparently this was an experiment performed by Masaru Emoto, Ph.D. where he photographed water crystals being changed simply by thought.

what does this have to do with a supreme being? i'm not really sure, but given our limited abilities to understand anything i personally believe that god is well beyond our comprehension, so i would definately agree that a supreme being would in fact not be what we understand today, because i don't believe it's possible for any mortal to comprehend god 'course i could very well be wrong about that too as all things are possible...

i also love a line from a completely different movie "Meet Joe Black" in trying to fathom the creator "if you take infinity and multiply it by the depths of forever, you won't even come close".

And religions try to give god a personality/ gender/ etc.... I laugh my ass off at those presumptions! LOL!

oh... umm yes, i believe that being that all things are possible as it's written, it would be possible to be christian and bi.

[entropy]

It's just a belief that presumes what we don't understand came from some kind of god...

I simply don't agree, but we all have the right to our opinions.

[Solomon]

absolutely! everyone's entitled to their opinion, is fun to toss'em on the table an talk about'em i think!

one of my opinions is that it's not possible to not believe in a supreme being. i can be totally wrong about that, but all throughout history for some reason or another, people have always believed that there is a god.

i do believe it's possible to be totally pissed off and hurt at god and i think that atheists actually do that and that they're very possibly closer to god as a result, because they're not shoving it down, and they're very much accepting of science and new ways of thinking.

but even the top scientists like Einstein, and Hawking just to note a couple believe(d) in a supreme being.

can it be that atheism actually looks to science as being a god?

[entropy]

No, that's ridiculous and it's stupid to think.

I don't understand how you can say people can't believe in a god just because your beliefs are so strong, I certainly don't. As i stated earlier in this thread, the reason I think people have always wanted to believe in a god is it gave them hope, and they didn't care if it was true or not, it was there and they believed in it.

I can't believe that people actually think that there's nobody who doesn't believe in god.

[TaylorMade]

No, that's ridiculous and it's stupid to think.

I don't understand how you can say people can't believe in a god just because your beliefs are so strong, I certainly don't. As i stated earlier in this thread, the reason I think people have always wanted to believe in a god is it gave them hope, and they didn't care if it was true or not, it was there and they believed in it.

I can't believe that people actually think that there's nobody who does believe in god.

It's not an unreasoned hypothesis... like I said earlier--everyone has an anchor. You can call an anchor a buoy, but it's still an anchor. For some, it's reason, for others, it's science, for others, it's a Deity.

Solomon has left himself room to be wrong as well - - which is pretty openminded in comparison.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

It's not an unreasoned hypothesis... like I said earlier--everyone has an anchor. You can call an anchor a buoy, but it's still an anchor. For some, it's reason, for others, it's science, for others, it's a Deity.

*Taylor*

I agree with that, but I don't think it's ok to listen to everybody who tells you they don't believe and then hypothesis that they really do. I find things like that to be arrogant, in a passive way. It reminds me a lot of the people who don't listen to people who say they're bisexual, and then believe they're just fencesitting... etc.

[Solomon]

i'm sorry you feel that way entropy, 'couse everyone is entitled to their opinion. so am i.

[TaylorMade]

This is probably the most peaceful thread on religon I have ever read.

Awesome. :cool:

*Taylor*

[amika]

Call me simple, but I believe that the bible is a dictation of someone's perspective to guide you morally into right decisions or possibly having a repeat of an event. There is probably a lesson to having the bible as your guide, but I just don't get it. There are toooo many conflicting arguments and my brain becomes SOOO tired. So, I really on Jiminy Cricket as my personal guide of conscience! :bigrin:

[amika]

RELY! To bad Jiminy Cricket cant also be my dictionary-proof reader!!

[s_shunpike]

My personal opinion in this matter is that in attempting to answer the question "is it possibile to be christian and bisexual" we must first pull through the layers of organized religion to find the truth of Christianity. I personally don't know that this is entirely possible. I believe in God as a higher power, not sure if that is the God of Christianity, the God of Bhuda, or what.

I find it terribly distracting and confusing to see so many different churches interpreting the Bible in so many different ways and all proclaiming that their interpretation is the accurate one. I once asked a local pastor how that this can be - how can you be sure that your take on the Bible is right and some other churches take is wrong. There was no real response other than - because I believe it is.

So - is it possible to be Christian and Bisexual to me is much more than a yes or no question. This would be a matter of what YOU believe more than what someone else tells you to believe.

Shun!

[greg232a]

GOD IS LOVE it is people who hate anyone who hates you or me for the color of our skin or our sexual orientation is not a christian god hates sin but dearly loves sinners for god so loved the world that he gave his only son

[Solomon]

GOD IS LOVE it is people who hate anyone who hates you or me for the color of our skin or our sexual orientation is not a christian god hates sin but dearly loves sinners for god so loved the world that he gave his only son

hhmmm to quote myself, "if it's true that god created everything, and god is only good, then it must be true that all things are good".

yes god is love, and god is also hate, joy, happiness, despair, pain, etc... least that's what i think, of course omnipotence would be unimaginable to us, we can only see %5 of the entire light spectrum for goodness sake lol!

[gjmwbimale48]

considering the past history and current situation that that the catholic church is facing.... it had darn well better be at the very least "ok" to be Christian and bisexual or gay.....

one should rather ask... is it ok to be a pedophile and Christian?

I'm guessing that pedophilia is worth at the very least... a very, very long stay in puratory.... and i don't mean the town in colorado....

i think in it's original concept... a Christian is one that embraces Jesus Christ as "savior"

[TidewaterVA1]

Well, If you read between the lines in the Bible, Paul said when asked how he was so sucessful, he replied "I was everything to all". Bi has been taught within all religions since earliest times.

[zbar27]

undefined
I believe the central message of Christianity, as well as all other religions is love. So if we conduct our lives in a loving manner....and that includes good open caring sex then the earth and heavens will be happy.

[jedinudist]

I would have to say that there is only one way for you to obtain the answer to your question...

Ask your God.

Although I can not recall at the moment where in the bible it is mentioned, there is a passage where I think it was Christ talking to some Jews who were complaining that they were following the rules (shellfish, sabbath, etc.,) however some other folks (those gentiles again) weren't, yet he was ministering to them. The short version of his answer equates to:

"You do what I tell you to do, and don't worry about what I tell them to do."

Faith is a personal matter, and it can only be pursued personally between an individual and his or her deity or deities.

good luck on your journey :)

[darkeyes]

If it isnt then your Lord's work was in vain...

[CountryLover]

I'm Christian and bi. I've never had a problem with it from the first moment of my epiphany. There really has never been "serious mental gymnastics" involved at all.

Jesus said, "love one another". That boils Christianity down to the very basics, and that's what I base my faith upon. He didn't say "except those born on Tuesday, or if they're polkadotted or hottentot or hetero, homo or bisexual."

Love one another. A very simple instruction that's REALLY REALLY REALLY tough to live. That means you don't scream obscenities at the driver who just stole your parking space, or cheat on your taxes, or be rude to that new waiter who botched your lunch order. Loving one another means treating each other with kindness and integrity, putting their needs above your own.

It's a good rule for anyone to live by, regardless if you believe in a "higher power" or not.

[Nara_lovely]

How about checking directly with the head-honcho or honchette...(or honch-gender-non-specific)?

God (for whatever that is for each person), knows the soul, the emotions, the depth of thought, that which is in your heart. The real truth of who you are, who you are meant to be, and the why.

[entropy]

God (for whatever that is for each person), knows the soul, the emotions, the depth of thought, that which is in your heart. The real truth of who you are, who you are meant to be, and the why.

That seems to be a popular opinion, but all of the major religions state that the god they believe in has given them these texts that speak completely contradictory to that statement. Even though god is love, he is also supposed to be feared by people who don't obey him. I can't seem to get into the idea that if there was a god, that he would be the way he's portrayed in the various texts. I still have the opinion that religion had it's place back when we couldn't understand, and we were ruled by our fears of the world anyway, but as it is currently serves no purpose.

Why people want to say what you have in spite of religion just doesn't fit who I am. Does anybody still believe in the ancient roman and greek religions? Their stories weren't as convincing apparently, so other religions won out over time through political force, and persuasion.

[TaylorMade]

That seems to be a popular opinion, but all of the major religions state that the god they believe in has given them these texts that speak completely contradictory to that statement. Even though god is love, he is also supposed to be feared by people who don't obey him. I can't seem to get into the idea that if there was a god, that he would be the way he's portrayed in the various texts. I still have the opinion that religion had it's place back when we couldn't understand, and we were ruled by our fears of the world anyway, but as it is currently serves no purpose.

Why people want to say what you have in spite of religion just doesn't fit who I am. Does anybody still believe in the ancient roman and greek religions? Their stories weren't as convincing apparently, so other religions won out over time through political force, and persuasion.

I know of people who still belive in the Old Norse religons, which make less ostentable sense than even the Roman and Greek religons... so, where does that leave us?

Man by nature is religous...even if you don't believe in the concept of God, I'm sure there is something you hold sacred.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

There are things that I hold sacred, but not in a religious sense.

Believing a religion is sacred turns your own feelings against you. You start a battle between your religious obligation, however big that might be for you, and the idea of a social contract where the only responsibility is to do good for society.
Religion always fuses those two together, which is lunacy. People's decisions shouldn't be based on faith, aka belief in the unprovable.

[TaylorMade]

There are things that I hold sacred, but not in a religious sense.

I think believing a religion is sacred turns your own feelings for holiness into a battle between your religious obligation, however big that might be for you, and the idea of a social contract where the only responsibility you feel like you have is to do good for society. Religion has fused the two together apparently, and no matter how much they say it religion has no connection to morality.

For many in this thread, it doesn't appear to be a battle. You can be good without being religous, no one has said the opposite here.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

That's true, but I think it's because we've all seen the value in following our own hearts, and desires. I'm not sure if everybody is that enlightened, and the fact that the concept of religion is there for people bothers me.

[entropy]

Also, here's a story that I thought was funny a while back. Somebody in Fla has managed to create a following of people who believe he's the reincarnation of jesus: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/miami.preacher/ .

Their members get the tattoo of '666', and are convinced of his deity. Religion can do funny things to you.

[TaylorMade]

That's true, but I think it's because we've all seen the value in following our own hearts, and desires. I'm not sure if everybody is that enlightened, and the fact that the concept of religion is there for people bothers me.

Why? So long as they do not do violence to you, why should it matter? If it's judging you're worried about - -I hate to break it to you, some people will be judgemental/hypocritial/ate-up/pick your vice without a religous system helping them along. Eliminating religon will not improve humanity.


*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

Also, here's a story that I thought was funny a while back. Somebody in Fla has managed to create a following of people who believe he's the reincarnation of jesus: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/16/miami.preacher/ .

Their members get the tattoo of '666', and are convinced of his deity. Religion can do funny things to you.

And that congregation is actually pretty accepting of LBGT hispanics...

Religon CAN do funny things to you.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

There's a televangelist who says that if you want to lead a good life, then you should go back and look at how long you haven't been giving 10% to god and write this asshole a check. Not only does he think he's filling his religious responsibility by spreading the gospel, he thinks he's helping others to do it to by taking their money and buying a new church suv.

Religion shouldn't overlap common sense, or have any place in the discussions of our future. As long as religion exists, than responsibility to it will be there too, and we'll be doomed to not understand as much as we could about our own lives.

No matter how I look at it, I just can't see the positive side to religion.

[TaylorMade]

There's a televangelist who says that if you want to lead a good life, then you should go back and look at how long you haven't been giving 10% to god and write this asshole a check. Not only does he think he's filling his religious responsibility by spreading the gospel, he thinks he's helping others to do it to by taking their money and buying a new church suv.

Religion shouldn't overlap common sense, or have any place in the discussions of our future. As long as religion exists, than responsibility to it will be there too, and we'll be doomed to not understand as much as we could about our own lives.

No matter how I look at it, I just can't see the positive side to religion.

You're right, religon shouldn't overlap common sense, but for those whom it does, who is to say something else wouldn't take advantage of stupidity that sometimes lies within man? To blame it on religon is to ignore mans own failings and not allow him to take responsibility for his actions, which is what some detractors of religon says that RELIGON does... it gets kinda circular after a while, don't you think?

You're saying no one else should have religon because YOU can't see its positive side? <insert hyperbole to underline the rediculousness of your implication>

*Taylor*

[Long Duck Dong]

*puts on his hip highs and wades into the debate * lol

if we take the bible, we need to rip up the first half and throw it away.... jesus came to earth to remove the powers of the priests over man.... and that is the basis of the old testament, priests of god having control over man...

when jesus returned, by his actions alone, he showed the example that was to be set for the rest of the world..... he stated * let he who has not sinned, cast the first stone *... he then told the world that only thru him, could a person come before god.....and god alone, has the right to judge a person

what that is basically telling people, is that any person can have a belief in god or christianity....and god alone will decide the truth of their heart, and NOT the state of their actions......

the bible does tell that few amongst us, will witness the wonders of heaven... the simple reason for that, is not cos people have prayed or called themselves a christian.... but few has truly done what god asked..... don't judge, accept all, and live for god not live for god and change the world....

many of the worlds * christians * will say the age old saying * christians are not perfect * and thats true... but its also a excuse..... and I would love to see those christians stand before god and say, * its not my fault, I'm not perfect and thats why I ignored what you showed me, and I attacked and condemned and ridiculed so many people.....then screamed when they pointed out how unchristian my own behievour was *

so yes a person can be gay / bi / les / straight / trans and be a christian.... for who better to decide if they are wrong, then the god whom they worship...

no I am not a christian either...

[entropy]

You're saying no one else should have religon because YOU can't see its positive side? <insert hyperbole to underline the rediculousness of your implication>

No, I don't want to take away people's right to be religious. I just don't like religion, it's not like I'm going to go try and get a church torn down or anything. My right not to believe means that everybody else has the right to believe, and that's exactly how it should be.

[TaylorMade]

No, I don't want to take away people's right to be religious. I just don't like religion, it's not like I'm going to go try and get a church torn down or anything. My right not to believe means that everybody else has the right to believe, and that's exactly how it should be.


Then why did you say this?


Religion shouldn't overlap common sense, or have any place in the discussions of our future.

It sounds like you are making a judgement as to the value of religon without regard for anyone else's feelings on the matter.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

I mean that It's ok if your beliefs are religious, as long as you can defend them without religion and prove they have value in the real world. When saying "because as a faithful person i'm compelled to think...." rallies people, then that's a problem.

As to if I'm making judgments on the values of religion without regards for other people's feelings on the matter, well I am, because I have my feelings on the matter with which I'm speaking in regards to. Nothing I've said about religion has been a personal attack, or said in an offensive way.

[TaylorMade]

I mean that It's ok if your beliefs are religious, as long as you can defend them without religion and prove they have value in the real world. When saying "because as a faithful person i'm compelled to think...." rallies people, then that's a problem.

Who determines value, though? As they say in the islands, "Trash fi me, treasure fi you."

Yes, faith has done much to split parts of the world-- Indonesia, India, Northern Ireland, etc.

Faith has motivated (in part of in whole) alot of things of value. . .Dr. King in the 1960's (where the sociological value of the church in the black community at the time was not to be undervalued) the Dalai Lama and his preachings on peace all throughout last century and this.

Would these things have happened without religon? I don't know.

*Taylor*

[entropy]

The civil rights movement of the 60's was all about appealing to the human side of "the passive people", partly to the people in the church who condoned the demonstrations because of the violence that took place. In Dr Kings "Letter from birmingham jail" he appeals to the priests with his faith in saying that they are doing an injustice to his cause by not support the process that needs to happen to fight for it, when the same ones didn't condemn his movement.

I don't want to underplay the part his faith had on public support, but I think in the end it was the human side to people who gave in. It wasn't really a movement about religion even though it may have played some parts in it.

On the agnostic side of things, he wouldn't have had to appeal to the people in the church who controlled the church's influence if there was no church to begin with. Also, most white churches at the time were doing more harm than good to his cause by promoting complacency.

[Solomon]

LDD, i think you're on the right track, but the part about forgiving and all of that is more like don't judge others because it's also a judgement about you.

ie if i judge you to be weird, then on some level, because i've chosen to tell you that you're weird, then i must also be weird in my thoughts in order to understand the judgement.

we're comparitive beings, and i think that that was what Jesus was trying to get across.

I think that's what you were trying to say, just wanted to make sure i'm reading it right.

oh, an don't throw away the first half of the bible please, that's where proverbs, psalms an ecclessiastes is lol.

and btw, i do find it interesting that many people don't seem to realize that sacrifices were simply big bbq's lol.

[taz67156]

yes the Bible looks down on bisexuals also, but you cant help who you are and who you like. also remember God and Jesus love everyone and you can repent (appologize for all sins). the Lord understands and knows we are human because He made us. He will always love all of His childeren. the only perfect one is Him and He is the only one who is supposed to be perfect. I to am a Christian lady, and yes I am bisexual. if you have any other questions and want to talk to someone like minded you can email me here any time. :)

[sammie19]

yes the Bible looks down on bisexuals also, but you cant help who you are and who you like. also remember God and Jesus love everyone and you can repent (appologize for all sins). the Lord understands and knows we are human because He made us. He will always love all of His childeren. the only perfect one is Him and He is the only one who is supposed to be perfect. I to am a Christian lady, and yes I am bisexual. if you have any other questions and want to talk to someone like minded you can email me here any time. :)

Are you saying that bisexuality is a sin and that we have to repent it? Or acting upon it? Because I dont accept either premise. If because of acting on it I hurt someone then that is a sin, but otherwise it is good and I apologise to no one.

[julie]

LDD, i think you're on the right track, but the part about forgiving and all of that is more like don't judge others because it's also a judgement about you.

ie if i judge you to be weird, then on some level, because i've chosen to tell you that you're weird, then i must also be weird in my thoughts in order to understand the judgement.

we're comparitive beings, and i think that that was what Jesus was trying to get across.

I think that's what you were trying to say, just wanted to make sure i'm reading it right.

oh, an don't throw away the first half of the bible please, that's where proverbs, psalms an ecclessiastes is lol.

and btw, i do find it interesting that many people don't seem to realize that sacrifices were simply big bbq's lol.


Dear Solomon... i do love your Bible perspectives :bigrin:

your insights are always like a long cool drink on a very hot day for me :cool:

love Julie :female: xxx

[darkeyes]

and btw, i do find it interesting that many people don't seem to realize that sacrifices were simply big bbq's lol.

The human ones??? :tong:

[bi-robin-calif]

oh, an don't throw away the first half of the bible please, that's where proverbs, psalms an ecclessiastes is lol.

Not to mention Solomon... ;)

[JeanClaude]

:angel: + :angel: + :angel: = :grouphug: This question and a thousand others can drive any normal thinking brain to the fine line between sanity and its diametrical state of living..."insanity". Ladies and gentlemen...boys and girls...forget 'bout it. Concentrate on the single most important phrase that was drilled into your heads as children, for out of the mouths of babes comes your clearly defined answer. We as adults, which are nothing more than older children, need not concern ourselves with any of the negative input that clouds our judgement. If you can concentrate on just one "1" phrase that somehow seems to be overshadowed by "thinking" brains, long enough to remember what it meant... "God Is Love". There.... remember that?... for God IS love!

[entropy]

JeanClaude, so we should believe whatever was taught to us about religion as children and disregard anything that challenges it? Doesn't seem too reasonable to me.

[julie]

well I'm Christian and actively bisexual....

i certainly don't feel that God hates me... despite being indoctrinated so many times to the contrary by people who believe otherwise.

despite my confusion at so many Christian teachings and things i really do not understand.... i do feel unconditionally loved and affirmed by God...

Amen, Julie :female: x

[Long Duck Dong]

I love that, julie

your post is what i share with christian people....lol

it doesn't matter what the bible says, or what people say..... its between you and god..

man wrote the bible, not god... and as I has shown on the forum before, the original scrolls, never mentioned god calling homosexuality a abomination....nor did they mention homosexuality.....both things only appeared around the 19th entry....the king james version if my memory serves me correctly

i have never seen god sit down and write a letter to people, but i have seen cases where god spoke to the person directly.... and thats why I always say, it doesn't matter what the world says about you or to you, it only matters what god says to you

[Solomon]

The human ones??? :tong:

there are like one or two references to human sacrifices as being pointed to as an evil.

all of the rest of the references to the word sacrifice are in relation to a bbq.

[Solomon]

Dear Solomon... i do love your Bible perspectives :bigrin:

your insights are always like a long cool drink on a very hot day for me :cool:

love Julie :female: xxx

thank you, i'm very happy to share :cool:

[Solomon]

Not to mention Solomon... ;)

where better to find wealth and wisdom than the one that billionaires look up to. :cool:

[Solomon]

btw, i don't believe that the bible looks down on bisexuality, i think that alot of people find confusion with what's being said about sex in general.

one of the popular illustrations would be what paul said in his letter to the Roman church of the time.

Paul didn't even know Jesus, but that aside, the context of his letter is pretty much saying that paul's of the opinion that the Roman churches view of sex is a bit overbearing.

Paul probably wrote his letter with that in mind. So he would write it in such a way as to be indirect, about saying that the people that perform unnatural acts with each other isn't a problem which he does say immediately following that verse.

He wrote the letter well, so as to not be directly attacking the Roman church, and yet still get his message across in the best way so as to be influential without being attacking to the church.

[Solomon]

LDD, i think you're on the right track, but the part about forgiving and all of that is more like don't judge others because it's also a judgement about you.

ie if i judge you to be weird, then on some level, because i've chosen to tell you that you're weird, then i must also be weird in my thoughts in order to understand the judgement.

we're comparitive beings, and i think that that was what Jesus was trying to get across.

I think that's what you were trying to say, just wanted to make sure i'm reading it right.

oh, an don't throw away the first half of the bible please, that's where proverbs, psalms an ecclessiastes is lol.

and btw, i do find it interesting that many people don't seem to realize that sacrifices were simply big bbq's lol.

btw i hope there was no offense at my illustration LDD.

i'm probably the weirdest person i know, and i didn't mean anything negative by it

[bigregory]

Do people still read and believe the bible?

[Solomon]

Do people still read and believe the bible?

i do read the bible occassionaly. and i believe the bible, because even the bible says in numerous places "let those with understanding interpret".

as far as my interpretations of what's written... seems to different than most people's, i have no idea why. :cool:

[mikeh16842]

I have not posted much on this site....but here is my two cents worth.

I heard a saying once "Man made religion, God didn't". Who is God? Does he/she even exist? Nothing in this mortal world will ever really give up proof of this one way or another....until we die. Then and only then will we know what is real.

So I guess when I answer the question of “can you be Christian and Bisexual?”, that is a question that should be re-directed back toward ones self. Can you love your God and be bisexual? Ultimately, you and only you have to feel comfortable with how your spirituality and your sexuality co-exist with in you.

For me, my spirituality and my sexuality are not in conflict.

....that's my two cents worth! I know this can be a strange topic so I'm sorry if I offended anyone with this posting.

[Solomon]

i do have one question... how can man make religion if god didn't give him the idea?

[darkeyes]

i do have one question... how can man make religion if god didn't give him the idea? As I understand it God is supposed to give us free will. If we have free will, and are left to our own devices in deciding our fate, just how did God give us the idea?

[Solomon]

As I understand it God is supposed to give us free will. If we have free will, and are left to our own devices in deciding our fate, just how did God give us the idea?

flex had a struggle with this concept as well.

how did God not give us the idea and it's written that he knows our desires before we do?

i suspect the answer to both of these questions might lie within the theory of an infinate number of multiple universes.

whereas God would have laid out an infinate number of possibilities and we choose one at a time hence, we have free will, but he still knows.

And if he doesn't know, then he's not God and we don't need to worry anyways lol.

it does seem to contradict with accountability, but does it? it's written that God wants the glory for all things, and therefore must also accept the blame for all things.

because why else would we choose to follow the principles? for self harassment? 'cuz we shouldn't watch tv? lol

[rupertbare]

Yes!!
No qualification needed.

The whole point of Christ was to bring a fallen species back into fellowship with God. The Cross is the bridge across the divide.

"For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God"
Hey, that means all of us!!!
Sin can be defined two ways:-
1) The middle letter of "SIN"...yep "I" that "Me and Mine" attitude.....selfishness.
2) It is an archery term (New Testament Koine Greek) and the O.T. Hebrew expresses the same "thought" in it's root meaning and Biblical usage........missing the bull of the target....missing the mark.
Basically goofing up the Law of the Old Covenant.
The law was unable to save Humankind, just condemn it.
The New Covenant, that is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross frees us from the Law but the Holy Spirit leads us into a right relationship with God.

There are many social factors regarding the understanding of homosexual acts, although many on based on simple and good health grounds.

The Christian who is comdeming "gay" acts is often one having an extramarital affair or looking as S&M porn or fiddling his Tax etc., etc.............beware of the tree in one's own eye before pointing out the speck in another's.

There are many Christians who are gay/bi and take the stand of not having sex at all and yet others who live happily in same sex monogomous releationships.

This is an area that divides Christian groups and is therefore not helpful for the building up of the Body of Christ (The Church) and should just take a back burner.
We live in a world of war and poverty and social injustice on a global scale...they are the things we should, as Christians, be engaged in, where we should be getting our "hands dirty".

Ron, London, UK, a Bible believing Christian. :)
Pax Christi to all site users.

[darkeyes]

flex had a struggle with this concept as well.

how did God not give us the idea and it's written that he knows our desires before we do?

i suspect the answer to both of these questions might lie within the theory of an infinate number of multiple universes.

whereas God would have laid out an infinate number of possibilities and we choose one at a time hence, we have free will, but he still knows.

And if he doesn't know, then he's not God and we don't need to worry anyways lol.

it does seem to contradict with accountability, but does it? it's written that God wants the glory for all things, and therefore must also accept the blame for all things.

because why else would we choose to follow the principles? for self harassment? 'cuz we shouldn't watch tv? lol I struggle with the concept only in so far as I reject it as being man created just as God him/herself was in times long past when primitive humanity struggled even more than now to explain his/her place in the great scheme of existence. The primitive mind so full of superstition could not grasp how things came to be. We are still substantially unable to for all our level of knowledge of the cosmos.

But even if you are right in what u say and God knows what we will think before we do then that either means he/she is a mind reader which I suppose is as it is meant to be, or he decides what and how we shall think. On one premise it means as a mere reader of minds he cannot be given credit for our thoughts, or onthe other he has deprived us of free will. We cant have it both ways.

On the matter of multiple universes I think that to be a feasible theory insofar as they may exist..but I am unable to see how no matter the number of universes which exist this alters the basic premises I outlined above. It simply means he/she has either put things into our head thus taking away the free will of even more human beings than we thought or he reads the minds of even more throughout many universes.

God wanting the glory and taking the blame for all things seems to me to be a cop out by humanity, which wishes to excuse itself for its cock ups, and deprive itself of the credit for its own successes. And it was written by whom?? a thinking human being.... in my view without any input from an omnipotent being.

People follow principles for a myriad of reasons to do with culture, environment, upbringing and yes even religion. I am from a Judeo-christian culture with strong calvinist tendencies. I was raised as such. Much of my thought and beliefs are based on that because that is the society in which I was raised. But my parents taught me to think and question all things, and while my views of my own humanity are substantially those of a woman of my own culture, I have diverged from that upbringing and culture sufficiently to make me something different from what is considered the norm whatever that may mean.

Throughout every culture there are many strands which are common to us all and unite us. I argue that these are our basic human traits which for good or ill are instinctive and as we have become more knowledgeable and more reasoning, more a conscious part of our being. Throughout religions and cultures there are many things which seperate us. Some are because of the disparate spread of early humanity in the first instance in its struggle to survive and refined as the species became more numerous to take account of changed circumstances. Many, including the very idea of a God itself are the invention and betrayal of the clan by the powerful and the selfish, the protectors of the clan entrusted with powers by them for the good of all, and it is those which are the main cause of the worlds woes today. Unlike most Christians, I do not accept that mankind is inherently selfish. There are far too many examples of primitive peoples being quite the opposite and far too many human beings within our so called civilised society who are just so, imperfect as they most assuredly are. It is more a case of the ancient tribal leaderships creating that selfishness and greed to defend their position. We live with that ancient greed now, and once installed in the mind of humanity it is so much more difficult to erradicate.

I do not decry your personal beliefs in your God Sol darling quite the contrary. I treat them with the utmost respect, even if as a modern thinking and unsuperstitious human being I reject them. My attitudes to the world are shaped by at least many of the tenets of your religion if not quite all. I may have contempt for the idea of God and the church, and organised religion as a whole, but how can I have that same contempt for the general principles of a religion which has whether I like it or not to such a great extent, played a pivotal and important role in making me the person I am today... for good or ill?

I am only too well aware that this is a personal view of the world Sol, and as such being the thoughts of a human being it is not and never can be a perfect analysis of the case against a God. It is however at least as feasible, in my view even more so, though no doubt you will as ever my love take issue, than the idea of a supreme being.

[halifaxguy619]

is it possible to be christian and bisexual? I know the bible hates homosexuals and lesbians but is it OK to be bisexual and christian?


Thats like asking is it okay to be American and walking upright!


Both questions have to do with personal choice.


Forget Christian guilt because if you're bisexual and Christian,thats who you are,no ifs ands or buts about it.


If you're scared to be bisexual,you're scared to be yourself and that,above all else,is not right.

Being who you really are is possibly the hardest thing to do in the wordl today,but those who do it proudly are the ones who are the happiest with their lives..


Chin up,chest out and stand tall for who you are abd fuck anyone who doesn't like it......but not literally

[bi-robin-calif]

God wanting the glory and taking the blame for all things seems to me to be a cop out by humanity, which wishes to excuse itself for its cock ups, and deprive itself of the credit for its own successes.

I have a similar but slightly different viewpoint: I see most Christian sects as wntng God to have all the glory and credit for what goes right in the world, but they blame other people--especially non-Chrisitians or other Christians who believe differently than they do--for everything that goes wrong.

As far as some of the things that others have posted here, I don't wish to offend anybody, but I refuse to conform my behavior to what some 5,000-year0old patriarchal society decided what's right and what's wrong. As Patti SMith said, "Jesus didn't die for my sins." I am responsible for my own behavior, thank you very much.

So although it's very difficult not to do so when living in a nation full of so many religious hypocrites, I go my own way and live my own life, always trying to be kind to the people I meet, and comforting myself with the belief that if there is a God, he wants spiritual fruit--not religious nuts.

[entropy]

i do have one question... how can man make religion if god didn't give him the idea?

Well the way I look at it is that nobody would deny that religion was a staple in the lives of everybody back in those times of Jesus, and obviously long before that too. Since it was religion, or faith in nothing, people chose religion. Some people still think about it this way now, since the idea is so simplistic and helpful to so many people. I sometimes ask my friends aobut the greek and roman gods, and ask how those gods and goddesses never existed if they had all their stories and believed it.. Since obviously belief is proof for all believers.

Belief of god reminds me of when you think somebody is looking over your shoulder because you just witnessed them doing it and now you're paranoid. When you confront the person about it, the people around you can tell you that they've been doing something else but If you're stubborn enough then that feeling of paranoia is going to be proof enough that you're right. That reminds me a lot of the way religious people think about god, especially since there's no "audience" who can give an account to the existence of any god...

[darkeyes]

I have a similar but slightly different viewpoint: I see most Christian sects as wntng God to have all the glory and credit for what goes right in the world, but they blame other people--especially non-Chrisitians or other Christians who believe differently than they do--for everything that goes wrong.

Actually Robin we r closer than u think...its not just christians that blame people of other faiths...in Islam and Hinduism an many others the same applies.... it may sound a contradiction to what I said but if u think about it its not really. There is a schizophrenic aspect to human beings which freaks them out when apportioning blame!

[julie]

Do people still read and believe the bible?

i still read the bible sometimes bigregory. believe it?... hmm... thats quite a big step!

i read the bible with an open mind... recognising there is much metaphor and translation 'errors' and, perhaps most crucially, it is indeed written and edited by men with their own cultural takes and agendas.

what i do hold firm to though...is the underlying theme of unconditional love for everybody.

this is what i do believe in the bible...and this is only the truth which truly underpins my faith... the rest, for me, is open to debate.

:2cents: love julie :female:

[sunshine07]

Homosexuality
Homosexuality

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

Genesis 19:1-13
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.

Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Leviticus 20:13
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:32
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Timothy 1:8-10

Return to Main Menu
www.bibleverses.com

[sunshine07]

i still read the bible sometimes bigregory. believe it?... hmm... thats quite a big step!

i read the bible with an open mind... recognising there is much metaphor and translation 'errors' and, perhaps most crucially, it is indeed written and edited by men with their own cultural takes and agendas.

what i do hold firm to though...is the underlying theme of unconditional love for everybody.

this is what i do believe in the bible...and this is only the truth which truly underpins my faith... the rest, for me, is open to debate.

:2cents: love julie :female:

Julie,

While I agree that holding firm to the theme of unconditional love for everybody is the best thing...I still think that a line should be drawn somewhere.

[entropy]

sunshine07, I hope your first posts weren't to quote us bible verses on sexuality and tell us how to read the bible...

[bi-robin-calif]

Hmmm...haven't we see the tone of sunshine's posts before, under a different user name?

Sunshine, you're welcome to your beliefs, but *please* don't have the audacity and the bad manners to come into a forum for people of different sexuality and tell us we're going to hell for it. It's bad enough having to deal with it in the so-called real world--much less in a place that is supposed to be a haven for us.

So by all means, please enjoy the discussions, but leave out the condemnation. We've all heard it before, you're not going to change anyone's orientation, and you certainly won't win any friends. Just learn to play well with the rest of us children. :)

[biwords]

Julie,

While I agree that holding firm to the theme of unconditional love for everybody is the best thing...I still think that a line should be drawn somewhere.

Sunshine, I couldn't agree more! and that's why I hope you're spending lots of time witnessing to the others mentioned in the verses you quote -- the envious and the covetous, for example. In fact, you might want to take space here to describe your activism vis-a-vis those groups as well.

[darkeyes]

Well Sunshine.. thank you for a very "informative" little contribution.. and based on that we are expected to do what??? A text written by primitive and superstitious men thousands of years ago hardly frightens or convinces any reasoning modern human being.. it may however in the hands of the zealot cause immense harm to the lives of many human beings, but hardly encourages harmony and understanding between people does it?

I do not deny your right to believe whatever it is you do, but this is 2007 AD (ACE if u prefer) not 2007 BC (BCE if that is your choice). If you can only present your argument by quoting texts from scriptures which have done immense harm in their time then I pity you. If you are unable to argue your point coherently in your own words without any rhyme or reason then I condemn you for what you have done is merely parrot the ramblings of ancient bigots and proven that in this so called enlightened age their modern counterparts look and sound even more foolish than did they.

There is a common little cliche often used over here which can be applied to you with a little imagination.. stop opening your mouth and letting your belly rumble.

[kingme]

Sexuality is not a binary thing. If we assume it runs along a scale and those at the extremes are the unique ones. That being said the number of people who call themselves christian, muslin, hindu, jewish, etc. must include rather larger numbers of those that are bisexual, in thought if not in deed. So, sure it is not only possible but unavoidable.

[flexuality]

Homosexuality
Homosexuality

And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door. And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring [them] out of this place: For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the Lord; and the Lord hath sent us to destroy it.

Genesis 19:1-13

The above is about rape. Abuse. It is not about homosexuality.



Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

Leviticus 18:22
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit [them] shall be cut off from among their people.

Leviticus 18:29
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
Leviticus 20:13

These verses above (taken out of context I might add) refer to the foolhardiness of using man's wisdom above God's wisdom; or a more nuetral way of putting it might be using man's guess at truth as opposed to what IS truth. (This has NOTHING to do with the bible or religion)

The word "lie" when used here with "mankind" is translated from a completely different word than the "lie" used with "woman". The first "lie" (with mankind) refers to an allegiance, a kind of getting together and deciding what is true without any kind of wisdom behind it.

The second "lie" or "lieth" (with woman) is from a different word, meaning a connection to wisdom.

I believe that what Leviticus, in general, is getting at is to act with integrity, honesty and openess. That to do otherwise is to make one's own life hell.



For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27

Again, the above is out of context. The "cause" not stated in this verse is that these people were acting in an abusive way towards each other and this verse is a continuation of that and it describes the abuse. It is about non-consent and rape being wrong. It has nothing to do with any specific sexual orientation being wrong.



Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Romans 1:32

This is almost funny!! The above is part of the famous "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing.....which immediately follows the preceding verses. This is exactly what sunshine07 seems to be doing - JUDGING.

When we judge others, we are judging ourselves. Our beliefs are the only thing we have to "measure" others by. "God" is not judging us, we are.



Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11

The above really requires understanding what these words meant originally.

Fornicators - self abusers.
Idolaters - those who give power to "things", be it good or bad
Adulterers - Those who alter the truth, water it down, adulterate truth
Effeminate - soft, wishy washy, fence sitting
Inherit the Kingdom of God - be enlightened, understand truth, wisdom etc



But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

1 Timothy 1:8-10

LOL!! The above was written for people like sunshine07 who would use scripture to bash people with!



Return to Main Menu
www.bibleverses.com

I do not believe that the bible was ever intended to be a RULE BOOK, nor a history book. I also do not believe that God is simply a "super" version of people, sitting somewhere with a golf score card.

Darkeyes, you are absolutely bang on, in my opinion, when you say "however in the hands of the zealot cause immense harm to the lives of many human beings."

And that, I believe, is where organized religion has done the most harm.

~~~~~but, hey, what do I know?~~~~~

[biwords]

Very interesting exegesis, Flex 'n Sol. I imagine that the interpretation of much of this scriptural material is still controversial, though. And speaking of which, I'm really not sure about your reading of the Lot-in-Sodom passage. Lot says:

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof".

One reading of the passage is that Lot is not primarily concerned about rape and abuse (he's willing to give up his virgin daughters to the mob), but rather, about the loss of personal honor he will suffer for permitting the Eastern code of hospitality to be breached "under the shadow of my roof". Pretty primitive, but to me, all the more fascinating for that. I'd hate to think that this disturbing tale can be resolved neatly into one of those inane Canadian government pamphlets which solemnly inform us that yes, Rape Is A Bad Thing....

[Solomon]

what flex said

of course if we really want to accept the popular interpretation of Leviticus, then the first six or seven or so chapters of Leviticus describes as to how we're supposed to attone for these sins.... we hafta provide a bull or a sheep or fowl and dismember and cook it in a barbeque, it's actually very specific and bloody... enjoy! Not so sure that's a bad way to go actually, kinda love bbq's... :cool: :cool:

personally i'm sticking with way me honey broke it down. still doing the bbq's though... hehehee!

oh, and i'm not really sure as to why Paul wrote a majority of the New Testament, as he wasn't a disciple and in fact didn't even know Jesus, except through a vision.... now fancy that, what is the normal reaction of someone 'seeing visions' nowadays?

[Long Duck Dong]

mmm sunshine... you need to read the original version of the bible.... the translated dead sea scrolls.... homosexuality was never mentioned and nor was it a abomination.... those additions appeared in the king james version

it never fails to amuse me, how people throw the bible around to point a point and they don't realize that what they are quoting, is actually in correct


NASB: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
GWT: Never have sexual intercourse with a man as with a woman. It is disgusting. (GOD'S WORD®)
KJV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
ASV: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
BBE: You may not have sex relations with men, as you do with women: it is a disgusting thing.
DBY: And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination.
JPS: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
WBS: Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
WEB: "'You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable.
YLT: 'And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is].

ok the original verse...

"Kai meta arsenos ou koimEthEsE koitEn gunaikos."

simply translated to the closest meaning ( some hebrew words had multiple meanings ) as the hebrew word was spoken to people, so the meaning was made clear, however written in a book or scroll, it is hard to tell the exact meaning )

here are the 6 most possible ways of interpreting the verse

1. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in his own wife's bed.
2. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in the bed of the wife of that male.
3. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might a woman.
4. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as he might his own wife.
5. A man is forbidden to lay with a male as that male might his wife.
6. A man is forbidden to lay with a male in any bed belonging to a woman.

WHERE IS THE ABOMINATION PART ?? ... simple, it never existed until it was added into the bible about the start of last century

as i say to many people.... its a sad day, when a wiccan witch knows more about the bible than the christians that quote it

[Solomon]

hhmmm i don't think it's sad, i think that it's great that at least there's someone who knows the bible better than most. :cool:

[Long Duck Dong]

lol I can't say that I know it better than most....lol....cos there is so much i don't know..... but the ruling on homosexuals is something I studied, as I was curious how christians could love them as one of gods children and at the same time, tell them that they had no rights what so ever cos of one aspect of their lives

I have done the christian walk thing.... and watched as a group of christians worked together to support and protect a person that had sexually touched young school girls ( he worked at a school )... yet turn their backs on a gay person......that was close to the straw that broke the camels back.....

I confronted the pastor over that and I said why is it that you judge a gay person as against god, yet you support a person that has sexually interfered with girls... is it cos god doesn't condemn child molestation ??... is it cos its not in the bible ?? or is it cos is easier and safer to attack a group of people ( homosexuals ) that are already on the outer fringe of society ??
needless to say, I was asked to leave.....

I am not against christianity, lol... I dislike people that use it as a excuse to act towards others in a totally offensive manner but claim they are following the lead of a god that embraces and loves all, yet condemns so many... thats why so many seriously question * god *.... is it truly * god * or man acting as *god*

[julie]

The above is about rape. Abuse. It is not about homosexuality.



These verses above (taken out of context I might add) refer to the foolhardiness of using man's wisdom above God's wisdom; or a more nuetral way of putting it might be using man's guess at truth as opposed to what IS truth. (This has NOTHING to do with the bible or religion)

The word "lie" when used here with "mankind" is translated from a completely different word than the "lie" used with "woman". The first "lie" (with mankind) refers to an allegiance, a kind of getting together and deciding what is true without any kind of wisdom behind it.

The second "lie" or "lieth" (with woman) is from a different word, meaning a connection to wisdom.

I believe that what Leviticus, in general, is getting at is to act with integrity, honesty and openess. That to do otherwise is to make one's own life hell.



Again, the above is out of context. The "cause" not stated in this verse is that these people were acting in an abusive way towards each other and this verse is a continuation of that and it describes the abuse. It is about non-consent and rape being wrong. It has nothing to do with any specific sexual orientation being wrong.



This is almost funny!! The above is part of the famous "Judge not lest ye be judged" thing.....which immediately follows the preceding verses. This is exactly what sunshine07 seems to be doing - JUDGING.

When we judge others, we are judging ourselves. Our beliefs are the only thing we have to "measure" others by. "God" is not judging us, we are.



The above really requires understanding what these words meant originally.

Fornicators - self abusers.
Idolaters - those who give power to "things", be it good or bad
Adulterers - Those who alter the truth, water it down, adulterate truth
Effeminate - soft, wishy washy, fence sitting
Inherit the Kingdom of God - be enlightened, understand truth, wisdom etc



LOL!! The above was written for people like sunshine07 who would use scripture to bash people with!



I do not believe that the bible was ever intended to be a RULE BOOK, nor a history book. I also do not believe that God is simply a "super" version of people, sitting somewhere with a golf score card.

Darkeyes, you are absolutely bang on, in my opinion, when you say "however in the hands of the zealot cause immense harm to the lives of many human beings."

And that, I believe, is where organized religion has done the most harm.

~~~~~but, hey, what do I know?~~~~~

Flex and Sol.....

Yup, i'm with you all the way, as usual!... if only the 'zealots' would give the same studied reverence to parts of the bible that condemn judgement of others...

but that wouldn't be nearly so much fun, now would it?! :rolleyes:

grins...Julie :female: xxx

[12voltman59]

I can be bi and a Christian because I follow God--not a religion so I don't have to answer to "man" who not only puts human beings into a narrow and small box--but does that to God too!!!!!

So many people presume to know the mind of God--that is "man's" ultimate hubris!!!!!!

But God has a good sense of humor--she really enjoys that we are so arrogant and presumptive!!!!

She didn't make us to be mindless little dolts just going around and worshipping her all the time--she wanted us to live messy, interesting lives!!!

Like a good cook making a good gumbo--she put a whole bunch of ingredients and seasonings in the pot and allowed it to go simmer.


:tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

[entropy]

Flex, I can't agree with you more. I think christians love being active about their faith, it's just ridiculous what people are willing to do for it and regardless of what they're doing all religious people fighting for their faith seem the same... religion is weird.

[bi-robin-calif]

Well, she certainly accomplished her objective: a single post, and that's all anybody has talked about since! :bigrin:

[rupertbare]

This is SUCH a FUN thread!!!! Shame the person that started is unable to read these replies :)

As a Bible believing Christian......I hate religion and find it weird too!!! Same as Jesus the Messiah!!!

Read my earlier post on this thread about the "Speck/tree" in the eye stuff, the word SIN etc.

One can know a great deal about the Bible/Christianity and not be a Christian but one can also be a knowegable (that's mis-spelt isn't it?) Christian.

The HEART of the Bible is: God loves us, whatever!!!!!!
Jesus said that Loving God and Loving one's neighbour as one's self are the heart of the "Law".

Hatred, bigotry etc...have NOTHING to do with the Christian message.

As to whether one believe's in a personal God or not..........well like sexuality...that is up to you!!!

BUT my point is......YES!! One can be both a bi-sexual and a Christian. Look to God for the answers, not humans.

R x

[Vuarra]

Everything that the Christ said boils down to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Or even more succinctly, "Treat everyone else right."

I'm straight, with a bi wife, and she's going thru this crap too. Like someone else said, God's not keeping golf scores. If He is, I'm wondering what Hell is like, cos Heaven sure don't sound too fun.

[biwords]

Hi LongDuck, not to quibble, but I think the 'Hebrew original' you're quoting there is actually Greek, from the Septuagint (not sure of the spelling there, but it was an early Jewish translation of scripture from Hebrew into Greek, for the use of Jews not fluent in Hebrew). It would be interesting to consult an Orthodox rabbi and ask about the meaning of the original Hebrew. Don't have a Bible handy, but I'm not sure that "forbidden" and "abomination" are as far apart in meaning as you suggest -- either way, wasn't the act punishable by death?

[bi-robin-calif]

Rupert & Vuarra, I think it comes down to what people believe in: religion, or churchianity?

Do you follow your Prophet's example, or the laws set forth by his followers?

[flexuality]

Very interesting exegesis, Flex 'n Sol. I imagine that the interpretation of much of this scriptural material is still controversial, though. And speaking of which, I'm really not sure about your reading of the Lot-in-Sodom passage. Lot says:

"Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof".

One reading of the passage is that Lot is not primarily concerned about rape and abuse (he's willing to give up his virgin daughters to the mob), but rather, about the loss of personal honor he will suffer for permitting the Eastern code of hospitality to be breached "under the shadow of my roof". Pretty primitive, but to me, all the more fascinating for that. I'd hate to think that this disturbing tale can be resolved neatly into one of those inane Canadian government pamphlets which solemnly inform us that yes, Rape Is A Bad Thing....

The bible really isn't all that complicated...it's man's interpretation or misinterpretation of it that gets complicated. :cool:

[bi-robin-calif]

inane Canadian government pamphlets

Not nearly so inane as a US government study which determined, officially, that hazards are the main cause of accidents.

And it is official Alaska sate policy--set out in law--that emergencies are kept to a minimum

Meanwhile, Zaire has solved its rampant inflation problem (something like 1200% per year) by simply declaring inflation to be illegal.

Reminds me of another famous politician's announcement vis-a-vis Iraq: "Mission accomplished."

[biwords]

When I was a little kid someone told me that 75% of accidents occur near the home, and I asked why don't people just move, then?

[flexuality]

I was in a grocery store once with my son who was about 6 at the time and as we were heading to the door I said out loud....."now...where did I park...." and he looked up and said "outside?"

[Long Duck Dong]

Hi LongDuck, not to quibble, but I think the 'Hebrew original' you're quoting there is actually Greek, from the Septuagint (not sure of the spelling there, but it was an early Jewish translation of scripture from Hebrew into Greek, for the use of Jews not fluent in Hebrew). It would be interesting to consult an Orthodox rabbi and ask about the meaning of the original Hebrew. Don't have a Bible handy, but I'm not sure that "forbidden" and "abomination" are as far apart in meaning as you suggest -- either way, wasn't the act punishable by death?


I stand corrected, its greek lol....

according to a rabbi i did ask about it.... he referred to a scripture about how males should not wear their hair long....
he said that it is not right that a male tries to pass themselves off as a female
and so the verse refers to males that lay in bed with another male, as a female and not as two males

it was not unusual for a male to have a wife, and a male lover, but it was not accepted as ok, for two males to be joined in a state of marriage, as husband and wife

a male and female marry to join as one unit, a *completion * in a way that two females or two males can't.....so the verse was setting out the guidelines for the state of marriage or joining.... it never targeted homosexuality
but it is saying to keep the marriage bed sacred,

now it was not a orthodox rabbi that I spoke with, but a open minded one....

[biwords]

Yes, but the Orthodox are the ones who will tell you what the passage originally meant, the "open minded" ones will tell you what they wish it meant!

[Solomon]

Leviticus was written by Moses, but i think it was also written specifically for Moses and his Israelites. It's even said in the book a couple of times, that these laws are for Moses and his Israelites.

There's a couple of reasons that i can think of as to why Leviticus is so specific and full of regulation.

First one is that Moses had no experience with governing people, save for the Israelites who'd just spent forty years in a desert. I would imagine life had become a bit chaotic just to survive.

Secondly, the people that Moses was leading had to have been undergoing a real culture shock to be taken from the desert and into an encampment on top of a mountain top.

their bodies had grown accustomed to eating only manna bread, and they were all of a sudden in a setting that was full of animals and foods of all denominations. Not to mention that all of a sudden they now have laws to be governed by. Then there's the idea that in the desert these people would not have been very willing to part with precious water to bath, when they would have been more interested in drinking for survival.

I suspect that one of the reasons that men laying with men would have been not thought highly of would've been that they didn't exactly have access to a pharmacy back then that would have supplied things like anal lube, and condoms. Even now with those products, anal sex can be somewhat risky, and painful for those not accustomed to it.

anyways, i suppose that that's just one way to look at it... i'm not trying to say that it was translated correctly or incorrectly.... just submitting a possible alternative to how it could be percieved

[Seigun]

When I see posts like this, I find that the idea of discussing it is nice, but that I want to laugh when it becomes a debate about who's right and wrong. I had written something monstrously long in reply to this thread, but then decided not to post it because it might be more suited to a different audience.

I think there are general rules that apply to every relationship, including bisexual ones. I also think you must know yourself to the point where you know why you identify as something or other, and think on that. Lastly, because of a series of personal experiences, I don't think God cares much about it unless you're causing a problem for yourself or other people.

The world and audience of the Old Testament is different from the New; The world and audience of the New Testament is different from the modern world. Read everything in context, and decide for yourself whether or not something is bad for you. If so, don't do it, and try to keep to that.

If not, then be at peace, because peace is hard enough to come by without worrying about the genders of the people you truly love. (The issue of the modern definition of "love" is another issue, and one that is thankfully much more clear cut than this topic.)

[darkeyes]

When I see posts like this, I find that the idea of discussing it is nice, but that I want to laugh when it becomes a debate about who's right and wrong. I had written something monstrously long in reply to this thread, but then decided not to post it because it might be more suited to a different audience.



Thing about religion an ne discussion on it no 1 can say for sure who is rite or wrong.. matta of belief. An we neva find out until we r dead! An if me is rite...then me won know 2 cum back an tell ya, an if the believers r rite they won b allowed 2! :tong:

[sunshine07]

Call me simple, but I believe that the bible is a dictation of someone's perspective to guide you morally into right decisions or possibly having a repeat of an event. There is probably a lesson to having the bible as your guide, but I just don't get it. There are toooo many conflicting arguments and my brain becomes SOOO tired. So, I really on Jiminy Cricket as my personal guide of conscience! :bigrin:

The bible isn't a dictation, but the Word and promises of Almighty God...
"Believe in He that loves His child." ~His name is Jesus Christ~

[entropy]

sunshine07, that's your perspective and you're entitled to have it but don't come on these boards trying to impose yourself. You're time is wasted here because all you've done is show that you're a rude spiteful person... so much for christians being the guiding light of humanity, eh?

[Solomon]

The bible isn't a dictation, but the Word and promises of Almighty God...
"Believe in He that loves His child." ~His name is Jesus Christ~

It's not as if God wrote the scriptures on his wordprocessing program an e-mailed'em to Moses an etc... lol

So yes, in fact it would be a dictation if it's 'inspired' by God and written by man.

Oh, and his name is actually Jesus THE Christ... Jesus became a Christ, it was not in fact his name. Before Jesus became the Christ, he was known as Jesus of Nazareth.

They didn't actually start using last names until much later in history.

[flexuality]

Thing about religion an ne discussion on it no 1 can say for sure who is rite or wrong.. matta of belief. An we neva find out until we r dead! An if me is rite...then me won know 2 cum back an tell ya, an if the believers r rite they won b allowed 2! :tong:

But that's what makes it a great discussion...no one can be right or wrong! :tong:

And besides...it makes me think :rolleyes:

[shadowsaffinity]

the Bible certainly does not hate homosexual people. God loves everyone and i certainly believe Queer people have a special purpose for God. I go to the most amazing church and i HIGHLY recommend it to anyone. Metropolitan Community Church. they are all over the world. i go to Metropolitan Community Church of New York. we learn about God's affirming love for ALL people. it's the most welcoming, loving, wonderful place ever. i leave there feeling like i can really change the world.

www.mcccny.org

[Long Duck Dong]

The bible isn't a dictation, but the Word and promises of Almighty God...
"Believe in He that loves His child." ~His name is Jesus Christ~


the word of god as written by man..... hence parts have been added and changed in the bible..... the catholic bible, the mormon bible and a few others all show clear changes......if its gods word, that means that god is not consistent but changes his word to fit each group of people

jesus said it in a nutshell * nobody shall come to the father except thru me *... people that quote the bible and claim they are speaking the word of god, are reading the bible and talking, not listening directly to god and speaking, cos if they truly listened to god, they would hear god say *judge not my children, lest I judge you by the same rule *

jesus showed the world by example, the rest of the bible is in direct conflict to jesus actions... thats how I define the true christians, they are the ones that don't quote the bible or scream about the rest of the world according to the bible, but remain mainly silent and allow god to do the judging of HIS children

[flexuality]

Jesus also said "All things are possible."

Not some things are possible....not all things might be possible...

[Solomon]

the word of god as written by man..... hence parts have been added and changed in the bible..... the catholic bible, the mormon bible and a few others all show clear changes......if its gods word, that means that god is not consistent but changes his word to fit each group of people

jesus said it in a nutshell * nobody shall come to the father except thru me *... people that quote the bible and claim they are speaking the word of god, are reading the bible and talking, not listening directly to god and speaking, cos if they truly listened to god, they would hear god say *judge not my children, lest I judge you by the same rule *

jesus showed the world by example, the rest of the bible is in direct conflict to jesus actions... thats how I define the true christians, they are the ones that don't quote the bible or scream about the rest of the world according to the bible, but remain mainly silent and allow god to do the judging of HIS children

very well said. :cool:

Sunshine, you're obviously in the wrong place if you're not even curious about same sex relations, so i hafta really wonder if you're trying to use the scriptures to harrass and abuse yourself or what??

[allbimyself]

I'm amazed how this thread has survived so many postings and not devolved to a shouting match/flame fest (with a couple of irrelevant exceptions).

I live my life by one simple rule: "'Sin' lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All else is invented nonsense."

Obviously the word "sin" can be interchanged with "evil."

In that some could say I'm a Christian in that Jesus taught "Love one another" and "judge not," which is basically the same thing. Jesus also said (paraphrasing as best I can) "None may come before the Father except through Me." That may mean (as I was taught in the Lutheran cult in which I was raised) that one must BELIEVE in God to be "saved" or it could mean one simply must follow the teachings of Jesus, that belief is unnecessary. If the former is true and God really exists and is such an egotistical SOB, I'm going to be uncomfortable warm for a long time.

Anyway, I digress. My point, and I do have one (sorry, Ellen), is that I've noticed many here defending Christianity make this same point about Jesus, yet continue to debate other Biblical passages. To me, that seems a bit curious. With the blanket statements of "love all" and "judge not" what else matters? Certainly nothing in the OT and quite a lot of the NT.

Now, if we accept the premise of Jesus' teachings as those outlined above, religion is irrelevant. Rituals and interpretations of scripture are unnecessary, even counter to Christ's teachings. as those so often lead us away from those founding principles.

Now, to the OP's question "is it possible to be christian and bisexual?" It depends on how you interpret the word "Christian." If, as I have suggested, that being Christian means following ONLY the teachings of Christ, than I would answer not only "Yes" but that being bisexual would be helpful to being a true Christian. If, OTOH, you accept what the majority of so called Christian religions teach, than probably not.

[bi-robin-calif]

It depends on how you interpret the word "Christian."

And it also depends on what you're following: the lamp, or the Light inside the lamp?

[allbimyself]

And it also depends on what you're following: the lamp, or the Light inside the lamp?
Sorry, Rob, I find that kind of allegory dangerous. As we have seen demonstrated in this very thread, interpretation of such amorphisms is faliable.

[bayou_boy_2003]

yes, it is.

[Solomon]

allbi, in regards to interpreting the scriptures being unnecessary, to paraphrase a common argument for bisexuality "don't knock 'till ya tried it".

personally, i find interpreting the scriptures meanings to be very satisfying.

because for me i find that allowing others to constantly harrass me over this verse an that verse to be a bit annoying, especially if i don't have an understanding as to why those verses were put there in the first place.

if i don't interpret for me, then i have nothing to argue with myself as to whether i can agree with'em or not, so i'm left with ignorance. my own.

[allbimyself]

Sol, I'm sorry, but you have completely missed my point.

[flexuality]

Sol, I'm sorry, but you have completely missed my point.

I am confused then....what was your point?

You seemed to be saying that if one accepts only those two truths...."love all" and "judge not"....that "interpretations of scripture are unnecessary."

I agree with Sol, in that I also find it very satisfying to interpret scripture and I might add, not just those found in the bible.

I believe that truth is truth and the source is not important if it is in fact truth.

I also feel it necessary to add that neither one of us just goes and "looks up someone else's interpretation" and adopts that as our own. Neither of us go to church or any kind of bible study either.

I am not sure if this is making any sense to anyone.....

I really do love discussions about the bible, scriptures of all kinds, ancient beliefs, etc.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, nor am I looking to be convinced.

I can only say that I have gained a tremendous amount of (what shall I call it?) insight? awareness? that "now that makes sense" kind of thing? enlightenmnet perhaps? (I dunno...) from reading and gaining an understanding of the principles taught.

It has made a huge difference in my life. :)

[Solomon]

hhmmm on reading your post allbi, you're probably right about missing your point, such is the beauty of discussion lol.

i do sometimes take things too literally, and others not literally enough.

[Bicuriousity]

I've often thought the reason that religions were against homosexuality was simpler than all this.

If one is homosexual, it is hard for them to produce offspring and propagate mankind.

That being said I'm Christian and bi.

It really discourages me when people get turned off to religion because of a sexual preference.

But peoples judgemental nature is why people have problems with organized religion and any group of people that know their business like coworkers, etc.

[Solomon]

i think we're supposed to judge, it's the criticizing and condemning that the religions do that's the biggest problem. they're doing exactly what Jesus taught NOT to do!

Jesus didn't say don't judge for ourselves what we like an don't like.

But when religion feels this need to adopt it's "holier than thou" attitude towards people that include same sex relations in their lives then that's going alot farther than just judging for themselves and moving on.

that's totally AGAINST what's written in the bible to do.

Not to mention that Jesus never belonged to any religion.... so truthfully, i'm satisfied that that's an example worth following.

[allbimyself]

I am confused then....what was your point?

You seemed to be saying that if one accepts only those two truths...."love all" and "judge not"....that "interpretations of scripture are unnecessary."

I agree with Sol, in that I also find it very satisfying to interpret scripture and I might add, not just those found in the bible.

That's fine, never said you shouldn't. Just that I think it's unnecessary and often counter-productive to following Christ's teachings and being a Christian. Simply put, most of the problems we've attributed to organized "Christian" religion stems from someone's (mis)interpretation of scripture, and that if those interpretations were simply compared to the basic teachings of Christ, they wouldn't pass that litmus test.



I believe that truth is truth and the source is not important if it is in fact truth. "if it is in fact truth." Aye, there's the rub.



I also feel it necessary to add that neither one of us just goes and "looks up someone else's interpretation" and adopts that as our own. Neither of us go to church or any kind of bible study either.

I am not sure if this is making any sense to anyone.....

I really do love discussions about the bible, scriptures of all kinds, ancient beliefs, etc.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything, nor am I looking to be convinced.

I can only say that I have gained a tremendous amount of (what shall I call it?) insight? awareness? that "now that makes sense" kind of thing? enlightenmnet perhaps? (I dunno...) from reading and gaining an understanding of the principles taught.

It has made a huge difference in my life. :)Great! I'm all for that in the context you've given, i.e. you apply whatever principles you've discovered to yourself and your life and not use it to pass judgment on others.

[allbimyself]

i think we're supposed to judge, it's the criticizing and condemning that the religions do that's the biggest problem. they're doing exactly what Jesus taught NOT to do!

Jesus didn't say don't judge for ourselves what we like an don't like.

But when religion feels this need to adopt it's "holier than thou" attitude towards people that include same sex relations in their lives then that's going alot farther than just judging for themselves and moving on.

that's totally AGAINST what's written in the bible to do.

Not to mention that Jesus never belonged to any religion.... so truthfully, i'm satisfied that that's an example worth following.Exactly. Judge yourself, not others.

[darkeyes]

Exactly. Judge yourself, not others.

No??

Unbalanced - Edinburgh

[nyabn_webmaster]

is it possible to be christian and bisexual? I know the bible hates homosexuals and lesbians but is it OK to be bisexual and christian?

Umm . . . We have to say that we were pretty upset when we saw this topic because it STARTS with the supposition that God "hates" certain types of people, which no one of all the various religious persuasions around here think is in any way correct. There is a saying that "God don't make no junk" that would seem to apply here.

However not being biblical scholars, and other that knowing that someone seems to have been SERIOUSLY mislead on the religious and/or philosophical front, we weren't sure what we should say.

But these very nice people here at the Pride Church ( http://www.myspace.com/pridechurch) and their friends over at the Metropolitan Community Church (http://www.mccchurch.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home) do know what there talking about. So maybe you could consult with them about what Christianity ACTUALLY teaches, as opposed as to how different hate groups have misused and twisted the bible for their own selfish or downright evil ends over the centuries.

We hope that this will be useful to you because we are all certainly very concerned that you should have been so terribly wronged and burdened by some loudmouth bigots and their twisted ideas.

[entropy]

I heard a good quote last night... "If those are the people that are going to heaven, then I want to go to hell".

[Solomon]

nyabn_webmaster sorry to burst your bubble, but i consult what's written.

i am open to different perspectives, and interpretations, and there's probably people that have a better perspective than i do.

but i'm not following anybody without understanding for myself why i would, and yes that is written to understand, vs. just blindly following.

[oralplus]

With total honesty i very strongly suport the idea that religion should be kept out of the bedroom or where ever you enjoy sex. After all look at the performance of the churches. They all have been very "naughty" lol

[rupertbare]

Not to mention that Jesus never belonged to any religion.... so truthfully, i'm satisfied that that's an example worth following.

Errrrrrrrrrr???????????? I beg to differ.......but Jesus was a Jew and called a Rabbi by certain of His apostles. He also said that He had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So I guess that we can assume that He did follow a "religion".

And as for those who are fed up with folk quoting "verses" at them..........just remind them that individual verses should NOT be taken out of context or out of the cultral context that they addressed at the time. Clues to understanding individual verses are always gained from the surrounding context. In the case of the NT, seeing as the "Books" are often short, it is better to read the whole thing first and then pull it to pieces.

R x

[Solomon]

Rupert, with all due respect i direct you to Mathew 11:27 where Jesus himself says differently... i think his quotes although written by Matthew an ACTUAL disciple of his, are a little weightier than the descriptive words of his apostles...

and he didn't come to change the law or the prophets, he was to complete them Matthew 5:17.... not follow them, or change them, as he often was challenged when he did not follow the letter of the law... not following a law is not the same as changing it, as anyone who's gotten a speeding ticket can attest to lol.

at least that's according to the context of what my version of the bible says...

of course if by religion you mean that he followed what his father who's in heaven said as being a religion... then in that light yes he did

think what's actually being gotten at is that he didn't follow man's religion

[nyabn_webmaster]

nyabn_webmaster sorry to burst your bubble, but i consult what's written.

i am open to different perspectives, and interpretations, and there's probably people that have a better perspective than i do.

but i'm not following anybody without understanding for myself why i would, and yes that is written to understand, vs. just blindly following.

we are just programmers and don't pretend to be religious scholars, also not all of us here are even of the Christian persuasion, but we can use Google and look things up, that is why we included those links to those who are well versed in their fields

so here is another link to a very comprehensive essay by a well know and very respected minister specifically discussing this subject, point by point: What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian)

peace

[Solomon]

i didn't mean to sound unappreciative of the links, i do appreciate them. i liked what the author from your latest link had to say.... i might at some point in my life take the time to learn how to read the original scriptures as well.

but when i hear of many many religious leaders having such a slanted view of what's written in the bible, i really question as to how they're being taught at these colleges, and what in fact does it mean to be a scholar of the scriptures at any level of certifications?

so for me, i find that it's impossible to simply take what they say, because i can't trust that they're talking with an unbiased opinion. not that they're actively looking to lead people astray, they're probably not for the most part.

i think for the most part they honestly do believe what they teach... and i think for many of them, they have knowlege with very little understanding.

but like the author in the link pointed out, how many of them would be willing to say that they could be wrong in their interpretations?

and truthfully i believe that of all things in life, this is something to not get wrong.

but i'm not willing to learn it in the way that i think the colleges would have me learn it..... knowlege without understanding just to get a grade.... i won't do that.

[rupertbare]

Errrrrrrrrrr???????????? I beg to differ.......but Jesus was a Jew and called a Rabbi by certain of His apostles. He also said that He had not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it. So I guess that we can assume that He did follow a "religion".

And as for those who are fed up with folk quoting "verses" at them..........just remind them that individual verses should NOT be taken out of context or out of the cultral context that they addressed at the time. Clues to understanding individual verses are always gained from the surrounding context. In the case of the NT, seeing as the "Books" are often short, it is better to read the whole thing first and then pull it to pieces.



Errrr...............so what's your point exactly Sol?????????
Matthew (two T's) 11:27?????????? Jesus is not a devil????
Disciple/Apostle????????? The difference being what?????????
Matthew, along with the other two Synoptic Gospels used a collection of Jesus' sayings known as "Q", unlike John.
Jesus would often quote Scripture and then add "but I say to you..."

Surely the fulfillment of something is the acceptance of it's existance in the first place?

Sorry Sol, not trying to be a smart arse about this I just do not understand your post concerning my own earlier one (of several I have put up on this ever expanding thread)

All the best

R :cool:

[Solomon]

Errrr...............so what's your point exactly Sol?????????
Matthew (two T's) 11:27?????????? Jesus is not a devil????
Disciple/Apostle????????? The difference being what?????????
Matthew, along with the other two Synoptic Gospels used a collection of Jesus' sayings known as "Q", unlike John.
Jesus would often quote Scripture and then add "but I say to you..."

Surely the fulfillment of something is the acceptance of it's existance in the first place?

Sorry Sol, not trying to be a smart arse about this I just do not understand your post concerning my own earlier one (of several I have put up on this ever expanding thread)

All the best

R :cool:

i wasn't thinking you were being a smart ass at all rupert, i like being challenged on what i've learned with the scriptures so far, because i can be ignorant and a tad arrogant at times, and i would hate to pass that along to anyone unwittingly.

my point is that Jesus' understanding was above that of the Rabbi's and the apostles, they were his followers, not that he was theirs.

although it would make sense that he would need to follow them for a time, however given that he grew up in Nazareth and travelled extensively during his younger years according to Michael Ledwith it's also likely that he learned much of what he needed to know from his travels and Nazareth, for his teachings in israel.

i really don't see anywhere in Matthew 11:27 that refers to Jesus as a devil... perhaps you have a version that does talk about a devil?

a disciple is someone of whom Jesus taught directly, an apostle is someone who is sent out to preach the gospel. A disciple can also be an apostle, but an apostle isn't necessarily a disciple.

i'm really not sure what you mean by "synoptic gospels, or Q" other than to say that i haven't read very much of any scriptures that didn't make it into the bible, there were hundreds, although i have read some. One thing i am sure of is that Matthew was a disciple, as was John so in giving weight to what Jesus himself said, I believe the disciples gospels would be the heaviest.

and yes, when Jesus taught something that went against what was believed at the time to be God's law he would often start with "but i say to you..."

also yes, the fulfillment of something is to acknowlege the existance of it, but that is not necessarily the same as being a follower of that something.

[rutgerberit]

given our limited abilities to understand anything i personally believe that god is well beyond our comprehension, so i would definately agree that a supreme being would in fact not be what we understand today, because i don't believe it's possible for any mortal to comprehend god 'course i could very well be wrong about that too as all things are possible...

[...]

And religions try to give god a personality/ gender/ etc.... I laugh my ass off at those presumptions! LOL!

My thoughts exactly! As an agnostic I don't reject the possibility for a divine entity to exist, but I don't think we can neither prove nor disprove it for these reasons! I like to compare the idea of a god talking humans with a human trying to explain photosynthesis to a bug - maybe there is an entity out there trying to communicate with us, but we are on so completely different levels there's just no way to understand it. And a being capable off creating an entire universe billions of years ago and still be alive today would simply have to be that complex. And as far aas science is concerned, we don't know and haven't discovered everything yet, far from it! We don't even know how many possible dimension there could be, it's just too far out of reach to imagine! And things today that seem to prove the existence of a god - well, lots and lots of things have historically been taken as evidence for the existance of and/or action god(s) - such as fire, thunder, electricity etc, before we had the means to understand it. So science don't rule out god, but it doensn't prove it either.

So, religions are man made anyway and doesn't say squat about what any entity thinks or doesn't think. So of course it's possible to be religious and bisexual, and with regards to that .pdf posted, and other articles I've read (and like somone else pointed out), the Bible doesn't really says anything clearly about homosexuality anyway. The laws, for instance, might just be some guidance for how to keep yourself clean and healthy in an not so clean environment - cutting your beard may leave razor cuts that may get infected, sex during menstruation increases the risk of the transmission of some diseases, eating seafood in the desert is not a very good idea healthwise, etc etc.

Cheers!

[jntqtees]

The Bible, if you actually read it and believe, is a trail guide. The Bible was written by man, as that human, interpretted God's words. Is it interspersed with the writers own beliefs. The first testamaent is basically a history and a series of steps on how not to get poisoned by bad choices in cooking. The second testament is a series of steps on how to actually get to heaven. Does the Bible address bisexuality and homo sexuality? Yes, it does. However, were these God's words or the person writing them down?

My believe? Throughout the Bible, God has portrayed the message, love your brother as you would yourself. God did not say love a female or a male. He said Love. The meaning I take from this is to love without predjudice. Accept others without judgement. If your heart is good and your actions are good, then your soul is good.

Now, the down side of this is, don't FUCK everyone. Don't fuck because the opportunity presents itself. Be true in your mind and your heart. God made us to love everyone. Man or Woman be we Man or Woman.

And, I am Catholic.

[mizundastoodgal]

Personally I'm not christian...but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for those who are...yes, I even respect the crazy fundamentalists cuz hey at least they have enthusiasm and dedication. Doesn't mean I agree, but I respect that. I'm not much of a religious person in general, I'm more of a "who cares what happens when we die, focus on living" type of gal. I'm bisexual and proud of it, and I don't give two hoots and a whistle if some folks say I'm going to hell for it...at least I'd go to hell knowing I'd lived my life honestly and as a good person ^_^ On the brightside, if all bisexuals and queers in general are going to hell...at least hell will be one fun place! :tong:

[darkeyes]

Personally I'm not christian...but that doesn't mean I don't have respect for those who are...yes, I even respect the crazy fundamentalists cuz hey at least they have enthusiasm and dedication. Doesn't mean I agree, but I respect that. I'm not much of a religious person in general, I'm more of a "who cares what happens when we die, focus on living" type of gal. I'm bisexual and proud of it, and I don't give two hoots and a whistle if some folks say I'm going to hell for it...at least I'd go to hell knowing I'd lived my life honestly and as a good person ^_^ On the brightside, if all bisexuals and queers in general are going to hell...at least hell will be one fun place! :tong: A girl afta me own heart! Hav no religion wotever, an will life my life as I see fit, not as sum Holy Joes or ne 1 else thinks me shud!

[rupertbare]

Sol, sorry, my fault, read 12:27 by mistake (look it up and you'll see what I mean).

The Synoptic gospels just means Matthew, Mark and Luke that use a common source for both the sayings and miracles of Christ. This known common collection is given the title "Q" by Biblical scholars of the original languages and Septuagint.
The exception was John, who wrote/dictated his in Patmos during the later years years of the first century CE.

All of Christ's Apostles barring Paul where, in fact, also His disciples. It was only after an extensive exposure to Christ that he then "sent them out" (i.e. apostles).

Darkeyes :) Your English is getting to be far more fun to read. I trust you don't view me as a "Holy Jo" ;) but will have respect for my own chosen belief system to help navigate through this life.

From the Christian perspective (at least for those that still accept Hell as a possibility) Hell is the ABSCENCE of ANY good thing. So hell is not a fun place but a void of nothing except an awareness of self-existance, no company, no friends, no laughter et. etc. The fact of Hell is one of the most hotly debated theological issues of the day......how can a God of LOVE allow such a place to actually exist. Some believe that at The End God will just sweep up all the Love in the Universe and that Hell, in point of fact, does NOT exist nor ever will.

All the best to the best of you all :)

R x

[Solomon]

Sol, sorry, my fault, read 12:27 by mistake (look it up and you'll see what I mean).

The Synoptic gospels just means Matthew, Mark and Luke that use a common source for both the sayings and miracles of Christ. This known common collection is given the title "Q" by Biblical scholars of the original languages and Septuagint.
The exception was John, who wrote/dictated his in Patmos during the later years years of the first century CE.

All of Christ's Apostles barring Paul where, in fact, also His disciples. It was only after an extensive exposure to Christ that he then "sent them out" (i.e. apostles).

Darkeyes :) Your English is getting to be far more fun to read. I trust you don't view me as a "Holy Jo" ;) but will have respect for my own chosen belief system to help navigate through this life.

From the Christian perspective (at least for those that still accept Hell as a possibility) Hell is the ABSCENCE of ANY good thing. So hell is not a fun place but a void of nothing except an awareness of self-existance, no company, no friends, no laughter et. etc. The fact of Hell is one of the most hotly debated theological issues of the day......how can a God of LOVE allow such a place to actually exist. Some believe that at The End God will just sweep up all the Love in the Universe and that Hell, in point of fact, does NOT exist nor ever will.

All the best to the best of you all :)

R x

i do find it interesting that they refer to Matthew as being a synoptic gospel.... being as he is listed as being one of the twelve disciples.... i highly suspect that Miceal Ledwith would be very accurate with his theory that Mark and Luke more than likely copied Matthew's gospel.

Actually rupert, the only disciples that were also apostles that made it into the canon (bible) were in fact Matthew, Peter, James, and John according the list of twelve disciples found in Matthew 10:2-4. Paul, Mark, Luke, Timothy, and whoever else wrote in the New Testament didn't even know Jesus, they took their accounts second hand. or as in Paul's case didn't even describe anything to do with Jesus exept through a vision.

and i don't believe that hell exists either at least if it does, it's nothing as we've been told so far.... nowhere in the texts does it refer to "hell" as being anything more than a place of burial.

and i did look up 12:27 lol.... i can see where that would be confusing :cool:

[darkeyes]

Darkeyes :) Your English is getting to be far more fun to read. I trust you don't view me as a "Holy Jo" ;) but will have respect for my own chosen belief system to help navigate through this life.



R x


Rupert if ya read more of anything Ive written u will know that me respects the religious beliefs of most peeps an their right to hold em, an will fight 2 the end 2 allow them 2 hav those beliefs.. When me uses the term "Holy Joes" isnt most peeps me gettin at, but the arseholes who r so certain of their way bein the rite 1, and rams it down every1 elses throat an wud c us in hell if we don accept ther way! Not jus the so called religous right of the US but any freaky view of ne religion, an include in that the craziness of much of the equivalent Islamic certainty.

Equally, while me don believe in a God or Gods..hate the certainties of freaky athiests who pour scorn an contempt on those who hav genuine religious belief. While me certain their is no God an no afta life or paradise to aspire 2 am prepared to be wrong..but how the hell am I gonna find out without snuffin it??? An if me right me not gonna know ne way.

Interestin thing tho Rupert an Sol may hav an inklin of this 2..any of ya religie types... wen at school, sum minister of the Kirk at an Easter service made sum comment bout wen we die, we may go 2 heaven.. but conciousness of our earthly life fades and disappears.. if that the case..me won b able 2 know the question then cos will know nowt but the ansa... an ther is nuthin worse than ansas wivout questions! Me jus 2 curious bout things....

Finally sweetie... my writin is always fun 2 read.. not always in English..but fun!

Glad 2 see u on the mend 2. x

[izzfan]

RupertBare... synoptic gospels and 'Q' sources? Its' my A-level Religious studies course all over again...aaargh!!! lol :eek:

Yeah, historical and social context is EXTREMELY important when looking at the bible [or any other religious text for that matter.... but that's a different debate lol] because taking things out of context ALWAYS leads to problems and conflict. As for Jesus and religion, I think there is at least one verse in the bible that refers to him as 'Rabbi' [which means 'teacher' in Hebrew... I think.... correct me if I'm wrong on this] however the term probably didn't have the same connotations of religious leadership it has in the modern Jewish community.

It is also important to remeber that the bible was written by people [whether it was divinely inspired is a whole different debate] and it wasn;'t even compiled into a single book until a couple of centuries after Jesus' death (hence why you have numerous gospels that aren't in the bible such as the recently discovered 'Gospel of Judas' or the Gospel of St.Thomas etc...) . Even then it wasn't until the 16th/17th century that it was allowed to be translated into English (eg; King James Bible) [previously many bibles used in the UK were in latin]. At the end of this long process, the original message is bound to have been distorted slightly. And then you have the whole debate about which translations of the bible are the most 'reliable' or 'accurate' as there are numerous translations (NIV, KJV, NKJV,GNB etc...).

As for Jesus and religous law, there is a huge debate about this and some have seen him as trying to abolish the old testament laws wheras others argue that he is merely providing an interpretation of them. To be honest, its a debate that doesn't have a 'right' or 'wrong' answer - just numerous viewpoints and theories.

As for Christianity and homosexuality/bisexuality, many of the verses about it are taken well and truly out of context and have no relavence to consensual sex between same-sex adults [I've discussed this in my earlier post near the start of this thread].

Just my :2cents:

Izzfan :flag3:

[bi-robin-calif]

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbors who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there different degrees of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Robin

[darkeyes]

Will say Robin your last post gave me a good giggle. Sowwy religies but couldnt help it... dus make ya ask lotsa questions bout scripture! An whether ya religious or not thats a gud thing!

[hudson9]

It's possible, but if you ask me it involves some serious mental gymnastics.
The mental gymnastics required aren't any more difficult than those required to view Genesis 1 as metaphore rather than scientific text (although, I will grant that there are many people for whom this seems to be beyond their capacity).

I would also point out that Jesus healed on the Sabath (considered a "sin" by the legalisticlly-obsessed pharasees), and welcomed tax collectors, lepers (who were supposed to be shunned by the "clean"), "women of ill repute", and "adulterers" into his presence. Confronting a crowd that was about to stone an "adultress" (according to rabinical law as interpreted at the time), he admonished them that "he who is without sin cast the first stone."

All that Jesus required was that you "Love God with all your heart... and love your neighbor as yourself." It is entirely possible to do that while being bisexual, gay, or even straight.

[flexuality]

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbors who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10 - it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there different degrees of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I wear glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Robin

Dear Robin,

In answer to your request for advice concerning God's Laws, let me first summarize and say that it looks like you may have to be stoned.

1. Slaves: You may in fact own Canadian slaves as long as they are imported from countries other than Canada on a Tuesday between the hours of 0800 and 1200.

2. A fair price for your daughter would be 3 sets of testicles, one of which must come from the purchaser, unless said purchaser is female, and then must come form the nearest relative of the female. If the female has no relatives, then the choice of donor would be up to her. The female also reserves the right to pick any 3 sets she chooses. Consent is not required on the part of the males

3. The way to tell if a woman is in the state of uncleanliness requires a five year study course in the fine art of listening, plus a three year course in diplomacy, plus a two year follow-up course in applications of listening and diplomacy. Women are exempt from these courses as they just "know." Failure of males to complete these courses results in stoning of said male.

4. Smiting of ones neighbours is permissable if they do not loan you their mesquite BBQ sauce for the bull. However, be warned that if you have not completed the above courses, then the neighbours have the right to stone you.....twice.

5. If your neighbours are working on the Sabbath you may have them put to death and may do it personally if you so choose, but you must first return the mesquite BBQ sauce as failure to do so would allow them to first stone you before you put them to death, in which case you might need a back-up such as the Police. You may also use the bull for this purpose if you have not already cooked it.

6. Everyone gets this one wrong. It is homosexuals who are not allowed to eat shellfish. And yes, there are degrees of abmonination. The bigger the shellfish eaten by a homosexual, the bigger the abomination. Duh.

7. Defective sight is automatic stoning. Nuff said.

8. Anyone getting their hair trimmed must be exposed to 47 hours of Barney with their eyelids duct-taped open. If they survive this (highly unlikely) then then the bull comes in handy for death purposes. However, you will get extra brownie points if you stone them. God loves stoning.

9. Gloves when playing football will get you only partial stoning. You must be stoned with small rocks, unless you are a homosexual who has eaten shellfish and has not returned the mesquite BBQ sauce, in which case the bull gets to do the stoning with large rocks.

10. Your aunt and uncle have multiple violations going there. This requires stoning with large and small rocks, the bull, extra mesquite BBQ sauce, the help of your neighbour before you put him to death and additional smiting, which must be done on a mountainside facing north between the hours of 1200 and 1500. And because you are related to these multiple violators, you too must face the wrath of the great stoner.

Sorry, dear Robin, but it looks like you must be stoned repeatedly.

Your faithful advisor,
Dr. Laura

PS-All those wanting to particiapte in stoning Robin, please take a number and go to the back of the line. No fighting, as this will result in your own stoning.

I've got #1. :bigrin:

[Solomon]

lol bi-robin! i first said those same kinds of things in my head when i read Leviticus! :cool:

[darkeyes]

lol bi-robin! i first said those same kinds of things in my head when i read Leviticus! :cool:
Have never read leviticus that me membas but he seems like a hoot!

[Solomon]

lol Leviticus was written by Moses i think.... it certainly does have all of the passages that bi-robin says it does....

but like i posted earlier, to take a group of people that spent alot of time in the desert and put'em on a mountaintop all of a sudden, not to mention not having any leadership experience, these guidelines would make alot of sense because like not eating shellfish or pork.... there's not alot of pigs that i know of living in a desert.... and it is not the easiest food to digest for people that are aclimated to it, let alone people that just spent 40 years eating little more than bread?

and i'm pretty sure that Moses would not have wanted to complicate matters by making rules like the U.S. tax code right off the bat lol!

[biwords]

But Robin should not feel so all alone -- EVERYBODY must get stoned! :eek:

[flexuality]

But Robin should not feel so all alone -- EVERYBODY must get stoned! :eek:
Is that legal?? LOL! :bigrin:

[biwords]

Perfectly, if you don't get caught. :tong:

[Solomon]

biwords... gotta warn ya, in our house the rule is that he who volunteers goes first lol :bigrin:

[annieoboy]

I wanted to help you with this question. Many people manipulate, or interpret, the bible to suit their agenda. Let there be no mistake it is written that when two men lay together it is an abomination unto God.

Now, it is also clear that we are all sinners and that no one sin is greater than another. Jesus Christ died for all of us. He took upon himself the price of our sin.

Of course nobody can speak for God. He is who He is and his thoughts are greater than our thoughts.

It is a far cry to take a scripture that has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality and use it to justify yourself.

It is a common thing for all people, gay or not, to do this. In Revelations it tells us not to add, or take away, anything from the scriptures. In doing so we bring damnation upon ourselves.

It is important to know who you are and where you stand. Don't cover up your wrong doing with euphamistic methods of camoflouge designed to fortify your conscience.

Your are who you are and God loves you for it. Your sexuality is between you and God.

To answer your question with Yes or No would be to propose I am the voice of God.

Rest assured that god loves all of us and the only thing required from you is faith in Christ.

The Bible is very clear on it's meaning. There are no hidden messages. What it says is what it means.

People have perverted it throughout history and I don't suspect they will stop now, just because I have something to say.

I hope this helps. We can study this further if you like.

I am bi curious, I guess you would say. I have experienced a little play in the past. I like men who are gentle about it and I have never taken it from behind before. Thought about it though.

[izzfan]

I wanted to help you with this question. Many people manipulate, or interpret, the bible to suit their agenda.

I remember a line from Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" where one of the characters comments that even the devil could interpret the bible to his advantage.

I suppose the thing about the ambiguity in the bible is that it was compiled almost 2000 years ago (I can't remember the exact date when it was compiled but it was a couple of centuries after the death of Christ I think) and it is has been translated numerous times [From Aramaic/Hebrew into Latin/Greek and then into English] and has probably lost a LOT in translation not to mention the fact that unless you do a lot of research, there is no way of knowing the original historical context of a lot of the rules in the bible. This is why I am always skeptical when people take the bible literally.

[twinspiritrev]

I think my handle on here says it all I'm an ordaind minister and pastor of a church

[FalconAngel]

I remember a line from Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" where one of the characters comments that even the devil could interpret the bible to his advantage.

I suppose the thing about the ambiguity in the bible is that it was compiled almost 2000 years ago (I can't remember the exact date when it was compiled but it was a couple of centuries after the death of Christ I think) and it is has been translated numerous times [From Aramaic/Hebrew into Latin/Greek and then into English] and has probably lost a LOT in translation not to mention the fact that unless you do a lot of research, there is no way of knowing the original historical context of a lot of the rules in the bible. This is why I am always skeptical when people take the bible literally.

Actually, it was compiled into a single book by Emperor Constantine of Rome, who picked and chose the passages and books that would stay or be discarded for the final version that he would personally approve; the version that has been used and misused by Christian fanatics for the past 1500 years. This was done for political ends and no other reason, which is why it often contradicts itself.

The Vatican has all of the books of the Bible in their archives, not just the ones that were saved in the New Testament by Constantine.

It is a shame that so man power-seekers and hate-mongers run Christianity and interpret things to mean what they want for their own purposes. Christianity has the potential to be a great (as opposed to just powerful/harmful) religion, but for it's followers.

Groups like the LDS, WBC, Oral Roberts Ministries, guys like Jim Bakker, Jerry Falwell and others of their ilk have made honest Christians look bad because of their behavior and the behavior of their followers.

Now don't, for one second, think that I am promoting Christianity. As Wiccans, we neither promote nor condemn any specific religion.
But we do condemn the behaviors of the guilty members of those religions that do nothing to curtail their counter-social behaviors and the power-mad leaders that encourage those behaviors.

We also recognize that not all Christians are bad.
There is a silent, perhaps growing, minority that do not agree with the actions of the above-mentioned groups of evil men.
Those people agree that people who are not Christian should not be forced to live by Christian doctrine. That prayer needs to stay out of public schools; that Creationism is, in fact, church doctrine and not science; they believe that people have the right to live by the doctrines of their own religion and not have Christian church doctrine forced upon them.
Those ones are the REAL Christians. They haven't forgotten Christ's teachings for the sake of power.

[wikskul]

well to tell the truth on this subject, i have gone through so many different things in life.. and always come back to God, and i have to believe that even though i am Bi he still loves me. most of the gay/les referances are in the Old test. and not really in the new.. and from what i believe is that when Jesus came to the world and gave us the New test. that his word is more then the old was. he preached love and forgiveness.. and acceptace.. not hate.. bigotry ( yes i cant spell lol ) and violence. So i try to think of my walk with god as a loving one.. even though i do love women and men. and that he made me this way for a reason.
If i thought that i was a bad thing.. all of us.. then what kind of loving forgiving God would that be... so my faith is based on his love for me .. for all of us.. because he made us who we are... yes we have the choice to do as we please.. but we are the way we are... Trans.. Bi... Les... gays... and straights.... and it says he loves all... not just this section... so that is my :2cents: so now i will go back to my corner and sit quietly agian lol :tong:

[chulainn2]

I would say yes, now if you asked is it possible to be a bisexual and a Muslim, I would say yes until you are discovered, after which point I hope you did not have any long term plans.

[paddington]

Hi, i go to church often.i've drawn great strength and comfort from my faith especially over this year-i broke off a relationship with a woman,i'm married.the woman i "left" has spread lots of lies within that church,she is very manipulative,it got so bad only 3 0r 4 out of the congregation were talking to my husband and i (inside church!).in the end we made the decision to leave and find another church. i was sooooo shocked and hurt that people who listen to sermons,even from time to time get up and read passages from the bible-often about sin and the forgiveness of it(!!)can then be so un kind and un christian.i still can't understand how they can judge and yet listen to sermons about forgiveness????beat's the hell out of me.
the people in that church have been some of the most un forgiving,judgemental folk i've ever had the misfortune to meet.
the other small section have been warm and kind without prying.
i believe God has been near to me this year,pity his so called followers don't practice what they preach!
my:2cents:

[FalconAngel]

Our biggest issue is with the ones that think that they must save our souls, but they do not realize that, as Wiccans, we are not the ones who are born with sin.
It is a distinction that was rather difficult for us to clarify for them until we came across an article on the subject; and all the proof we need is in the Bible......Genesis, to be precise. It's a long and interesting article, so strap in for this ride.

"We Are the Other People"
by Oberon Zell

"Ding-dong!" goes the doorbell. Is it Avon calling? Or perhaps Ed McMahon with my three million dollars? No, it's Yahweh's Witlesses again, just wanting to have a nice little chat about the Bible...

Boy, did they ever come to the wrong house! So we invite them in: "Enter freely and of your own will..." (Hey, it's Sunday morning, nothing much going on, why not have a little entertainment?) Diane and I amuse ourselves watching their expressions as they check out the living room: great horned owl on the back of my chair; ceremonial masks and medicine skulls of dragons and unicorns on the wall; crystals, wands, staffs, swords; lots of Goddess figures and several altars; boa constrictors draped in amorous embrace over the elkhorn; white doves sitting in the hanging planters; cats and weasels underfoot; iron dragon snorting steam atop the wood stove; posters and paintings of wizards and dinosaurs and witchy women, some proudly naked; sculptures of mythological beasties and lots more dinosaurs; warp six on the star-filled viewscreen of my computer; a five-foot model of the USS Enterprise and the skeleton of a plesiosaur hanging from the ceiling; very, very many books, most of them dealing with obviously weird subjects... To say nothing of the great horned owl perched on the back of my chair and the Unicorn grazing in the front yard. You know; early Addams Family decor.

And then, of course, it being late in the morning, you can expect Morning Glory to come wandering out naked, looking for her wake-up cup of tea. Morning Glory naked is a truly impressive sight, and the Witlesses look as if she'd set titties on stun as they stand immobilized, hands clasped over their genitals. With the stage set and all the actors in place, the show is ready to begin.

Their mission, of course, it to save our heathen souls by turning us on to "The Word of the Lord" - their Bible. I guess they figure some of us just haven't heard about it yet, and we're all eagerly awaiting their joyous tidings of personal salvation through giving our rational faculties to Jesus. Every time they come around, I look forward to trying out a new riposte. Sure, it may be cruel and sadistic of me, but hey, I didn't call them up and ask them to come over; they entered at their own risk!

This time should be pretty good. After letting them run off their basic rap while lovely Morning Glory serves us all hot herb tea, I innocently remark: "But none of that applies to us. We have no need for salvation because we don't have original sin. We are the Other People."

"Hunh? What?" they reply eloquently. It's clear they've never heard this one before.

"Right," I say. "It's all in your Bible." And I proceed to tell them the story, using their own book for reference:

Genesis 1:26 - The [Elohim] said, "Let us make humanity in our own image, in the likeness of ourselves, and let them be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all the reptiles that crawl upon the earth."

Elohim is a plural word, including male and female, and should properly be translated "Gods" or "Pantheon."

27 The Gods created humanity in the image of themselves, In the image of the Gods they created them, Male and Female they created them.

28 The Gods blessed them, saying to them, "Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth."

Now clearly, here we are talking about the original creation of the human species: male and female. All the animals,plants, etc. have all been created in previous verses. This is before the Garden of Eden, and Yahweh is not mentioned as the creator of these people. The next chapter talks about how Yahweh, an individual member of the Pantheon, goes about assembling his own special little botanical and zoological Garden in Eden, and making his own little man to inhabit it:

Gen 2:7 - Yahweh God fashioned a man of dust from the soil. Then he breathed into his nostrils a breath of life, and thus the man became a living being.

8 Yahweh God planted a garden in Eden which is in the east, and there he put the man he had fashioned.

9 Yahweh God caused to spring up from the soil every kind of tree, enticing to look at and good to eat, with the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the middle of the garden.

15 Yahweh God took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and take care of it.

Now this next is crucial: note Yahweh's precise words:

16 Then Yahweh God gave the man this admonition, "You may eat indeed of all the trees in the garden.

17 Nevertheless of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you are not to eat, for on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die."

Fateful words, those. We will refer back to this admonition later.

Then Yahweh decides to make a woman to go with the man. Now, don't forget that the Pantheon had earlier created a whole population of people, "male and female," who are presumably doing just fine somewhere "outside the gates of Eden." But this setup in Eden is Yahweh's own little experiment, and will unfold to its own separate destiny.

21 So Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. And while he slept, he took one of his ribs and enclosed it in flesh.
22 Yahweh God built the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.

Right. Man gives birth to woman. Sure he does. But that's the way the story is told here.

25 Now both of them were naked, the man and his wife, but they felt no shame in front of each other.

Well, of course not! Why should they? But take careful note of those words, as they also will prove to be significant . . .

Now this next part is where it starts to get interesting. Enter the Serpent:

Gen. 3:1 - The serpent was the most subtle of all the wild beasts that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, "Did God really say you were not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?"

2 The woman answered the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees in the garden.
3 "But of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden God said, 'You must not eat it, nor touch it, under pain of death'"
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, "No! You will not die!
5 "God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil."

What a remarkable statement! "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." The Serpent directly contradicts Yahweh.

Obviously, one of them has to be lying. Which one, do you suppose? And, if the serpent speaks true, wouldn't you wish to eat of the magic fruit? Wouldn't it be a good thing, to become "like gods, knowing good and evil"? Or is it preferable to remain in ignorance?

6 The woman saw that the tree was good to eat and pleasing to the eye, and that it was desirable for the knowledge that it could give. So she took some of its fruit and ate it. She gave some also to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.
7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened and they realized that they were naked. So they sewed fig leaves together to make themselves loincloths.

The author makes an interesting assumption here: that if you realize you are naked you will automatically want to cover yourself. Further implications will unfold shortly...

8 The man and his wife heard the sound of Yahweh God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from Yahweh God among the trees of the garden.
9 But Yahweh God called to the man. "Where are you?" he asked.
10 "I heard the sound of you in the garden," he replied. "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid."
11 "Who told you that you were naked?" he asked. "Have you been eating of the tree I forbade you to eat?"

And so the sign of the Fall becomes modesty. Take note of this. The descendants of Adam and Eve will be distinguished throughout history from virtually all other peoples by their obsessive modesty taboos, wherein they will feel ashamed of being naked. It follows that those who feel no shame in being naked are, by definition, not carriers of this spiritual disease of original sin!

12 The man replied, "It was the woman you put with me; she gave me the fruit, and I ate it."

Right. Blame the woman. What a turkey!

13 Then Yahweh God asked the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman replied, "The serpent tempted me and I ate."

So of course she blames the serpent. But just what did the serpent do that was so evil? Why, he called Yahweh a liar! Was he wrong? Let's see...

21 Yahweh God made clothes out of skins for the man and his wife, and they put them on.

Out of skins? This means that Yahweh had to kill some innocent animals to pander to Adam and Eve's new obsession with modesty!

And now we come to the crux of the Fall. Yahweh had said back there in chapter 2:17, regarding the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." The Serpent, on the other hand, had contradicted Yahweh in chapter 3:4-5: "No! You will not die! God knows in fact that on the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil." So what actually happened? Who lied and who told the truth about this remarkable fruit? The answer is given in the next verse:

22 Then Yahweh God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, with his knowledge of good and evil. He must not be allowed to stretch his hand out next and pick from the tree of life also, and eat some and live forever."

Get that? Yahweh himself admits that he had lied! In fact, and in Yahweh's own words, the Serpent spoke the absolute truth! And moreover, Yahweh tells the rest of the Pantheon that he intends to evict Adam (and presumably Eve as well) to keep them from gaining immortality to go with their newly-acquired divine knowledge. To prevent them, in other words, from truly becoming gods! So who, in this story, comes off as a benefactor of humanity, and who comes off as a tyrant? THE SERPENT NEVER LIED!

This story, to digress slightly, bears a remarkable resemblance to a contemporary tale from ancient Greece. In that version, the Serpent (later identified as Lucifer, the Light-Bearer) may be equated with the heroic titan Prometheus, who championed humanity against the tyranny of Zeus, who wished for people to be mere slaves of the gods. Prometheus, whose name means "forethought," gave people wisdom, intelligence, and fire stolen from Olympus. Moreover, he ordained the portions of animal sacrifice so that humans got the best parts (the meat and hides) while the portion that was burned to the gods was the bones and fat. In punishment for this defiance of his divine authority, Zeus condemned Prometheus to a terrible punishment for an immortal: to be chained to a mountain in the Caucasus, where Zeus' gryphon/eagle (actually a Lammergier) would devour his liver each day. It would grow back each night. Zeus promised to relent if Prometheus would reveal his great secret knowledge: Who would succeed Zeus as supreme god? Prometheus refused to tell, but history has revealed the answer...

The interesting thing about all this is that the Greeks properly regarded Prometheus as a noble hero in his defiance of unjust tyranny. One may wonder why the Serpent is not so well regarded. On the contrary, snakes are loathed throughout Christiandom.

23 So Yahweh God expelled him from the garden of Eden, to till the soil from which he had been taken.
24 He banished the man, and in front of the garden of Eden he posted the cherubs, and the flame of a flashing sword, to guard the way to the tree of life.

So that's it for the Fall. But the story of Adam and Eve doesn't end there.

Gen 4:1 - The man had intercourse with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain...

2 She gave birth to a second child, Abel, the brother of Cain. Now Abel became a shepherd and kept flocks, while Cain tilled the soil.
3 Time passed and Cain brought some of the produce of the soil as an offering for Yahweh,
4 while Abel for his part brought the first-born of his flock and some of their fat as well. Yahweh looked with favor on Abel and his offering. But he did not look with favor on Cain and his offering, and Cain was very angry and downcast.

Well, why shouldn't he be? Both brothers had brought forth their first fruits as offerings, but Yahveh rejected the vegetables and only accepted the blood sacrifice. This was to set a gruesome precedent:

8 Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country, Cain set on his brother Abel and killed him.

Accursed and marked for fratricide,

16 Cain left the presence of Yahweh and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

We can assume that the phrase "left the presence of Yahweh" implies that Yahweh is a local deity, and not omnipresent. Now Eden, according to Gen. 2:14-15, was situated at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, apparently right where Lake Van is now, in Turkey. "East of Eden," therefore, would probably be along the shores of the Caspian Sea, right in the Indo-European heartland. Cain settled in there, among the people of Nod, and married one of the women of that country. Here, for the first time, is specifically mentioned the "other people" who are not of the lineage of Adam and Eve. I.e., the Pagans.

So let's look at this story from another viewpoint: There we were, around six thousand years ago, living in our little farming communities around the Caspian Sea, in the land of Nod, when this dude with a terrible scar comes stumbling in out of the sunset. He tells us this bizarre story, about how his mother and father had been created by some god named Jahweh, and put in charge of a beautiful garden somewhere out west, and how they had gotten thrown out for disobedience after eating some of the landlord's forbidden magic fruit of enlightenment. He tells us of murdering his brother, as the god of his parents would only accept blood sacrifice, and of receiving that scar as a mark so that all would know him as a fratricide. The poor guy is really a mess psychologically, obsessed with guilt. He is also obsessively modest, insisting on wearing clothes even in the hottest summer, and he has a hard time with our penchant for skinny-dipping in the warm inland sea. He seems to believe that he is tainted by the "sin" of his parent's disobedience; that it is in his blood, somehow, and will continue to contaminate his children and his children's children. One of our healing women takes pity on the poor sucker, and marries him...

17 Cain had intercourse with his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Enoch. He became builder of a town, and he gave the town the name of his son Enoch.

With both of their first sons not turning out very well, Adam and Eve decided to try again:

25 Adam had intercourse with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Seth...

26 A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. This man was the first to invoke the name of Yahweh.

Now it doesn't mention here where Seth's wife came from. Another woman from Nod, possibly, or maybe someone from another neolithic community downstream in the Tigris-Euphrates valley. But her folks also, cannot be of the lineage of Adam and Eve, and must also be counted among "the other people."

But whatever happened to Adam? After all, way back there in chapter 2:17, warning Adam about the magic fruit of knowlege, Jahweh had told him that "on the day you eat of it you shall most surely die." So, when did Adam die?

Gen. 5:4 - Adam lived for eight hundred years after the birth of Seth and he became the father of sons and daughters.
5 In all, Adam lived for nine hundred and thirty years; then he died.

Hey, that's pretty good! Nine hundred and some odd years isn't bad for a man who's been told he's gonna die the next day!

Well, the story goes on, and maybe next time the Witlesses come to visit I'll tell more of it. But suffice it to say that those of us who are not of Semitic descent (i.e., not of the lineage of Adam and Eve) cannot share in the Original Sin that comes with that lineage. Being that the Bible is the story of that lineage, of Adam and Eve's descendants and their special relationship with their particular god, Yahweh, it follows that this is not the story of the rest of us. We may have been Cain's wife's people, or Seth's wife's people, or some other people over the hill and far away, but whichever people the rest of us are, as far as the Bible is concerned, we are the Other People, and so we are continually referred to throughout. Later books of the Bible are filled with admonitions to the followers of Jahweh to "learn not the ways of the Pagans..." (Jer 10:2) with detailed descriptions of exactly what it is we do, such as erect standing stones and sacred poles, worship in sacred groves and practice divination and magic. And worship the sun, moon, stars and the "Queen of Heaven." "You must not behave as they do in Egypt where once you lived; you must not behave as they do in Canaan where I am taking you. You must not follow their laws." (Lev 18:3) For Yahweh, as he so clearly emphasises, is not the god of the Pagans. We have our own lineage and our own heritage, and our tale is not told in the Bible.

We were not "made" like clay figurines by a male deity out of "dust from the soil." We were born of our Mother the Earth, and have evolved over aeons in Her nurturing embrace. All of us, in our many and diverse tribes, have creation myths and legends of our origins and history; some of these tales may even be actually true. Like the descendants of Adam and Eve, many of us also have stories of great floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and other cataclysms that wiped out whole communities of our people, wherein "I alone survived to tell the tale." Nearly all of our ancestral tribes (and especially those of us who today are reclaiming our own Pagan heritage) lack that peculiar obsessive body modesty that seems to be a hallmark of the original sin alluded to in the story of the Fall. We can be naked and unashamed! Why, our Goddess even tells us, "as a sign that you are truly free, you shall be naked in your rites." Not being born into sin, we have no need of salvation, and no need of a Messiah to redeem our sinful souls. Neither heaven nor hell is our destination in the afterlife; we have our own various arrangements with our own various deities. The Bible is not our story; we have our own stories to tell, and they are many and diverse. In a long life, you may get to hear many of them...

May you live long and prosper!