View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:37 pm



Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Only 
Author Message
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 11:39 am
Posts: 5948
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Thank you for doing this.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk

_________________
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:22 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Valhalla wrote:
To answer a need for spillover off-topic posts in the Vikings Talk forum, take it or leave it, thought I'd at least create the thread.

Be Nice!


Good job Valhalla! Wish I had thought of it...

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:38 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 2811
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
nice work. that thread was getting crazy. I will say sometimes I'm sad that in 2014 people don't think that all people should be treated the same. I'm only 33 though. so hopefully in my lifetime I can see this...

_________________
i'm ready for a beer.


Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:58 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Posts: 4013
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Are we sure this shouldn't have been put in the Smack Shack? :D

_________________
Image


Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:08 am
Profile WWW
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 2250
Location: Minneapolis
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
There was a post in the big thread saying what Priefer said wasn't just homophobic, but also anti-human. I think homophobia is a childish thing and hope that one day, much like racism/sexism/etc we can overcome it. Ponder this: some guys like to have intercourse with women in their behind. Does that make them secretly gay because they enjoy that?

_________________
Pull yr 84 jerseys out.


Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:25 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Quote:
Here is an interesting article, I'm not sure if Marriage Redefinition is about Civil Rights. And then, as so many point out, one would almost need to let in Polygamous/Multiple Spouses Marriages.


If the argument is that marriage is a religious institution then it should be completely ripped out of government and replaced with non-religious civil unions. Religion and government shouldn’t mix.

I’m actually a little foggy on why Polygamous/Multiple spouse marriage would be a problem, especially if you’re arguing on the side of religion-based marriage. That arrangement is mostly religiously affiliated and one would think their right to marry falls under freedom of religion … unless you’re saying your specific religion doesn’t approve … in which case we’re back to why religion and government shouldn’t mix; which religion do you have the government follow?

Quote:
States have long regulated Marriages through laws such as above. That's why I think this should be left as a responsibility of the State.


Many states actually still had laws banning interracial marriage until 1967 when the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Should I assume you think states should be able to ban interracial marriage if they choose as well? If so I feel like we’re so far away from each other’s side that it would be quite difficult to find common ground.

Quote:
Then too, one might need to start looking at the famous sorts of laws banning marriages between cousins; yet, this is very different from State to State.


Why would you need to look at that? Those bans aren’t a matter of restricting rights as much as protecting the unborn. The offspring from such unions can have serious health problems. Very different situations.

Quote:
If not the fact that perhaps the Government should not be involved in Marriage at all, it is mainly to raise fees through licenses and to give some people say tax breaks.


This is pretty much where I fall. “Marriage” means something different depending on the religion (or lack thereof) of the person you ask and trying to narrowly define it under one specific religion’s term is preposterous and unfair. Mormons believe different than Baptists who believe something different than an atheist, etc, etc. The government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating love and relationships.

Quote:
That all said, other people getting married how they want in general does not effect individual citizens, does not really affect me. However, if we start monkeying with the definition of family as has occurred in Scotland in some maternity literature and start calling mother and father, parent 1 and parent 2, redefining so much, this I don't care to see happen.


This doesn’t make any sense to me. The reason you’re worried about marriage isn’t because it has any inpact on you … but because you’re worried one day you might go to a hospital and it’ll say “Parent 1 and parent 2” rather than “mother and father” in some pamphlet? That seems shallow and pointless.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:15 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Quote:
I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion". Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business. If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.


That’s exactly my point … freedom OF religion means that no single religious faith should be imposed on people. If Christians think that marriage should be between “one man and one woman” fine … but there’s no reason to impose that on people other than their Christian religious belief which should not be ingrained into the government.

I don’t expect the government to get out of the marriage business but that would be nice. In my opinion it’s the best solution to this issue.

Also, and this is just my own personal interpretation and could be wrong … but I think Freedom of Religion includes non-religious people. In other words, you are free to believe what you want without anybody else’s religion being imposed on you. So Freedom of Religion should consist of Freedom from religion if that’s what you believe to be right.

Quote:
That may be so except "group" marriages along with polyamourous (multiple husbands)/polygamy (multiple wives) certainly does not have to be because of religion.


I’m not following you here. Can you elaborate?

Quote:
If a State passes a law that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, the Supreme Court should strike it down. So yes, States should regulate their own laws.

The Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) has also upheld Slavery in the past. The SCOTUS found that Slaves had no rights. So because the Supreme Court said this, we are to take it that they are correct??


Fair enough, though we’re both agreeing that states shouldn’t be able to pass unconstitutional laws, it sounds like. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional; specifically the section where states didn’t have to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

So, as long as marriage is legal in at least one state … anybody can go there and their home state still has to recognize the marriage. From there you’re just splitting hairs if you’re advocating states have their own marriage rules because what do they matter if you can just go to a neighboring state and your marriage is perfectly legal.

Quote:
Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.


Actually, it was a redefining of marriage considering it was against the law and they had to change (aka redefine) the law afterwards.
Marriage has been redefined in other ways too …many, many times … what you might consider “traditional” marriage today isn’t historically traditional. Laws actually defining marriage between “one man and one woman” didn’t come along until 1973 even though same sex marriages were denied before that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-pra ... 81228.html

Quote:
Let's look at U.S. law, since Mr. Peters is referring to marriage in this country. In the last 100 years marriage has changed immensely in the U.S., including the legalization of divorce as well as the use of birth control for married couples. We have even changed the gender roles by making women no longer the legal property of their husbands. In the 1800s certain states began to give married women the ability to own property in their own names until all American women were granted that right in 1900. Throughout the 20th century women gained more and more rights, such as being allowed to have credit in their own names, say no to sex with their husbands, and keep their last names if they wished. It wasn't until 1933 that women were granted citizenship separate from their husbands.

We had essentially already made marriage genderless through the elimination of certain rights and responsibilities for husbands versus for wives, but then a new movement started in 1973 as states began passing laws redefining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Since these, there have been yet more laws about this institution that didn't exist before, and I consider them to be against my cultural views that marriage is the union between two consenting adults, a definition that fits most of the iterations of marriage the U.S. has seen. State laws (and the now-invalid 1996 Defense of Marriage Act) that assign further restrictions based on sex don't fit my interpretation of what marriage in the U.S. looks like for my parents' and my generations.


Quote:

I'm not positive if that is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. A whole string of people are listed as who were married and were first cousins including Albert Einstein.

If it is so sure and positive the offspring of such unions can have "serious health effects", then per the map shown, a lot of the population of the United States, Florida, California, New York and other states allow the marriages of 1st cousins.


I’m pretty positive that it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that inbreeding INCREASES the likelihood of problems. Not ensures it;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Quote:
Inbreeding may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[7] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
• Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
• Increased genetic disorders
• Fluctuating facial asymmetry
• Lower birth rate
• Higher infant mortality
• Slower growth rate
• Smaller adult size
• Loss of immune system function


Quote:
I'm sure since the United States was born, 99% of all marriages have been between 1 man and 1 woman. Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.


Well … the bible isn’t exactly known for its historic accuracy … however, if that’s the book we’re going to use to make the rules …

Quote:
In Exodus 21:10, a man can marry an infinite amount of women without any limits to how many he can marry.

In Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons...."


Quote:
The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.


So we’ve jumped from mother and father in some remote hospital pamphlet to bogus information being taught in schools? I can’t think of anybody, LGBT or not, that wants to go that way.

Nobody is advocating ignoring how human biology works. Same sex couples understand it takes a sperm and egg to make a baby. Unfortunately, many of the people who supply what is necessary to make a baby don’t have it in them to take care of the baby for whatever reason and in some cases, good same-sex families step in and adopt. These are still families.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:31 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 11:39 am
Posts: 5948
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Valhalla wrote:
I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion".


Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?

Valhalla wrote:
Anyway, good luck if someone thinks the Government will get out of the Marriage Business.

If the government does administer it, it should be done at the state or local level.


As long as laws continue to use the social construct of marriage, it needs to be defined in order to equitably apply the laws. And marriages are actually administered on the local level - where do you go to get a marriage license?

Valhalla wrote:
Mixed Marriages was not the redefinition of Marriage, was still one man and one woman.


And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.

Not anywhere, not even once, does the Bible specifically state that the only blessed marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact, the Old Testament is filled to the brim with polygamy. See the following:

a. Lamech had two wives - Genesis 4:19.

b. Esau had three wives - Genesis 26:34 & 28:9.

c. Jacob had four wives - Genesis 29:28 & 30:4-9.

d. Gideon had many wives - Judges 8:30.

e. Abijah had 14 wives - II Chronicles 13:21.

These polygamists (only a small sampling of the many found in the Bible) were not condemned by God for their multiple wives.

Which causes me to ask, why should the government define it as between one man and one woman?

Valhalla wrote:
Even going back to the Bible, it was the Kings who mainly had multiple-wives if this situation existed.


Please see above. Additionally, there was the Old Testament law that required a brother to marry his widowed sister-in-law, regardless of his own marital state. Polygamy occurred without regard for social station.

Valhalla wrote:
The redefinition of the family and marriage is nonetheless of import per percentages of the population or percentages of marriages. Most sources will say the LGBT community is only 2% or less of the population. Not sure if we need to start eliminating "mother" and "father" being used in schools for 2% of the population. This is where that could go.


So? Is there a breakdown in the family dynamic by referring to parents as parents, instead of defining them based on their gender? Or is this merely a point where society needs to reassess the roles it has traditionally given to each parent? With so many households where women are the primary earners and fathers have assumed more child-rearing duties, there is already a need to re-evaluate the staus quo.

I understand that change is difficult. However, we do not devalue traditions by moving forward.

_________________
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa


Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:02 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Valhalla wrote:
One can read the first Amendment and total Constitution on this website:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

I'm hardly going to support Slavery because the Supreme Court of the US did not strike it down. If that's the way some people think, I think there is a large difference in what we believe.


You didn't feel the need to actually respond to the points anymore so I'm not really going to respond to this. Suffice to say I fall on the side of more rights and not less. If you think denying a group of people the right to get married falls on the same side as abolishing slavery we are quite far off.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Wed Jan 15, 2014 11:23 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Posts: 4013
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
Valhalla wrote:
Good post BGM. Civil Discussion is always a plus.


Both BGM and Cliff did a great job with this discussion. They said it way better than I ever could have.

Good job, guys. Really. I'm impressed by (and very much appreciate) your intelligence and morality.

_________________
Image


Thu Jan 16, 2014 11:03 am
Profile WWW
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread...
BGM wrote:
Valhalla wrote:
I believe what the Constitution says "freedom OF religion", not "freedom FROM religion".


Then which religion gets to decide the definition of marriage? Are you insisting on some kind of religious "majority rule"? It is not only freedom of religion, but also freedom from state sanctioning of any religion. If religions are allowed to dictate how the government defines marriage, where does that influence end?

You take on the religion of the officials that you elect because they are the ones that make the laws. The only way to change is it to elect officials that are proponents of same sex marriage. If you live in a state where the majority has a particular set of beliefs the you are going to have to live under those set of beliefs. Fair or unfair that's how a democracy works, majority rules. This is not just with same sex marriage but abortion gun laws and many other issues as well

BGM wrote:


And yet, conservatives used the Bible to oppose interracial marriage, twisting it to fit their own view of what constituted a Biblically sound marriage.

Not anywhere, not even once, does the Bible specifically state that the only blessed marriage is between one man and one woman.



Biblically we're no longer under the rule of the old testament, we now fall under the new testament. Although the Bible does not specifically say it's between a man and a woman , which I would have to go through it to confirm that, it does consider homosexuality to be sexual immorality.


Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:05 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.

For example, wasn't the Ten Commandments in the old testament ... but yet that is ok to cling to from the Old Testament ... why?

Even in your example of the New Testament supposedly being the rule now ... that is up for debate depending on which part you read;

Quote:
17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook will pass from the Law until all things are accomplished.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:40 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Candidate
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:46 pm
Posts: 3776
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Cliff wrote:
The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.

For example, wasn't the Ten Commandments in the old testament ... but yet that is ok to cling to from the Old Testament ... why?

Even in your example of the New Testament supposedly being the rule now ... that is up for debate depending on which part you read;

Quote:
17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook will pass from the Law until all things are accomplished.


I agree with you that there are those that manipulate the bible to fit their own personal beliefs but I also believe it is not my place to judge; I can only answer for my sins and no one elses

As far as clinging to the old testament, some religions and denominations still believe in the old testament. Remember Jews don't believe Christ is the son of God and some other religions such as catholics focus more towards the old testament, while Baptists who focus more on the new testament stemming from John the Baptist.

I personally don't think it's up for debate. Jesus died as a sacrifice for our sins. He didn't get rid of sin, he completed it by washing us clean in his blood. Although he takes the burden of our sins the bible says there are things that are not good for you. Our bodies are temples for God, we house the holy spirit within it, and when we desecrate our bodies with sexual Immoralities, we are desecrating his temple. Now with that said heterosexual Immoralities are no worse than homosexuality because both are violations of his temple.

Either way you can pick verses that you believe support your morale beliefs just like i can do the same. I try not to use the bible to support my beliefs, I just try to have faith that God will use me to fulfill his will.


Wed Feb 12, 2014 4:40 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Cliff wrote:
The bible is “pick and choose” morality. I bet I can find at least 5 things from the New Testament that the average Christian doesn’t follow. The homosexuality stuff conveniently aligns with some people’s current views and so they cling to that.


This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity. I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.

I can find far more than 5 things from the New Testament that I haven't followed 100% of the time. How does that diminish the Bible or make it "pick and choose" morality. Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:28 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Just Me wrote:
This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity.


That article doesn’t really deny that people are picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want. He simply says that the bible, in a roundabout way, says that it’s ok to do so. Even though in other parts it says you shouldn’t. But that gets back to one of the core problem with the bible; since it contradicts itself so much you can align what it says with whatever your personal morals are.

When slavery was still in fashion in the United States religion was used as reasoning for that. Then later religion was used against slavery during civil rights.

It’s all in how you choose to interrupt it which is what makes it “pick and choose” and ultimately worthless in regards to being a “good” person.

Quote:
I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.


This section of the board is particularly for off topic conversation …

It’s your opinion that I don’t have a solid basis for doing so, it’s my opinion you don’t have a solid argument against what I said.

Quote:
I can find far more than 5 things from the New Testament that I haven't followed 100% of the time. How does that diminish the Bible or make it "pick and choose" morality.


I’m not necessarily talking about “back sliding” and doing one of the “big 10” sins or something. They are things that nobody follows *any* of the time because they’re nonsense. The old testament is full of those kinds of things.

Quote:
Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.


Again, the problem is there are different “tenets” depending on which sect of Christian you ask. One group has decided that the bible means one thing while someone else decides it means something else. Why? Because they used their own morality as a guide and the bible to supplement what they already thought. That's why even though they are reading the same book, what one group says will send you to hell isn’t even a blip on another group’s radar.

My grandmother, for example, believes women shouldn't cut their hair or wear pants and to my knowledge has never done so. There are biblical reasons for this … and yet most of the Christian population would disagree that it was even a “sin”.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:08 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Valhalla wrote:
My own observation that I have seen repeated a few times is that often people who are for "Same-Sex Marriage" claim to have a lack of belief in a higher being, they may be atheist or agnostic. I think that is unfortunate when I know people would like to believe in a loving God.

Then, of course to add balance to this, you also have a number of Churches that are very welcoming of Gays.

"Prayers for Bobby" deals with this a bit. This movie if people have not seen it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayers_for_Bobby


How are the words of the “ultimate being” up for debate in the first place? Why is the “holy book” for nearly any religion able to be deciphered in so many different ways? Are these the iron-clad words of the creator or not? The reason to me is simple; the more flexible and easily adaptable to a person’s pre-existing beliefs the easier it is to get more people in the door, tithing, and supporting your organization.

One sect of Christians believes being gay means going to hell while another sect says it’s just fine. Which is correct? Why, the side you choose to believe, of course. Why is it the right one? Because we believe it … even though every other religion also believes that their side is right and they can’t possibly all be right … oh well, we’ll just not think about that too much.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:41 am
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Cliff wrote:
Just Me wrote:
This article is pretty long, but it addresses the allegations you have leveled. I happen to believe the Bible is not "pick and choose" morality and I believe an open-minded, honest reading of the Bible (as a whole) would reconcile many perceived conflicts. I don't expect everyone to accept what is in the Bible, nor do I expect them to convert to Christianity.


That article doesn’t really deny that people are picking and choosing what out of the Old Testament they want. He simply says that the bible, in a roundabout way, says that it’s ok to do so. Even though in other parts it says you shouldn’t. But that gets back to one of the core problem with the bible; since it contradicts itself so much you can align what it says with whatever your personal morals are.


Incorrect. He is pointing out within the broader context of the Bible why you cannot take verses out of context (i.e. "Judas hung himself"; and "Go ye, and do likewise") without consideration of the Biblical context as a whole. If you take it as we are "choosing what we want" then I would ask you to read it again with an open mind.


Quote:
When slavery was still in fashion in the United States religion was used as reasoning for that. Then later religion was used against slavery during civil rights.

It’s all in how you choose to interrupt it which is what makes it “pick and choose” and ultimately worthless in regards to being a “good” person.


The misuse of something does not take away its use. The fact the Bible was incorrectly used to justify slavery (which the Supreme Court has done BTW - Do we see no value in have a Supreme Court because faulty logic was used in applying the law in the Dred Scott decision?) is as irrelevant as a printing press can be used to print hate literature. It's not the printing press, that is wrong, it's the people using the it for nefarious purposes that are wrong. Do people misuse the Bible? Of course they do. It doesn't somehow equate to invalidating the Bible.

The interpretation of any written document is always subject to various conclusions. Does that mean the law is something we "cherry-pick" what we like because there are various interpretations of US law? There are some who justify not paying taxes based on the letter of US law. The issue is (the same one we are dealing with here) they are quoting a part of US law out of context and failing to consider the context of the law in its entirety. The only difference is those who have sought to avoid paying taxes are quickly educated (i.e. sent to prison) on their errors. Some of those persons still disagree with lawyers that have tried to tell them they are required to pay taxes. The fact is, they still violated the law despite their incorrect interpretation of the law.



Quote:
Quote:
I'd prefer not to discuss religion on a football board, but I find it difficult to see some of my core beliefs maligned without a solid basis for doing so.


This section of the board is particularly for off topic conversation …

It’s your opinion that I don’t have a solid basis for doing so, it’s my opinion you don’t have a solid argument against what I said.



I wasn't arguing this forum was improper, I was merely pointing out there are many atheist/religious boards I could choose to frequent if that was the topic(s) I wished to discuss. This is the proper forum for it, but it's still a football message board (primarily)

How much research have you completed in various religions and/or philosophies? Have you actually read the Bible in it's entirety? (You may well have done so, and perhaps you have more qualifications to comment on this topic than I have.) The analysis of the Bible seemed overly simplistic and that was why I came to the conclusion your basis for maligning the Bible was suspect. Can you please advise your background that would suggest your analysis has authority. I can't change your opinion, but it would seem on the surface (based on your previous remarks) that I have done more research on this topic. As always, I could be wrong...


Quote:
I’m not necessarily talking about “back sliding” and doing one of the “big 10” sins or something. They are things that nobody follows *any* of the time because they’re nonsense. The old testament is full of those kinds of things.


I'm not referring to "backsliding" either. (I'm not a 'fundamentalist' BTW). Give me an example of the 'nonsense' and I'll see if I can't put it in proper context.

Quote:
Quote:
Followers of the Bible may choose the 'salad bar' of righteousness, but that doesn't mean their actions are correct...or without consequences. It simply means the followers are failing to live up to the tenets of their faith.


Again, the problem is there are different “tenets” depending on which sect of Christian you ask. One group has decided that the bible means one thing while someone else decides it means something else. Why? Because they used their own morality as a guide and the bible to supplement what they already thought. That's why even though they are reading the same book, what one group says will send you to hell isn’t even a blip on another group’s radar.

My grandmother, for example, believes women shouldn't cut their hair or wear pants and to my knowledge has never done so. There are biblical reasons for this … and yet most of the Christian population would disagree that it was even a “sin”.


She is referring to her hair being her "covering" and if you consider the Bible in it's entirety there are items that serve as her "covering" (in lieu of her hair). The long pant's you mention are from “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5

"Pertaineth" is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.” Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).” It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).” It seems that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”

Again, all written documents are subject to interpretation. That doesn't mean that because some interpretations are wrong that they all are wrong or that there isn't a correct interpretation of the document. To suggest the Bible is worthless because it can be incorrectly interpreted seems tantamount to saying the US Code or state law should be disregarded because it can be interpreted multiple ways. I can't help how others interpret the written words of the Bible or the law. I can only perform due diligence with scholarly study on both to determine the intent (or spirit) of both. YMMV

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:52 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Just Me wrote:

Incorrect. He is pointing out within the broader context of the Bible why you cannot take verses out of context (i.e. "Judas hung himself"; and "Go ye, and do likewise") without consideration of the Biblical context as a whole. If you take it as we are "choosing what we want" then I would ask you to read it again with an open mind.



The problem actually arises when you consider the context of the bible as a whole. Taking parts out of context is something that is done on both sides of this particular argument. However, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m not saying everyone chooses exactly what they want to follow, but they do disregard the things that are too against the morals of the day even though they would have been acceptable when the book was written.

The “gay rights” debate is in the middle ground of modern morals and so we see that debate reflected in what people decide to take from the bible. People that have decided there is no problem with homosexuality find ways in the bible to justify that, people that are uncomfortable with homosexuality find verses to condemn it. If you can do that, what’s the point?

Quote:
The misuse of something does not take away its use. The fact the Bible was incorrectly used to justify slavery (which the Supreme Court has done BTW - Do we see no value in have a Supreme Court because faulty logic was used in applying the law in the Dred Scott decision?) is as irrelevant as a printing press can be used to print hate literature. It's not the printing press, that is wrong, it's the people using the it for nefarious purposes that are wrong. Do people misuse the Bible? Of course they do. It doesn't somehow equate to invalidating the Bible.


The difference of course is that the printing press can be changed to print something else. The verses in the bible that say slavery is ok are still there … most modern Christians simply choose to ignore them.

A printing press can be updated with new ideas to print. The bible has the same outdated bronze-age thinking in it.

Quote:
The interpretation of any written document is always subject to various conclusions. Does that mean the law is something we "cherry-pick" what we like because there are various interpretations of US law?


That’s not entirely true some laws are written very clearly … and if there is a debate it is resolved through trial.
Quote:
There are some who justify not paying taxes based on the letter of US law. The issue is (the same one we are dealing with here) they are quoting a part of US law out of context and failing to consider the context of the law in its entirety. The only difference is those who have sought to avoid paying taxes are quickly educated (i.e. sent to prison) on their errors. Some of those persons still disagree with lawyers that have tried to tell them they are required to pay taxes. The fact is, they still violated the law despite their incorrect interpretation of the law.


I don’t see how this relates to our conversation at all. Sure, those people took a law out of context and they had to pay for that. However, that’s their fault for not reading the law and making sure with a tax agent of some kind. They violated a law in which there is an existing body that they could have asked for guidance.

In the case of religion getting some kind of “official” context or guidance would be impossible. I could go to any number of churches (aka experts on the subject) and they would each give me their own version. To really spice things up I could go to a church other than a Christian one and they’d tell me the whole bible is bunk!

You’re telling me that I lack context but I don’t think I do. If anything, I am paying attention to an even larger context. The context is that there is more than one religion in the first place.


Quote:
I wasn't arguing this forum was improper, I was merely pointing out there are many atheist/religious boards I could choose to frequent if that was the topic(s) I wished to discuss. This is the proper forum for it, but it's still a football message board (primarily)


I tend to agree … but this subject matter is closely tied into religion. In fact, religion is really the only argument against gay marriage that I’m aware of.

Quote:
How much research have you completed in various religions and/or philosophies? Have you actually read the Bible in it's entirety? (You may well have done so, and perhaps you have more qualifications to comment on this topic than I have.) The analysis of the Bible seemed overly simplistic and that was why I came to the conclusion your basis for maligning the Bible was suspect. Can you please advise your background that would suggest your analysis has authority. I can't change your opinion, but it would seem on the surface (based on your previous remarks) that I have done more research on this topic. As always, I could be wrong...


I grew up in a Pentecostal home in which my grandfather on my mother’s side built his church with his bare hands. He dug out the basement and hauled it up one bucket at a time. Church was twice on Sunday, Wednesday, and bible study on Friday night. From birth until 16-17.

Once I started forming my own ideas on religion I did further research outside of the narrow Christian view I grew up with but I will certainly admit it mostly consists of writings and discussions I have found or taken part in online ... though that is how much research is done these days so I'm not sure it can be held against me. What I found of particular interest in that research is all of the gods that share characteristics with Jesus, the virgin birth, born on December 25th, etc, etc.

So I don’t have any “official” degrees in religion but I do have a lot of experience. My analysis of the bible is simplistic because I prefer to cut down to the bone of what is actually said rather than try to skirt around the issue by providing my own “context”. Though I will admit I haven’t read it cover to cover in many years (nearly 12 now); why, have they changed some things around again? ;)

The bible is only complex when you decide you have to find ways around what was actually written to get to what you’d like it to mean. When taken at face value, however, the bible is pretty awful and pretty clear about it.

Quote:
I'm not referring to "backsliding" either. (I'm not a 'fundamentalist' BTW). Give me an example of the 'nonsense' and I'll see if I can't put it in proper context.


You can google them but I’ll provide a few;
http://monicks.net/2009/09/12/11-things ... do-anyway/

Quote:
She is referring to her hair being her "covering" and if you consider the Bible in it's entirety there are items that serve as her "covering" (in lieu of her hair). The long pant's you mention are from “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5

"Pertaineth" is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.” Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).” It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).” It seems that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”


I am aware of the verses behind it … but that doesn’t explain why some people are ok with it and some aren’t. So my grandmother went to a church that explains it one way, you found a different explanation that seems slightly more in tune with today's morals ... but that's just more to my point.

Heck, the "better translation" that you gave basically says that women in the military are an abomination, right?

Quote:
Again, all written documents are subject to interpretation. That doesn't mean that because some interpretations are wrong that they all are wrong or that there isn't a correct interpretation of the document.

Right, like in the example or legal documents … you can take a law how you want all day long, but the court will decide what the proper definition is and enforce it. That’s the part that makes them not worthless …

Quote:
To suggest the Bible is worthless because it can be incorrectly interpreted seems tantamount to saying the US Code or state law should be disregarded because it can be interpreted multiple ways. I can't help how others interpret the written words of the Bible or the law. I can only perform due diligence with scholarly study on both to determine the intent (or spirit) of both. YMMV


Comparing the bible to laws doesn’t make sense to me. Laws are created by man and subject to change if people decide they are not morally applicable. If you aren’t sure of what a given law means, you can find out pretty quickly by asking a government official or going online to seek trials on the law.

The bible was supposedly inspired by god and is not subject to change and *shouldn’t* be so open to interpretation … instead, it was written in such a vague way that you can make it mean just about whatever you want … and since you are conveniently only held accountable after you die, everybody does just that.

And all that without even discussing the fact that the Christian bible isn’t even the only “holy text” out there. Why did you choose to believe the bible … or was it introduced by your parents, presented as fact, and never really questioned from that point?

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 18, 2014 1:01 pm
Profile
Fenrir
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 10512
Location: Hawaii
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
The problem, and the reason for the inconsistencies, is that there was no "the Bible." You had the Old Testament, which traces back to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and then you have the New Testament for Christians. The collation of the Bible was not done by Jesus, God, or any other divine being. It was done by a Roman Emperor. Those interested should read up on the history of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

We know without shadow of a doubt that there were texts and gospels that were left out of the Bible. What was kept in and what was left out was more or less decided by Constantine and the Council. Constantine, by the way, was a pagan for the majority of his life. A worshipper of the Sun (Sol Invictus). As an example of his influence on Christianity, beyond just the Bible, Jews take the sabbath on Saturday. Christians go to church on SUNday. It's the same with Easter. Easter is based on the fertility goddess Eostra, hence the reason Christians hide eggs on Easter (it represents fertility has nothing to do with resurrection).

There is a strong intertwining between Christian and Pagan beliefs because it was the easiest way to assimilate a new belief system into the old. A monotheistic belief system greatly benefits an emperor (one God, one Ruler). To say there was no politics involved in the collation of the Bible would be rather closed minded in my view. Knowing the history of the Bible makes it difficult to reconcile reading it as a whole as it was never meant to be read as such. It was never meant to be historically accurate, I'm sure most know that the word gospel means "good news." Each sect of Christianity had their own book of good news that was used for the teachings of Christianity. To argue that they all got along and devised to create one all-encompassing book is historically inaccurate.

I could go on but I think this is all beyond the scope of a football messageboard, even in the off-topic section. Cliff is doing a fine job of moderating the thread so I'll leave it to him as to how far he wants to let this go but I thought I'd chime in a little. For the record, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe anything one way or the other, as they say, "those who believe, no proof is necessary. Those who do not, no proof is enough." I just thought I'd inject some historical background into the discussion.


Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:09 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
S197 wrote:
The problem, and the reason for the inconsistencies, is that there was no "the Bible." You had the Old Testament, which traces back to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and then you have the New Testament for Christians. The collation of the Bible was not done by Jesus, God, or any other divine being. It was done by a Roman Emperor. Those interested should read up on the history of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

We know without shadow of a doubt that there were texts and gospels that were left out of the Bible. What was kept in and what was left out was more or less decided by Constantine and the Council. Constantine, by the way, was a pagan for the majority of his life. A worshipper of the Sun (Sol Invictus). As an example of his influence on Christianity, beyond just the Bible, Jews take the sabbath on Saturday. Christians go to church on SUNday. It's the same with Easter. Easter is based on the fertility goddess Eostra, hence the reason Christians hide eggs on Easter (it represents fertility has nothing to do with resurrection).


I am actually familiar with that history, it's quite interesting.

Quote:
There is a strong intertwining between Christian and Pagan beliefs because it was the easiest way to assimilate a new belief system into the old. A monotheistic belief system greatly benefits an emperor (one God, one Ruler). To say there was no politics involved in the collation of the Bible would be rather closed minded in my view. Knowing the history of the Bible makes it difficult to reconcile reading it as a whole as it was never meant to be read as such. It was never meant to be historically accurate, I'm sure most know that the word gospel means "good news." Each sect of Christianity had their own book of good news that was used for the teachings of Christianity. To argue that they all got along and devised to create one all-encompassing book is historically inaccurate.


It's part of why I'm not particularly fond of the bible on the whole, but I'm especially not fond of the literal interpretation of it.

Quote:
I could go on but I think this is all beyond the scope of a football messageboard, even in the off-topic section. Cliff is doing a fine job of moderating the thread so I'll leave it to him as to how far he wants to let this go but I thought I'd chime in a little. For the record, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe anything one way or the other, as they say, "those who believe, no proof is necessary. Those who do not, no proof is enough." I just thought I'd inject some historical background into the discussion.


As long as it stays civil I'm not much on being a stickler for the off-topic section as far as keeping it on the football track. If I'm told that's wrong I'll certainly stop.

Your quote is interesting but for me isn't true. As a non-believer, god could easily give me enough proof to believe, it just never happens. As a believer, I would imagine proof is counter-productive. Faith is believing in the absence of proof, no? Absence of proof is a requirement for faith as I understand it.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 18, 2014 3:26 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Cliff wrote:
Just Me wrote:

Incorrect. He is pointing out within the broader context of the Bible why you cannot take verses out of context (i.e. "Judas hung himself"; and "Go ye, and do likewise") without consideration of the Biblical context as a whole. If you take it as we are "choosing what we want" then I would ask you to read it again with an open mind.



The problem actually arises when you consider the context of the bible as a whole. Taking parts out of context is something that is done on both sides of this particular argument. However, that’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’m not saying everyone chooses exactly what they want to follow, but they do disregard the things that are too against the morals of the day even though they would have been acceptable when the book was written.

The “gay rights” debate is in the middle ground of modern morals and so we see that debate reflected in what people decide to take from the bible. People that have decided there is no problem with homosexuality find ways in the bible to justify that, people that are uncomfortable with homosexuality find verses to condemn it. If you can do that, what’s the point?


I see what you are saying. But, the fact remains that the Bible is true, or it's false, or some combination of the two. For the sake of my argument, let's assume it's true. The fact that it is interpreted correctly by some and incorrectly by others doesn't change the fact there is a correct interpretation. Just because people (whom the Bible clearly indicates are flawed - we all are) may interpret things in the Bible a certain way doesn't mean I'm going to take their word as (pardon the pun) Gospel. I'm not saying my interpretation is 100% correct, but I'm constantly seeking knowledge that supports (and, yes in some cases, refutes) my previously held beliefs on any given topic. Is the only way one can believe in something is if there is an easy, unambiguous way to understand it? Does it make it automatically untrue?

Quote:
Quote:
The misuse of something does not take away its use. The fact the Bible was incorrectly used to justify slavery (which the Supreme Court has done BTW - Do we see no value in have a Supreme Court because faulty logic was used in applying the law in the Dred Scott decision?) is as irrelevant as a printing press can be used to print hate literature. It's not the printing press, that is wrong, it's the people using the it for nefarious purposes that are wrong. Do people misuse the Bible? Of course they do. It doesn't somehow equate to invalidating the Bible.


The difference of course is that the printing press can be changed to print something else. The verses in the bible that say slavery is ok are still there … most modern Christians simply choose to ignore them.


I am aware of Biblical instructions for the "code-of-conduct" for slaves and masters. Is there a verse that condones slavery? This is similar to me wanting my children to take responsibility for their actions, even in instances where "life has dealt them an unfair hand." I don't believe the Bible condones slavery, but I'll acknowledge it, if you can cite a reference.

Quote:
A printing press can be updated with new ideas to print. The bible has the same outdated bronze-age thinking in it.


I think you missed the point of my metaphor. The point was nearly anyone can use nearly anything for nefarious purposes, but that doesn't make the object bad. Truth is truth, regardless of the age. Either the Bible is true or it's not, regardless of whether it was written yesterday or before the bronze age.

Quote:
Quote:
The interpretation of any written document is always subject to various conclusions. Does that mean the law is something we "cherry-pick" what we like because there are various interpretations of US law?


That’s not entirely true some laws are written very clearly … and if there is a debate it is resolved through trial.


Respectfully, I disagree and you're making my point for me. The fact there is a debate (whether resolved by trial or not) means it is subject to interpretation. Even what seems "clear" has been challenged in court and laws are sometimes re-written because a 'previously clear' law had some ambiguity brought into it by a clever legal strategy. There is a reason there are an odd number of justices in the Supreme Court when deciding what a law (as written) says.



Quote:
Quote:
There are some who justify not paying taxes based on the letter of US law. The issue is (the same one we are dealing with here) they are quoting a part of US law out of context and failing to consider the context of the law in its entirety. The only difference is those who have sought to avoid paying taxes are quickly educated (i.e. sent to prison) on their errors. Some of those persons still disagree with lawyers that have tried to tell them they are required to pay taxes. The fact is, they still violated the law despite their incorrect interpretation of the law.


I don’t see how this relates to our conversation at all. Sure, those people took a law out of context and they had to pay for that. However, that’s their fault for not reading the law and making sure with a tax agent of some kind. They violated a law in which there is an existing body that they could have asked for guidance.


Your next sentence suggests you do see how it pertains to our conversation. The fact is, they believed they were acting correctly under the law. The IRS had a 'vested interest' in the outcome so they didn't trust their interpretation.

Quote:
In the case of religion getting some kind of “official” context or guidance would be impossible. I could go to any number of churches (aka experts on the subject) and they would each give me their own version. To really spice things up I could go to a church other than a Christian one and they’d tell me the whole bible is bunk!


Some religions would suggest the Bible is bunk and others would not (they would not use it as an authoritative reference, however).

Quote:
You’re telling me that I lack context but I don’t think I do. If anything, I am paying attention to an even larger context. The context is that there is more than one religion in the first place.


My reference was in the context of the Bible. I have studied different religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen, Shintoism, Islam, and others). I get they all have different beliefs. I'm saying if you're critiquing the Bible as being 'inconsistent' in itself then your critiques have to be taking the Bible in it's entirety (in context). It's like saying DOMA is OK since the legislative branch of our government can enact laws. The problem is: Congress has to enact laws in compliance with the US Constitution and DOMA violated the 5th Amendment (Total context = why Congress CAN'T enact DOMA as it was written.)
Quote:
Quote:
I wasn't arguing this forum was improper, I was merely pointing out there are many atheist/religious boards I could choose to frequent if that was the topic(s) I wished to discuss. This is the proper forum for it, but it's still a football message board (primarily)


I tend to agree … but this subject matter is closely tied into religion. In fact, religion is really the only argument against gay marriage that I’m aware of.


I think you are correct in that the argument has religious 'tone' to it due to the homosexuality argument. However, I don't care if one is a homosexual or if they get married. I have my beliefs, but it is not my place to judge that behavior (right or wrong) as I will have enough to worry about my own behavior. I have never argued against same-sex marriages, but have (since the issue is tied closely to religion) argued when I believe Christianity has been attacked.

Quote:
Quote:
How much research have you completed in various religions and/or philosophies? Have you actually read the Bible in it's entirety? (You may well have done so, and perhaps you have more qualifications to comment on this topic than I have.) The analysis of the Bible seemed overly simplistic and that was why I came to the conclusion your basis for maligning the Bible was suspect. Can you please advise your background that would suggest your analysis has authority. I can't change your opinion, but it would seem on the surface (based on your previous remarks) that I have done more research on this topic. As always, I could be wrong...


I grew up in a Pentecostal home in which my grandfather on my mother’s side built his church with his bare hands. He dug out the basement and hauled it up one bucket at a time. Church was twice on Sunday, Wednesday, and bible study on Friday night. From birth until 16-17.

Once I started forming my own ideas on religion I did further research outside of the narrow Christian view I grew up with but I will certainly admit it mostly consists of writings and discussions I have found or taken part in online ... though that is how much research is done these days so I'm not sure it can be held against me. What I found of particular interest in that research is all of the gods that share characteristics with Jesus, the virgin birth, born on December 25th, etc, etc.


The fact that there are many similarities between the Bible and other religions does not necessarily mean that Christianity copied other religions, it can mean that they all came from a common source. And this is exactly what we would expect if the Bible is true. There should be no surprise here at all. (BTW - December 25th was actually an blending of the Winter Solstice celebration (the renewal of life) and we celebrate Christ's birth. I don't believe there is definitive evidence of a December birth and if recollection serves me, the birth was most likely in June or July.

Quote:
So I don’t have any “official” degrees in religion but I do have a lot of experience. My analysis of the bible is simplistic because I prefer to cut down to the bone of what is actually said rather than try to skirt around the issue by providing my own “context”. Though I will admit I haven’t read it cover to cover in many years (nearly 12 now); why, have they changed some things around again? ;)


:lol: Not to my knowledge. You certainly have as much "authority" as I have to comment on the topic. I just wanted to know if I had an 'honest skeptic' or an 'avowed athiest' that had never read the Bible but seemed to believe it was false. It would appear you are in the former category.

Quote:
The bible is only complex when you decide you have to find ways around what was actually written to get to what you’d like it to mean. When taken at face value, however, the bible is pretty awful and pretty clear about it.


We'll disagree on this. CS Lewis once said something to the effect that "Whoever said theology would be simple. We could logically expect it to be as nuanced as physics"

Quote:
Quote:
I'm not referring to "backsliding" either. (I'm not a 'fundamentalist' BTW). Give me an example of the 'nonsense' and I'll see if I can't put it in proper context.


You can google them but I’ll provide a few;
http://monicks.net/2009/09/12/11-things ... do-anyway/


There are so many listed here, but all are Old Testiment references. God had established several laws

and the relationship between the OT and the NT is that if a prohibition in the OT is repealed in the NT, it is no longer valid. The whole idea in the OT about unclean animals and foods was done away with in the NT (see Peter’s vision on Acts 10:9-16). So it is not inconsistent to obey other laws in Leviticus but not obey food laws. They are no longer an issue. But, you might object, weren’t those laws random and ridiculous when they were in force? No, not really.

The point of such laws is that Israel as a nation needed to be distinct from the nations around it in order to form and maintain its identity as a people. Food laws (and other seemingly 'weird' laws) were one of the ways to maintain that distinction. And there was a rationale behind which animals were forbidden. From Genesis 1 on, God was all about separating things into separate categories and not mixing them. The word for that idea is holiness. Israel needed to be holy – separate from the nations around it.

God wanted to form a distinct nation that would in time bring salvation to the other nations. And to do so, he gave them a separate diet and hygiene, among other things. Once Jesus came bringing that salvation, the apostles were charged with taking that salvation to the nations. So now the idea was not to be separate from the nations but to go out into them. Peter’s vision (in Acts 10) was not so much about food but about contact with ‘unclean’ Gentiles (non-Jews). The Gentiles and their culture were no longer unclean, including the food they eat. And so we see apostles living like Gentiles and adopting their culture in order to share the good news with them, rather than insisting that they adopt Jewish culture. I can actually expound on each of these items as they show a misunderstanding of the Bible (again as a whole), but the response would be incredibly long (and most likely boring). If you'd like to pick your 'best 2-3' I'll respond to those less generically.


Quote:
She is referring to her hair being her "covering" and if you consider the Bible in it's entirety there are items that serve as her "covering" (in lieu of her hair). The long pant's you mention are from “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” This verse -- Deuteronomy 22:5

"Pertaineth" is translated from the Hebrew word keliy, which means “article, vessel, implement, or utensil.” Translators commonly render keliy as weapon, armor or instrument in the Old Testament. The word man, in both the first and last part of Deut 22:5, is the Hebrew word geber meaning “man, strong man, or warrior (emphasizing strength or ability to fight).” It is important to note that this is not the only word for man in Hebrew. Verse 13 of this very same chapter uses the Hebrew word 'iysh, which is also translated man and means just that – “man, male (in contrast to woman, female).” It seems that Moses, when writing Deut 22:5, was quite intentionally not talking about a man in general, but a very specific kind of man – namely, a warrior or soldier. Considering this, perhaps a better translation of this verse would be as follows:

“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”


I am aware of the verses behind it … but that doesn’t explain why some people are ok with it and some aren’t. So my grandmother went to a church that explains it one way, you found a different explanation that seems slightly more in tune with today's morals ... but that's just more to my point.

Heck, the "better translation" that you gave basically says that women in the military are an abomination, right? [/quote]

That is actually correct in my best estimation. Truth (regardless of whether or not my interpretation or yours is correct) is not always what we want to hear. Now, refer to my previous explanation above as to why the act of 'being separate' from other nations is now been clarifiedin the New Testament. Do I think it applies today? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Will I judge others? No.

Quote:
Quote:
Again, all written documents are subject to interpretation. That doesn't mean that because some interpretations are wrong that they all are wrong or that there isn't a correct interpretation of the document.

Right, like in the example or legal documents … you can take a law how you want all day long, but the court will decide what the proper definition is and enforce it. That’s the part that makes them not worthless …


Yes. Now Substitute God for Court and you see what I'm saying.

Quote:
Quote:
To suggest the Bible is worthless because it can be incorrectly interpreted seems tantamount to saying the US Code or state law should be disregarded because it can be interpreted multiple ways. I can't help how others interpret the written words of the Bible or the law. I can only perform due diligence with scholarly study on both to determine the intent (or spirit) of both. YMMV


Comparing the bible to laws doesn’t make sense to me. Laws are created by man and subject to change if people decide they are not morally applicable. If you aren’t sure of what a given law means, you can find out pretty quickly by asking a government official or going online to seek trials on the law.


Until a new argument or interpretation of the law comes up. Case law exists precisely to clarify ambiguities in the law in an expedient manner. The fact that every circumstance is not always quickly and clearly defined does not diminish the utility of the law (or Bible). It boils down to whether or not you believe the Bible to be true. If you don't, that's your prerogative, and I'm not going to try and change your mind. If you don't believe it's true just because it may speak in allegories or is seemingly ambiguous at times, I don't think that is a good reason.

Look at it the comparison between secular laws and the Bible this way: They both are 'laws.' The fact that man changes his laws is not really relevant here. For the sake of argument, let's assume God exists and he is as perfect as Christians allege. He would have no need to change his laws, and regardless of how man interprets his laws, it doesn't change the truth. Man's laws are the same way. I can choose to say: "Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code is private law/special law that one only becomes subject to by consensually engaging in an excise taxable activity called a "trade or business", which is a defined as a "public office" in the U.S. government. It proves using the government's own statutes and publications and court rulings that for everyone domiciled in states of the Union who has not availed themselves of this excise taxable franchise/privilege of federal office, Subtitle A of the I.R.C. creates no force of obligation upon them to pay an income tax to the federal government."

That is partially accurate interpretation of law by the way. When not taken within the proper context of ALL THE LAW on the subject, I have purchased a ticket to the greybar motel. That is why I used that metaphor. Not perfect, but I was trying to steer away from the:

God is real! No, he's not! argument.

Quote:
The bible was supposedly inspired by god and is not subject to change and *shouldn’t* be so open to interpretation … instead, it was written in such a vague way that you can make it mean just about whatever you want … and since you are conveniently only held accountable after you die, everybody does just that.


Why shouldn't it be interpreted? Doesn't He want us to discover things. I disagree that you can make it mean 'whatever you want' but I believe the potential exists to misuse it and twist the Bible to suggest inaccurate beliefs, but why is God obligated to "spoon-feed" us our morality, especially if he wants us to have free will? What you seem to be saying is the equivalent of "If God doesn't function the way I think he should function, than I can't believe in him." Look, for the sake of argument, let's say I'm totally wrong on this, and you're right. If I follow the Bible's two greatest commandments "Love God #1 and Love Everyone Else #2 (my paraphrase), how is that a bad thing or subject to any interpretation that is 'bad'? The point remains that the misuse of anything does not detract from its use.


Quote:
And all that without even discussing the fact that the Christian bible isn’t even the only “holy text” out there. Why did you choose to believe the bible … or was it introduced by your parents, presented as fact, and never really questioned from that point?


I read several of the texts (The Bhagavad Gita, The Qur'an, and others - Zen rejects any scripture as a path to enlightenment). One of the reasons I tend to believe what I do is that the first Christian martyrs died because they refused to renounce Christ (and they could have been spared had they done so). That is not unusual in and of itself. All that shows is that the Christians truly believed in Christ, but people die for beliefs all the time (certain muslims for example - I'm sure they believe in what they do), but the disciples were unique in they knew the truth as to the resurrection of Christ. Either Christ did, or he was a liar, and these people knew the truth. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know is a lie. Since then, I have a relationship with Christ that I know to be true. I don't expect you to believe my own personal experiences, I just ask that they not be denigrated. Of course, that choice is up to you...

:v):

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:04 pm
Profile
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
S197 wrote:
The problem, and the reason for the inconsistencies, is that there was no "the Bible." You had the Old Testament, which traces back to the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and then you have the New Testament for Christians. The collation of the Bible was not done by Jesus, God, or any other divine being. It was done by a Roman Emperor. Those interested should read up on the history of Constantine and the Council of Nicaea.

We know without shadow of a doubt that there were texts and gospels that were left out of the Bible. What was kept in and what was left out was more or less decided by Constantine and the Council. Constantine, by the way, was a pagan for the majority of his life. A worshipper of the Sun (Sol Invictus). As an example of his influence on Christianity, beyond just the Bible, Jews take the sabbath on Saturday. Christians go to church on SUNday. It's the same with Easter. Easter is based on the fertility goddess Eostra, hence the reason Christians hide eggs on Easter (it represents fertility has nothing to do with resurrection).

There is a strong intertwining between Christian and Pagan beliefs because it was the easiest way to assimilate a new belief system into the old. A monotheistic belief system greatly benefits an emperor (one God, one Ruler). To say there was no politics involved in the collation of the Bible would be rather closed minded in my view. Knowing the history of the Bible makes it difficult to reconcile reading it as a whole as it was never meant to be read as such. It was never meant to be historically accurate, I'm sure most know that the word gospel means "good news." Each sect of Christianity had their own book of good news that was used for the teachings of Christianity. To argue that they all got along and devised to create one all-encompassing book is historically inaccurate.

I could go on but I think this is all beyond the scope of a football messageboard, even in the off-topic section. Cliff is doing a fine job of moderating the thread so I'll leave it to him as to how far he wants to let this go but I thought I'd chime in a little. For the record, I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe anything one way or the other, as they say, "those who believe, no proof is necessary. Those who do not, no proof is enough." I just thought I'd inject some historical background into the discussion.


I'll disagree that the the Bible wasn't meant to be taken as a whole as evidenced by Jesus's references to the messianic prophesies in Isaiah and other Old Testament writings.

From a personal standpoint, I can let the thread die (if you'd care to look at my posting history you'll never find proselytization by me - I have only responded when I believe some part of Christianity has been misrepresented) but I really do not enjoy these discussions. I find it highly unlikely that I'll convince those who do not believe, anyway.

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Tue Feb 18, 2014 4:16 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 7961
Location: Kentucky
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Though I disagree with you I respect your point of view and the points you've made. However, I think this conversation has probably gone on farther than it should have, we have strayed very far from the point, and I'm going to back out.

_________________
“There is a chance that if I lose 100 pounds, I could be a jockey ...” - Coach Zimmer


Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:02 pm
Profile
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:23 pm
Posts: 1736
Location: Alabama
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Ahhhh.... The classic Religion vs Homosexuality debate.

Fact, Christianity views homosexuality as immortality. People seem to forget when and how the Old Testament was written and why and how they New Testament was written. The New Testament states that we live by faith, not a law. There are some commands that are listed in the New Statements that we are to obey but not the old testament's laws.

That being said the fact that the average christian may not obey all the commands shows that we are all still sinners in the eyes of God. Our way of thinking is not like his, and I think that's what gets people worked up. Like the fact that God supposedly has the power to watch all of us at the same time, your brain will hurt trying to figure out how that is possible.

Back to homosexuality, as much some people like me hate it, it's not up to me to determine their fate. There's a lot of heterosexuals, who attend church every weekend and still will end up in hell. The bible DOES speaks of that. A lot of those "holier than thou" people, will fall short.

As Christians, we really are suppose to accept people the same way we want to be accepted. We all know someone who probably has been in constant trouble with the law. What do you do? You are suppose to pray for them and hope that God will change their criminal behavior. The same applies with gays. You don't go to a gay person and be like, "THE BIBLE SAYS BEING GAY IS A SIN!! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!" No, we are supposed to fellowship with them like any other person and hope that the word of God will work into their hearts turn them straight.

And before someone says that is impossible it's not. I know a lot of gay people who attended church and change their sexual preference. It didn't happen over night. It can take years! So when people say that homosexuality is something you're born with, I'm not sure. Most homosexuals I know or heard about go through that, "curious" stage when they think they like the same sex but not sure. If you're born gay then you shouldn't be confused or "finding yourself." That's just my opinion though.


Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:49 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Posts: 4013
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Just Me wrote:
Cliff wrote:
I tend to agree … but this subject matter is closely tied into religion. In fact, religion is really the only argument against gay marriage that I’m aware of.


I think you are correct in that the argument has religious 'tone' to it due to the homosexuality argument. However, I don't care if one is a homosexual or if they get married. I have my beliefs, but it is not my place to judge that behavior (right or wrong) as I will have enough to worry about my own behavior. I have never argued against same-sex marriages, but have (since the issue is tied closely to religion) argued when I believe Christianity has been attacked.


King James wrote:
As Christians, we really are suppose to accept people the same way we want to be accepted.


It's interesting, I get the same "Christians should be accepting of others and focus more on their own lives" from some of these comments, but the fact is, oftentimes, that is not the reality, especially regarding this particular issue. People do use their religious backgrounds and beliefs to openly judge, criticize, and discriminate against others. I think, that is where people like to jump up and call BS and mention hypocrisy and such.

For example, the laws being discussed in Arizona and Kansas right now that would allow business owners to openly discriminate against homosexuals.

Quote:
Arizona's Legislature has passed a controversial bill that would allow business owners, as long as they assert their religious beliefs, to deny service to gay and lesbian customers.


Quote:
Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

"It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.

He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

And in Kansas:

Quote:
Last week, the Kansas House of Representatives embarrassed itself by easily passing a bill that aimed to make gay people separate and not equal. In the name of protecting the religious sensibilities of private employers, stores, hotels, movie theaters, parks, pools—any public accommodation—the law allowed them to turn away gay couples and could even have applied to gay individuals.


Quote:
I am pleased to report that the Republican-led Kansas Senate decided this would not fly. Senate President Susan Wagle said on Thursday that a majority of the state senators in her party would not vote for the bill. They support “traditional marriage,” Wagle noted, “however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” Thank you for that line in the sand. It should be obvious, but somehow that was lost on the Kansas House.

Instead of passing, as everyone predicted, the Kansas anti-gay bill will now, in all likelihood, quietly die without hearings or a vote.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014 ... _kill.html

Naturally, I think these bills are ridiculous. But, in the end, if business owners want to turn away people for whatever reason, that is their deal. I don't think that gay people would want their services anyway after learning their feelings. They shouldn't have to, but I'm sure they would gladly take their money somewhere else. So, that is that! But, this is what people have issues with. On one hand, people are like, "We shouldn't judge. That's not our place. We should be accepting. Blah blah blah." Then, they follow that up with actions (and words) that are sometimes the exact opposite, supposedly, because of their religion.

So, which is it? Religion should be used as a tool to "hate" and "discriminate"? Or should it be used for "acceptance" "tolerance" "love" "good" "faith", etc.? Or somewhere in between? How is that determined? Based on the weather that day? Flip of a coin? The "ick factor" of a particular topic? :D

Also, it's scary to think that some people don't realize that gays do, indeed, get openly discriminated against. I mean, there are TWO laws being discussed RIGHT NOW. What more proof do you need? Discrimination, yeah, it's a reality, and it sucks.

_________________
Image


Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:34 pm
Profile WWW
Hall of Famer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:41 pm
Posts: 6021
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Funkytown wrote:
Just Me wrote:
Cliff wrote:
I tend to agree … but this subject matter is closely tied into religion. In fact, religion is really the only argument against gay marriage that I’m aware of.


I think you are correct in that the argument has religious 'tone' to it due to the homosexuality argument. However, I don't care if one is a homosexual or if they get married. I have my beliefs, but it is not my place to judge that behavior (right or wrong) as I will have enough to worry about my own behavior. I have never argued against same-sex marriages, but have (since the issue is tied closely to religion) argued when I believe Christianity has been attacked.


King James wrote:
As Christians, we really are suppose to accept people the same way we want to be accepted.


It's interesting, I get the same "Christians should be accepting of others and focus more on their own lives" from some of these comments, but the fact is, oftentimes, that is not the reality, especially regarding this particular issue. People do use their religious backgrounds and beliefs to openly judge, criticize, and discriminate against others. I think, that is where people like to jump up and call BS and mention hypocrisy and such.


And as well they can (cry hypocrisy). To be consistent: (Let's assume for the sake of my point that homosexuality is a sin - I know we don't necessarily agree on that point, but I think we'd agree on the point I'm trying to make) then the people who refuse service to homosexuals should also refuse service to liars, thieves, murders, etc. IOW nobody. But wait, you say. I'm not a liar (You've never told a white lie?!!! Not even to spare someone's feelings?!!! - OOOOOOK). And I've certainly never murdered someone. You might want to review Matthew 5:21-22: “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment."

So I can't justify any bad behavior (including my own). As an ambassador for Christ, I can only hope (within the imperfections that lie within me)that I represent Him in a manner that doesn't drive people away from Him. We (Christians) all fail far too often at that.






Quote:
Some Republican legislators have defended the bill as a First Amendment issue. Democrats dismissed it as an attack on gays and lesbians.

"It's a very bad day for Arizona," Rep. Chad Campbell, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the legislation, told CNN Friday.

He added, "Let there be no doubt about what this bill does. It's going to allow people to discriminate against the gay community in Arizona. It goes after unprotected classes of people and we all know that the biggest unprotected class of people in the state is the LBGT community. If we were having this conversation in regard to African-Americans or women, there would be outrage across the country right now."


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/us/arizona-anti-gay-bill/

And in Kansas:

Quote:
Last week, the Kansas House of Representatives embarrassed itself by easily passing a bill that aimed to make gay people separate and not equal. In the name of protecting the religious sensibilities of private employers, stores, hotels, movie theaters, parks, pools—any public accommodation—the law allowed them to turn away gay couples and could even have applied to gay individuals.


Quote:
Also, it's scary to think that some people don't realize that gays do, indeed, get openly discriminated against. I mean, there are TWO laws being discussed RIGHT NOW. What more proof do you need? Discrimination, yeah, it's a reality, and it sucks.


Agreed.

_________________
I've told people a million times not to exaggerate!


Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:50 am
Profile
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Posts: 4013
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Valhalla wrote:
So by your logic, kosher delis should be forced to serve pork or they discriminate?


Oh yes, and I also get super mad when I go to Arby's and try to order a Big Mac. 8)

After that opening argument...I stopped right there. Sorry. If a business doesn't make something or have it in stock, they aren't picking and choosing who they serve what to. They just don't have it--for anyone. That's different, and likely, not discrimination at all.

As far as your argument, if that is what you want to call it, you should read my post again. You are clearly missing the general themes there.

_________________
Image


Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:22 am
Profile WWW
Hall of Fame Inductee
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
Posts: 4013
Location: Northeast, Iowa
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Just Me wrote:

And as well they can (cry hypocrisy). To be consistent: (Let's assume for the sake of my point that homosexuality is a sin - I know we don't necessarily agree on that point, but I think we'd agree on the point I'm trying to make) then the people who refuse service to homosexuals should also refuse service to liars, thieves, murders, etc. IOW nobody.


This.

Consistency and fairness is what I want, not major emphasis put on the supposed homosexuality sin while others are simply sins, sins, and sins. :D

Good, honest, and fair post. Thank you, sir!

_________________
Image


Sun Feb 23, 2014 10:45 am
Profile WWW
All Pro Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:23 pm
Posts: 1736
Location: Alabama
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
Quote:
It's interesting, I get the same "Christians should be accepting of others and focus more on their own lives" from some of these comments, but the fact is, oftentimes, that is not the reality, especially regarding this particular issue. People do use their religious backgrounds and beliefs to openly judge, criticize, and discriminate against others. I think, that is where people like to jump up and call BS and mention hypocrisy and such.

For example, the laws being discussed in Arizona and Kansas right now that would allow business owners to openly discriminate against homosexuals.



Well by law it says that all races should be treated equal but we know that is not reality. lol You have your good Christians and bad ones. Don't let the bad ones convince you that all Christian are just some hypocritical people who hate or others who are not like them. SOME people use their religion to discriminate but it's not up for them to decide whether a gay person is going to hell or not.

This world will never be 100% equal no matter what. It's not just religion it's with every group. Some organizations discriminate against the old, handicapped, and etc. No one on this earth is exempt from discrimination really. lol


Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:30 pm
Profile
Career Elite Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 2811
Post Re: The Vikings/Kluwe off-topic thread. Civil Discussion Onl
King James wrote:

And before someone says that is impossible it's not. I know a lot of gay people who attended church and change their sexual preference. It didn't happen over night. It can take years! So when people say that homosexuality is something you're born with, I'm not sure. Most homosexuals I know or heard about go through that, "curious" stage when they think they like the same sex but not sure. If you're born gay then you shouldn't be confused or "finding yourself." That's just my opinion though.

:shock:

I purposely stayed away from this topic as I don't feel it's my right to tell people what they should and shouldn't be allowed to do. that said...I simply can't buy what you're selling here. you know lots of gay people that have changed their sexual preference?! do they all report to you what goes on in their bedrooms? do they check in with you daily to let you in on where they are sexually? that would be interesting to say the least.

and what gay people have said that they were just "finding themselves"? I haven't heard a straight person ever say such a thing. if I start messing around with guys...I'm not curious. I'm gay. often times this is what anti-gay people say. oh he's not gay...he's just finding himself. please.

you don't think this is something people are born with? can I ask you a question then as it should be real easy. when did you make the choice to not be gay. you obviously weren't born being attracted to women. at some point you made the conscious decision to love women. I personally don't recall making this choice. as I grew up, I was always attracted to women. not once have I ever been interested in guys. never had a moment where I thought johnny was hot but remembered the decision I made to like girls so thought against it. when did you make the decision I'd be curious to know.

my guess, is that all of these gays that "changed their sexuality" might in fact be just trying to live their lives in peace and sadly pretending to be something they're not is easier to appease the masses. especially in churches where everyone is judging. if I was gay and went to church, with so many people caring so much about what happened in my bedroom...I might just say I was in fact "changed" to just to get people off my back.

because these people obviously are so comfortable telling you all about their personal lives, you might see if any of them will share their stories of changing their sexuality. I imagine other people who made the choice to be gay would be ecstatic to learn how to do this. you know...with being gay being as bad as it is. why people would ever make the choice to be ridiculed, bullied, judged, labeled, discriminated against etc. is far beyond me. but they made the choice and after seeing how close-minded some people are and how difficult it is being gay...I'm sure many would love to "choose" to not be gay. I think you could help a lot of people if you could just get all the gays in your church to share their story about turning the switch. unless these very private matters are only something they share with you which I would completely understand as it makes so much sense.

:thumbsup:

_________________
i'm ready for a beer.


Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:23 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.