Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Thank you for your reply.Originally posted by HENG@:thats funny. another Christian friend of mine told me, in her own words "That sin was not homosexuality itself, but homosexual RAPE"
i dun understand why u people have to ignore the real wickedness of an action and unfairly point fingers at the other part which is not.
But that of course, is her view. My view is that, Old test, not valid. not unless u're a jew. If u still have a foreskin(assuming u're male), dun come quoting OT to me.
I think you might have accidentally include PAUL. If I'm not wrong, PAUL had not circumcised. Athough he is a jew, but he represented the gentile in spreading the Good News. Anyway, this can be easily confirmed with any pastors. In his books, PAUL had many times quoted from the OT. Wondering if this will cause his book to be invalid. He had explained in his books why circumcision is not necessary le.
Hope I have not misunderstood you. Btw, may I know if all Jews will have to be circumcised de?
Have a nice day today.
-
Ok, Ben go set up.Originally posted by ben1xy:i think we should set up a chatterbox -
Homosexuality is not a sin. It's a sick, a type of disability/handicap, a kind of mental unfitness.
But most if not all can be healed through therapy. It is just a matter of whether the person genuinely wants to go through treatment or want to stay homosexual.
If he chooses homosexuality, he cannot fault the church or the world community for discriminiating or depriving him of legal marriage.
Allowing a homosexual individual to marry another homo is just like
letting a hearing & speech impaired person take up a job as a telephone operator. -
Then we may have problems establishing even the basic tenets of the Christian faith 'cos much of them are written in the epistles. For example, belief in the risen Christ is pretty much contained in the epistles. Sama for grace and church foundation.Originally posted by HENG@:I believe the NT, but I don't believe everything in it. the NT is after all, a COMPILATION of many different scriptures. While I do not doubt that Paul wrote 1 Cor, I do think that just because Paul wrote something expressing his views does not necessary make that THE WORD or THE LAW. Paul is human. John writing down what Jesus himself had said is different from Paul writing down what he thinks might be or not be. -
Haha .. the three musketeers - eternal now, earthling and shade - will sure comment one.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Homosexuality is not a sin. It's a sick, a type of disability/handicap, a kind of mental unfitness.
Earthling will quote his bbc documentaries again.
-
Then I will quote SIS's source lor. SIS used this source to argue on this issue. Little did he realised that I am using this to support my stand instead...hahhaOriginally posted by Icemoon:Haha .. the three musketeers - eternal now, earthling and shade - will sure comment one.
Earthling will quote his bbc documentaries again. -
That's precisely where I hope this thread will not go....Originally posted by Icemoon:Haha .. the three musketeers - eternal now, earthling and shade - will sure comment one.
Earthling will quote his bbc documentaries again.
It's about a Christian response to homosexuality, based on all known theology. To bring in external resource on this is liken to bring in Carl Sagan when we discuss if God exist....
On one hand, Heng quotes from the Bible, verses that she purportedly condones homosexuality and on the other she discount verses that condemns homosexuality... so I don't quite get her drift....
One either disbelieve the Bible totally or accept it as the word of God. -
I see your view on the Bible is really odd... OT laws don't apply to you, as we agreed, cos we are not Jews.
Lets put it tis way. Even jesus was jewish.
Jesus was a Jew. He was born of a Jewish mother, in Galilee, a Jewish part of the world. All of his friends, associates, colleagues, disciples, all of them were Jews. He regularly worshipped in Jewish communal worship, what we call synagogues. He preached from Jewish text, from the Bible. He celebrated the Jewish festivals. He went on pilgrimage to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem where he was under the authority of priests.... Jesus presented continuously as going into the synagogue on the Sabbath. He is presented as going up to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage holidays, specifically in John, for any number of pilgrimage holidays, and in the synoptic gospels, most importantly, for Passover. He lived as a Jew and followed Jewish religious practices. He lived, was born, lived, died, taught as a Jew.
From his birth, as is indicated by his very Jewish genealogy, Jesus was raised a Jew. He was circumcised the eighth day (Luke 2.21), bore a common Jewish name, Yeshua, 'he [God] saves' (Matthew 1.21). In fact, Yeshua was the fifth most common Jewish name, 4 out of the 28 Jewish High-Priests in Jesus' time were called Yeshua.
After his birth, Jesus was presented to the Lord in the Jerusalem temple (Luke 2.22; cf. Deuteronomy 18.4; Exodus 13.2,12,15) according to Mary's period of uncleanness (Leviticus 12.2-
. A sacrifice was offered for him - a pair of doves and 2 young pigeons - which indicated that his family were not wealthy (Leviticus 12.2,6,8; Luke 2.22-24). Thus Jesus was raised according to the law (Luke 2.39).
Every year, (perhaps the family was prospering or were particularly dutiful for most only went up to Jerusalem occasionally) Jesus' family went up to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover (Pesach) (Luke 2.41-43) a tradition which Jesus continued (John 12.12; Mark 14.12-26). Jesus also kept Tabernacles (Sukkôth, 'booths') (John 7.1-39). John 10.22-23 may also indicate that Jesus celebrated the Hanukkah festival which commemorated the 2nd century B.C. rededication of the Temple under the Maccabees.
"As was his custom" he also attended synagogue every sabbath (Luke 4.16) even during his travelling ministry (Mark 1.39; Matthew 4.23; 9.35; Luke 4.15,16-27,44).
In tithing, fasting and almsgiving he was totally Jewish. Although he opposed excessive worrying about the minutiae of tithing "mint, dill and cumin" (Matthew 23.23) he still argued that the crowds and his disciples should do as the scribes and Pharisees said (Matthew 23.3; "but not as they do"!). In fact the law only specified tithing of grain, wine, oil and livestock.(40)
Jesus said grace, or rather a blessing, before and/or after meals (Deuteronomy 8.10; Matthew 6.41; 26.26 and Luke 24.30 which is post resurrection; cf. Didache 10.1). The object of the blessing was not the food but God, when the New Testament inserts 'it' or 'the bread' in such verses it is not found in the Greek. It was inconceivable that a Jew would bless the object and not the originator/creator. The traditional blessing is:
"Barukh attah 'Adonai 'elohenu Melekh ha-olam ha-motsi lechem meen ha-arets"
"Blessed are You, our Lord God, King of the Ages/Universe, who brings forth bread from the earth"
In every respect, therefore, Jesus was a Jew, and was not ashamed to call himself one:
"we know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4.22)
Jesus also refused to abolish Biblical Judaism
Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV)
Now u say tat the OT laws was not applicable to christians, when even jesus too follow them. -
wah leow eh .. SIS reply sounds very pro .. even quoted so many verses.
-
the three musketeers are really unique .. universalist, atheist and buddhist.
-
errr? yup, He is Jewish... so???
Context of this verse - a dialogue between Jesus and a Samaritan woman who has some issue as being part of a race of outcast living in the Israel.... the conversation is directed specifically towards the way how a Samaritan is suppose to see the world at that point of time.
Lets put it tis way. Even jesus was jewish.
"we know what we worship, for salvation is from the Jews" (John 4.22)
Context of these verses - Jesus was addressing the primarily Jewish crowd who came to see this itinerant Jewish teacher. It was directed towards establishing himself as the Messiah also to the Jewish people.
Matthew 5:17
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (NIV)
Of course Jesus follows them... he was born into them....
Now u say tat the OT laws was not applicable to christians, when even jesus too follow them.
Hey, it's you who insist that Christians should follow Jewish law....
Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
.... plus the preceding 12 verses of Heb 8 and continuation in Heb 9. These passages talk about the old and new covenants.... Christians fall under the category of the new covenant with Christ, hence the old laws do not apply. -
Haha.. actually I wasn't following the thread. But since I was somehow expected to replyOriginally posted by Icemoon:the three musketeers are really unique .. universalist, atheist and buddhist. 
I shall...
I do not support homosexuality but I do not discriminate homosexuals. However there are rules Buddha laid down which prevents homosexuals from entering the Monastic community (becoming monks/nuns). Homosexual acts are also considered as Sexual Misconducts... so naturally it will result in bad karma.
I believe homosexuality can be changed, it is definitely not genetics (which means nobody is borned gay), it is a common misconception. There are also evidences that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan (you can search the net). -
Context of these verses - Jesus was addressing the primarily Jewish crowd who came to see this itinerant Jewish teacher. It was directed towards establishing himself as the Messiah also to the Jewish people.
However the content of wat he say is still true, otherwise he is a lier. He says tat all the old law have to stick and unless u say he is a lier, it really means "stick with the laws".Of course Jesus follows them... he was born into them....
I say tat even jesus follow the jewish religious customs. Even the OT is from jewish. Even jesus says tat the laws stick. The first church is mainly made by jewish and all his disciples r jewish. So christians r really ex jews and the laws do apply to them
Hey, it's you who insist that Christians should follow Jewish law....Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
From the description of the old laws, from God's mouth and from the words from jesus mouth, the old laws r never obsolete and they r meant to last forever. Also tis shows god is changing is mind which is something a perfect all knowing being should not do. If u follow the words of hebrew u r not following the words from god. if u follow the words of god u r not following the words from the scripture hebrew. So wat ? -
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Haha.. actually I wasn't following the thread. But since I was somehow expected to reply I shall...
I do not support homosexuality but I do not discriminate homosexuals. However there are rules Buddha laid down which prevents homosexuals from entering the Monastic community (becoming monks/nuns). Homosexual acts are also considered as Sexual Misconducts... so naturally it will result in bad karma.
I believe homosexuality can be changed, it is definitely not genetics (which means nobody is borned gay), it is a common misconception. There are also evidences that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan (you can search the net). cool... thanks for your comments from the Buddhist perspective... goes to show that mainstream Christianity is NOT the only religion that is against homosexuality.... -
not the only you mean?Originally posted by Chin Eng: cool... thanks for your comments from the Buddhist perspective... goes to show that mainstream Christianity is NOT the religion that is against homosexuality....
-
ah .. earthling will disagree with you.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:I believe homosexuality can be changed, it is definitely not genetics (which means nobody is borned gay), it is a common misconception. There are also evidences that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan (you can search the net).
wonder what does shade think?
-
Don't be too impressed... too well-written and correctly spelt to be his real words.Originally posted by Icemoon:wah leow eh .. SIS reply sounds very pro .. even quoted so many verses.
As usual, plagarise from somewhere: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/bornliveddied.html -
me bad.... sorry... will edit my post.... shame on me...Originally posted by Icemoon:not the only you mean? -
Actually I wouldn't say that Buddhism is outrightly against homosexuality. Buddha will only point out what is not beneficial for someone, but he never condemns people who are homosexual. There is a reason why he set the rule about homosexuals ordaining, but that is another story.Originally posted by Chin Eng: cool... thanks for your comments from the Buddhist perspective... goes to show that mainstream Christianity is NOT the religion that is against homosexuality....
But anyway I mentioned that homosexuals have lower lifespan... it was first pointed out by one of my dharma teachers, before that I didn't know. I searched the net and found out that it was indeed true.
http://specialguests.com/guests/viewnews.cgi?id=EEEZyVyFlpSUosfhlj&style=Full%20Article
COLORADO SPRINGS – Family Research Institute President Dr. Paul Cameron announced today that a new study shows that the life span of homosexuals is 20 years shorter than the norm. The study will appear in a 2005 issue of the refereed scientific journal Psychological Reports (Volume 96: pp. 693-697).
Speaking on behalf of his Colorado Springs think tank, Dr. Cameron said, “Indeed, gay obituaries suggest that engaging in homosexuality costs participants between 15 to 25 years of life, suggesting that homosexuality is more dangerous than smoking or obesity and that homosexuals generally do not reach old age.”
“10,000 gay obituaries have been collected from homosexual publications. Are the obituaries listed in the gay press representative of gay deaths in general?” Cameron asks.
A new study that compared them with Centers for Disease Control data indicates they are.
The CDC reported that 9% of heterosexuals who died of AIDS were at least 65 years of age. But less than 4% of homosexuals and IV drug abusers who died of AIDS reached 65.
“These findings add substantial support to our previous findings,” said Cameron, who headed the study. “While no one has all the facts on this issue, the CDC data is about as good as it gets. These data indicate that considerable progress in medically combating HIV is being made – it’s even affecting deaths from other medical causes. Right now, the median age of death for gays in the obituaries is running near 60 – about tied with the median age of death for lesbians. Of course, the median age of death for adults is about 80 – so the 20 year hit for engaging in homosexuality that we reported 15 years ago continues to hold.”
The new study “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS” can be read in the scientific journal, Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).
Therefore, the lower lifespan does not just affect those that died from sexually transmitted disease or drug abuse causes.
Some things to ponder on.... -
.... and from the SAME source that SIS lifted his "well-written piece"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html
"How did these various pieces come to be regarded as Scripture by Jewish and, later, Christian communities? There were no committees that sat down to decree what was or was not a holy book. To some degree, the process of Scripture-making, or canonization as it is often called (from the Greek word kanon, a "measuring rod" ), involved a process, no longer completely understood, by which the Jewish community decided which works reflected most clearly its vision of God. The antiquity, real or imagined, of many of the books was clearly a factor, and this is why Psalms was eventually attributed to David, and Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes (along with, by some people, Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha) to Solomon. However, mere age was not enough. There had to be some way in which the Jewish community could identify its own religious experiences in the sacred books.
This occurred, at least in part, through an elaborate process of biblical interpretation. Simply reading a text involves interpretation. Interpretative choices are made even in picking up today's newspaper; one must know the literary conventions that distinguish a news report, for example, from an op-ed piece. The challenge becomes much more intense when one reads highly artistic texts from a different time and place, such as the Bible. "
Conclusion? Interpretation, contextual understanding is important.
Home page to Public Broadcast Service's programme: FROM JESUS TO CHRIST.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ a really, really good site.... -
OK... I understand.... in a sense, Buddhism is more pacificist than Christianity.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Actually I wouldn't say that Buddhism is outrightly against homosexuality. Buddha will only point out what is not beneficial for someone, but he never condemns people who are homosexual. There is a reason why he set the rule about homosexuals ordaining, but that is another story. -
Okay, let's talk biblically lar. In the beginning, God made man and women. And He wants them to multiply. God made women because He knows that man desire company. With women made, God commanded them to multiply and bear fruit.Originally posted by Honeybunz:Homosexuality is not a sin. It's a sick, a type of disability/handicap, a kind of mental unfitness.
But most if not all can be healed through therapy. It is just a matter of whether the person genuinely wants to go through treatment or want to stay homosexual.
If he chooses homosexuality, he cannot fault the church or the world community for discriminiating or depriving him of legal marriage.
Allowing a homosexual individual to marry another homo is just like
letting a hearing & speech impaired person take up a job as a telephone operator.
The question I would like to ask you is: Can homosexuality lead to pregnancy and bear child? If it can't, doesn't it mean against God's wonderful plan of filling the earth with people? It is definitely not pleasant to God and God did not make homosexuality. Disability/handicap is a consequences of sin. It has reflected that the earth is in a sorry state of condition. But homosexuality is consequence of sin entering earth. It is a reflection of how man desire accompaniment to fill the void in them. In my view, and biblically, homosexuality is a sin lo.
-
Originally posted by Icemoon:Haha .. the three musketeers - eternal now, earthling and shade - will sure comment one.
Earthling will quote his bbc documentaries again. -
i think they will rebutt that they still can procreate with a female even though the person is homosexual.Originally posted by jnwk:The question I would like to ask you is: Can homosexuality lead to pregnancy and bear child? If it can't, doesn't it mean against God's wonderful plan of filling the earth with people?
jnwk ... u go to the politics forum ... there is a thread on homosexuality there la... a lot of the said and done arguements are there .. go see see bah -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
wah.. next time i must use in-text citations and references! uncle eng is sharp!!
.... and from the SAME source that SIS lifted his "well-written piece"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/scriptures.html
"How did these various pieces come to be regarded as Scripture by Jewish and, later, Christian communities? There were no committees that sat down to decree what was or was not a holy book. To some degree, the process of Scripture-making, or canonization as it is often called (from the Greek word kanon, a "measuring rod" ), involved a process, no longer completely understood, by which the Jewish community decided which works reflected most clearly its vision of God. The antiquity, real or imagined, of many of the books was clearly a factor, and this is why Psalms was eventually attributed to David, and Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes (along with, by some people, Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha) to Solomon. However, mere age was not enough. There had to be some way in which the Jewish community could identify its own religious experiences in the sacred books.
[b]This occurred, at least in part, through an elaborate process of biblical interpretation. Simply reading a text involves interpretation. Interpretative choices are made even in picking up today's newspaper; one must know the literary conventions that distinguish a news report, for example, from an op-ed piece. The challenge becomes much more intense when one reads highly artistic texts from a different time and place, such as the Bible. "
Conclusion? Interpretation, contextual understanding is important.
Home page to Public Broadcast Service's programme: FROM JESUS TO CHRIST.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/ a really, really good site....[/b]