Civil unions for gays now available in N.J.

[Blastoderm55]

One step closer to equality. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17224546/) This is a wonderful thing.

And for those of you who think this nation is a theocracy, founded upon dogmatic law, give a read to what this guy (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian) has to say. He's a theology scholar, and has studied the Bible and its texts his whole life, as well as its translations to English from Greek and Hebrew, and its relevenace toward life today as opposed to life thousands of years ago. Feel free to call me an idiot, but this guy has researched and learned more than any of us could ever hope to.

[District303aPastPlayer]

Good... Now let the bible thumpers come out :)

[Black_Magic]

Look Duke22!! not long now! you and your soulmate are going to be able to get hitched soon!:thumbsup: :kiss: :inlove: :thumbsup:

[big daddy russ]

I can tell you right now that the pastor from NC is out of his ever-loving mind. Sin is sin to God, whether you're lying or murdering, it's all equally despised by him. By that definition, God hates a liar every bit as much as he hates a murderer or rapist. If you murder a gay man (and the key word here is murder), it's a sin in God's eyes.

You look up murder on Dictionary.com and it gives you an accurate description of what murder in a Biblical sense means.

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Malice and premeditated jump out at you. Now King David was within his rights in the law when he sent Bathsheba's husband out to the front lines to be killed, and he would never have to answer to any worldly laws for it, but it was still murder in God's eyes because of those two words. Malice and premeditation. The Sheperd killing was a murder, plain and simple, because the killers had both. A soldier in Iraq, however, does not commit murder because he does not kill for malice, but rather because he must to survive. That is why a "Godly" nation (i.e. the Hebrews after the Exodus when they invaded the land of milk and honey) can kill someone without being murderers.

I'm not a bible-thumper... nix that, I'm not even much of a Christian anymore. But as many of you already know, I'm a huge nerd. I get so interested in a topic (and it can be any topic) that I try to find out every and anything I can about it. That's why, back when I still went to church, I studied the Bible. I've read it cover to cover at least twice.

The passage in Leviticus that he spoke of is the passage that I take to heart. He talks about it being outdated. Sorry, I don't buy into it. It's fuzzy because I haven't read the Bible in about five years, but I know that's also one of the passages that mentions not having sex with relatives (I think it's your cousin or closer), not having sex with animals, etc, etc.

He tries to discredit the scripture by saying that it's outdated. While I am willing to listen to new thoughts of just about anything pertaining to the Bible, I don't have to buy into them.

As a writer, I can take just about any argument and make it sound good. That's exactly what he's done, and he can't BS this BS'er. But in all of this, there is one huge difference between us. He finds things to support his own beliefs while I take in as much information as possible, then make a decision based on everything I know.

Leviticus was one of the "rulebooks" of the Bible. Basically told you a bunch of the laws that God had set forth, and this much was clear: he didn't like unnatural relationships of any sort: whether it was same-sex relations, sex with animals, or sex with relatives.

Sorry, but like he said at the beginning of the article, you can make the Bible say just about anything you want. For centuries, we used it to oppress minorities, justify murder, and all sorts of things. Now it's come full circle and we're using it to justify sin.

But you know what, I honestly couldn't go straight up in an argument with this guy. He knows entirely too much about the Bible and would grill me on everything. There's no way I know what he knows about the good book. One of my friends, on the other hand, is a seminary student at Baylor. I just talked to him as I was writing this and he said the guy is out of his mind. I'm sure JasperDog94 (a minister in New Caney, if I remember correctly) would back him up.

Oh, and Truett's known as one of the most liberal seminaries in the world.

[Snydertigersrul]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
One step closer to equality. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17224546/) This is a wonderful thing.

And for those of you who think this nation is a theocracy, founded upon dogmatic law, give a read to what this guy (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian) has to say. He's a theology scholar, and has studied the Bible and its texts his whole life, as well as its translations to English from Greek and Hebrew, and its relevenace toward life today as opposed to life thousands of years ago. Feel free to call me an idiot, but this guy has researched and learned more than any of us could ever hope to.


Duke 22, maybe you need to read this

[Blastoderm55]

I always appreciate your input Russ. You take the time to at least look at the argument before making your statement, and you don't merely discount what others say simply because you don't agree with it.

As for the passage describing Leviticus, these paragraphs stood out to me:

For Jewish writers of Scripture, a man sleeping with another man was an abomination. But it was also an abomination (and one worthy of death) to masturbate or even to interrupt coitus (to halt sex with your spouse before ejaculation as an act of birth control). Why were these sexual practices considered abominations by Scripture writers in these ancient times?

Because the Hebrew pre-scientific understanding was that the male semen contained the whole of life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it was assumed that the man's sperm contained the whole child and that the woman provided only the incubating space. Therefore, the spilling of semen without possibility of having a child was considered murder.

The Jews were a small tribe struggling to populate a country. They were outnumbered by their enemy. You can see why these ancient people felt it was an abomination to risk "wasting" even a single child. But the passage says nothing about homosexuality as we understand it today.

Yes, the Bible's words can be twisted to serve an agenda. Personally, I prefer this man's agenda, which is one of unity and acceptance as opposed to an agenda of hatred and bigotry.

[Blastoderm55]

Originally posted by big daddy russ


But you know what, I honestly couldn't go straight up in an argument with this guy. He knows entirely too much about the Bible and would grill me on everything. There's no way I know what he knows about the good book. One of my friends, on the other hand, is a seminary student at Baylor. I just talked to him as I was writing this and he said the guy is out of his mind. I'm sure JasperDog94 (a minister in New Caney, if I remember correctly) would back him up.

Oh, and Truett's known as one of the most liberal seminaries in the world.

I sent the link to JasperDog94 via PM last week and didn't heard back from him about it.

The point that White makes that sticks out to me is the possibility for discrepancy when translated from language to language. Further, while the Bible may be the infallible word of God, man's word is inherintly fallible. We make mistakes. We forget apostrophes. We use there when we need they're. Coupling this with translations into tongues which may or may have not even had the proper terminolgy for such an undertaking is a huge opportunity for error.

[Black_Magic]

Duke22 is not really gay. here is his girlfriend.
http://static.flickr.com/65/207259084_66bf6b3463.jpg :p

[pirate4state]

Who is Duke22 and why does he need to read any of this?? :thinking: :thinking:

[Blastoderm55]

Here's his profile (http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=6286). Guess they're making fun of the guy by using homosexuality in a derogatory fashion. Good work guys. :rolleyes:

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Here's his profile (http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=6286). Guess they're making fun of the guy by using homosexuality in a derogatory fashion. Good work guys. :rolleyes:

Ah, I see. Boys will be boys.

[themsu97]

I could care less what they do in NJ or what some whack job thinks the Bible says... if that makes me close minded then so be it... I will take the Bible at what it says... I have read it a few times...prefer the KJV myself... would love to learn Hebrew to get a better understanding but with my sister in law graduating from the seminary and having a degree in Hebrew... I will take her at her word and she says the gay bible is not accurate and very skewed... which is what liberals need to make the world go round... I guess most of ya'll still believe that the Constitution calls for a seperation of church and state, that is not even mentioned in the original document... and most of you probably have no idea where it came from and when and why it is first mentioned... but live life the way you want... you are the one that will be held accountable...

[Hansum Stranger]

Originally posted by themsu97
I could care less what they do in NJ or what some whack job thinks the Bible says... if that makes me close minded then so be it... I will take the Bible at what it says... I have read it a few times...prefer the KJV myself... would love to learn Hebrew to get a better understanding but with my sister in law graduating from the seminary and having a degree in Hebrew... I will take her at her word and she says the gay bible is not accurate and very skewed... which is what liberals need to make the world go round... I guess most of ya'll still believe that the Constitution calls for a seperation of church and state, that is not even mentioned in the original document... and most of you probably have no idea where it came from and when and why it is first mentioned... but live life the way you want... you are the one that will be held accountable...

Excellent post :clap: :clap: :clap:

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
One step closer to equality. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17224546/) This is a wonderful thing.

And for those of you who think this nation is a theocracy, founded upon dogmatic law, give a read to what this guy (http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian) has to say. He's a theology scholar, and has studied the Bible and its texts his whole life, as well as its translations to English from Greek and Hebrew, and its relevenace toward life today as opposed to life thousands of years ago. Feel free to call me an idiot, but this guy has researched and learned more than any of us could ever hope to. All I can say is "Wow". Way to take things completely out of context. Let's start with this statement:

"MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced."

That's not what it says. Always beware when somebody gives you a "condensed" version of what the Bible says. Go and read it for yourselves. Better yet, here it is:

Mark 10:1-12
1 Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.

2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.

4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."

5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, 8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. 11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. 12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
NIV

Now what that says to me is that a man should not leave his wife, nor should a woman leave their husband for another person. If they do, then that is adultery.

Also what about Matthew 5:32? "Matt 5:32
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery .
NIV"

So much for that articles theory about divorce being strictly forbidden.


Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Personally, I prefer this man's agenda, which is one of unity and acceptance as opposed to an agenda of hatred and bigotry.

But then again, that doesn't fit your agenda.