Science > Abortion > "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks.
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Craig Chilton" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2004 11:22:16 PM |
| Object: |
"Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
-- Busybodies
-- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
-- Control-Freakish
-- Inflexible
-- Disrespective of several personal liberties
-- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
-- People who deplore "moral relativism"
-- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
-- Buttinskies
-- Brainwsahed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
-- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
though those are none of their business.
-- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
(E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
"constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
cultists.)
Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong. Every
case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
That pretty much covers the absolutes. If a person's behavior
does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
judgment call. A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
Of course, part of the mix in the factors necessary for
consideration is whether or not the behavior/action/decision
up for judgment by a peer is a **personal** and **private** one.
IF so, then the **thinking** person will immediately back off,
and recognize that NO judgment call is either necessary or
appropriate. Because in such intances, that which is being
considered is NONE of their business. (The only exception
to that is in the case when the person whose actions are
being considered *solicits* the opinion of the one who's doing
the considering.)
This evaluation process, when done properly, generally is
tested against the Golden Rule.
The RRR cultists are notorious for making *their* judgment
calls on the basis of that which they call "absolutes." And to
them, if ANYTHING in the Bible even *hints* that someone's
behavior might be "sinful," then they judge. Harshly. Worse
yet, if the Bible says absolutely NOTHING against the
behavior/decision being considered, BUT one of the cult's
**phony** dogmas is being "violated," (e.g., choosing to have
an abortion), then the person being judged is automatically
condemned.
RRR cultists make the HUGE mistake of somehow regarding
themselves to be **enforcers** of Biblical precepts (and worse,
some of their leaders' own humanly-concocted ones, such as
regarding anything to be wrong with abortion) against society
in general. However, the Bible in NO WAY appoints or author-
izes **any** such Gestapo.
Nor, for that matter, does the Bible matter at all to literally
tens of millions of Americans. Per the Gallup Poll, 83% of
Americans profess Christianity. Let's add 1% to cover the
Jews, who use the Old Testament. That leaves 16%. And
that adds up to 46,000,000 people!! 46 MILLION!
BOTTOM LINE: The reasonable employment of "moral
relativism" is in actuality strong evidence of why God put
humanity on the earth with the capability to think and reason,
rather than populate the earth with a race of automatons. It
gives people the capability to be FAIR and COMPASSIONATE.
(Which is in keeping with Jesus' prime directive -- that His
followers show love and compassion to their neighbors. Any
person who supports agendas which would mindlessly and
hatefully impose immense hardship and misery upon millions
of people, and deprive them of equal rights over matters that
are personal, private, irrelevant, and trivial (such as their
opposition to same-sex marriage, which would harm NO one),
is in direct violation of Jesus' directive. And thus, if he claims
to be a Christian, he is the worst of hypocrites.
The agendas of the RRR Cult are totally devoid of any
redeeming social significance. Demonstrably, and proven
by the cultists constantly and consistently. Thus, there IS
an "absolute" that comes into play: they are ABSOLUTELY
wrong.
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 10:28:59 AM |
|
|
Hello (Craig Chilton),
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
-- Busybodies
Like you, who posts this post?
-- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
Like the radical left. . .
-- Control-Freakish
Like the radical left. . .
-- Inflexible
Like the radical left. . .
-- Disrespective of several personal liberties
Like the radical left. . .Especially when it has to do with Christians
or anyone else who disagree with them. But more than with anyone
else, disrespective of the liberties of Christians.
-- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
Like the radical left. . .Women have the "absolute" right to murder
their children. Homosexuals have the "absolute" right to promote
their abhorrent behavior to our children as "normal."
-- People who deplore "moral relativism"
Instead of believeing that anything goes, and that nothing is wrong.
The next step after "gay marriage?" Legalization of pedophelia.
-- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
Completely false.
-- Buttinskies
Awww. Just like you, huh? After all, you are posting this post. . .
-- Brainwsahed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
According to whom? Those who don't actually READ the Bible? Those
who have NEVER READ the Bible through even once? Those who (in their
ignorance of what it is, where it came from) believe the Bible to be
"myth?"
-- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
though those are none of their business.
Homosexual behaviors are being *flaunted publically* and *promoted
publically," and are not "*private* when they are being so flaunted
and promoted. What a stupid position for you to claim.
-- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
(E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
A nice *opinion,* but opinions are like belly-buttons. . .most people
have them, and most of them are not intellectually based.
So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
"constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
cultists.)
So you hate "absoutes?"
Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
Oh, so NOW "absolutes" are PROPER?
Contradicting yourself, aren't you?
The things YOU think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are fine,
but the things WE think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are
evil, bad, false, intollerant?
Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong.
So when you promote homosexual activity as "normal" to my children,
you are absolutely wrong! ABSOLUTELY, according to you!
Every
case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
So killing an unborn baby a week before term is ABSOLUTELY wrong too?
How a bout an HOUR before term? How about when the head is out of the
womb? How about a month before term? EXACTLY WHEN?
That pretty much covers the absolutes.
So lowering the age at which a dirty old man may marry a child would
be fine (in India an eight-year-old can marry)? How about "helping"
an old man by killing him is just fine.
If a person's behavior
does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
judgment call.
And THAT is an absolute too? And just HOW did you come to the
conclusion you are right, that this is how judgements should be made?
Did you make it up out of your own mind?
And HOW do you figure you have the right to claim that _I_ should have
to adhere to YOUR judgement of this?
Don't you think I have the right (under moral relativism) to believe
that you are wrong and to "help you" by throwing you in jail for the
rest of your life? After all, moral relativism acknowledges the RIGHT
of everyone to judge for themselves, what is right and what is wrong.
Nobody (not even you) have the right to tell me what is right or what
is wrong for me. You can only judge in relationship to yourself!
A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
And that is true of us Christians who weigh all of the relevant pros
and cons that apply to the case, INCLUDING God's Word.
We do not base our **weighing** on selfish motives, but upon what GOD
says. That way there is a standard scale.
When YOU "weigh" things, you have standard to measure against. The
term "relativism" does not allow that. So your "weight" is
meaningless to anyone but yourself, in truth.
<snipped the rest of the stuff in which you seem to think that you are
morally and intellectually superior to everyone who has actual values>
Most of us Christians who refute moral relativism have intelligent
reasons for doing so.
Your position falls into a pit! It has no foundation to stand upon.
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 09:15:40 PM |
|
|
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:pe3d8014n5qp5cpl27r4fsrcpo0qfsanok@4ax.com...
According to whom? Those who don't actually READ the
Bible? Those
who have NEVER READ the Bible through even once? Those
who (in their
ignorance of what it is, where it came from) believe the
Bible to be
"myth?"
If you've read the bible all of the way through then you
must be familiar with the many stories of homosexual
relationships in the bible that are not admonished.
"And Ruth said, 'Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return
from following after thee: for whether thou goest, I will
go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall
be my people, and thy God my God". (Ruth 1:16)
This quote is often used in heterosexual marriages because
it is a moving declaration of love and devotion. But was
Ruth speaking to a woman? Since you have read the entire
bible, you must know that she was not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ouroboros Rex" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 11:31:18 AM |
|
|
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:pe3d8014n5qp5cpl27r4fsrcpo0qfsanok@4ax.com...
Hello (Craig Chilton),
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
-- Busybodies
Like you, who posts this post?
-- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
Like the radical left. . .
-- Control-Freakish
Like the radical left. . .
-- Inflexible
Like the radical left. . .
-- Disrespective of several personal liberties
Like the radical left. . .Especially when it has to do with Christians
or anyone else who disagree with them. But more than with anyone
else, disrespective of the liberties of Christians.
-- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
Like the radical left. . .Women have the "absolute" right to murder
their children. Homosexuals have the "absolute" right to promote
their abhorrent behavior to our children as "normal."
-- People who deplore "moral relativism"
Instead of believeing that anything goes, and that nothing is wrong.
The next step after "gay marriage?" Legalization of pedophelia.
-- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
Completely false.
-- Buttinskies
Awww. Just like you, huh? After all, you are posting this post. . .
-- Brainwsahed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
According to whom? Those who don't actually READ the Bible? Those
who have NEVER READ the Bible through even once? Those who (in their
ignorance of what it is, where it came from) believe the Bible to be
"myth?"
-- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
though those are none of their business.
Homosexual behaviors are being *flaunted publically* and *promoted
publically," and are not "*private* when they are being so flaunted
and promoted. What a stupid position for you to claim.
-- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
(E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
A nice *opinion,* but opinions are like belly-buttons. . .most people
have them, and most of them are not intellectually based.
So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
"constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
cultists.)
So you hate "absoutes?"
Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
Oh, so NOW "absolutes" are PROPER?
Contradicting yourself, aren't you?
The things YOU think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are fine,
but the things WE think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are
evil, bad, false, intollerant?
Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong.
So when you promote homosexual activity as "normal" to my children,
you are absolutely wrong! ABSOLUTELY, according to you!
Every
case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
So killing an unborn baby a week before term is ABSOLUTELY wrong too?
How a bout an HOUR before term? How about when the head is out of the
womb? How about a month before term? EXACTLY WHEN?
That pretty much covers the absolutes.
So lowering the age at which a dirty old man may marry a child would
be fine (in India an eight-year-old can marry)? How about "helping"
an old man by killing him is just fine.
If a person's behavior
does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
judgment call.
And THAT is an absolute too? And just HOW did you come to the
conclusion you are right, that this is how judgements should be made?
Did you make it up out of your own mind?
And HOW do you figure you have the right to claim that _I_ should have
to adhere to YOUR judgement of this?
Don't you think I have the right (under moral relativism) to believe
that you are wrong and to "help you" by throwing you in jail for the
rest of your life? After all, moral relativism acknowledges the RIGHT
of everyone to judge for themselves, what is right and what is wrong.
Nobody (not even you) have the right to tell me what is right or what
is wrong for me. You can only judge in relationship to yourself!
A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
And that is true of us Christians who weigh all of the relevant pros
and cons that apply to the case, INCLUDING God's Word.
We do not base our **weighing** on selfish motives, but upon what GOD
says. That way there is a standard scale.
When YOU "weigh" things, you have standard to measure against. The
term "relativism" does not allow that. So your "weight" is
meaningless to anyone but yourself, in truth.
<snipped the rest of the stuff in which you seem to think that you are
morally and intellectually superior to everyone who has actual values>
Most of us Christians who refute moral relativism have intelligent
reasons for doing so.
Your position falls into a pit! It has no foundation to stand upon.
Christian
Hi, fellow Christian. Why are you lying?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 03:36:45 PM |
|
|
Hello "Ouroboros Rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.ee-dee-you>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:pe3d8014n5qp5cpl27r4fsrcpo0qfsanok@4ax.com...
Hello (Craig Chilton),
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
The cult of the "Religious" Radical Right -- which is 100%
radical, but only pseudo-religious -- has several major hangups.
Its adherents/lemmings all are ---
-- Busybodies
Like you, who posts this post?
-- Uncompasionate to concerns they disagree with
Like the radical left. . .
-- Control-Freakish
Like the radical left. . .
-- Inflexible
Like the radical left. . .
-- Disrespective of several personal liberties
Like the radical left. . .Especially when it has to do with Christians
or anyone else who disagree with them. But more than with anyone
else, disrespective of the liberties of Christians.
-- People who view everything in terms of "absolutes"
Like the radical left. . .Women have the "absolute" right to murder
their children. Homosexuals have the "absolute" right to promote
their abhorrent behavior to our children as "normal."
-- People who deplore "moral relativism"
Instead of believeing that anything goes, and that nothing is wrong.
The next step after "gay marriage?" Legalization of pedophelia.
-- Opposed to granting across-the-board equal rights to all
Completely false.
-- Buttinskies
Awww. Just like you, huh? After all, you are posting this post. . .
-- Brainwsahed/programmed by false/Un-Biblical dogmas
According to whom? Those who don't actually READ the Bible? Those
who have NEVER READ the Bible through even once? Those who (in their
ignorance of what it is, where it came from) believe the Bible to be
"myth?"
-- Intolerant of *private* behaviors they don't like (even
though those are none of their business.
Homosexual behaviors are being *flaunted publically* and *promoted
publically," and are not "*private* when they are being so flaunted
and promoted. What a stupid position for you to claim.
-- Steeped in the silly (and almost always wrong/phony) jargon
they employ to belittle legitimate aspects of society.
(E.g., Ignoring the U.S. Constitution's system of checks
and balances, and hatefully claiming that the legitimate
formation of Judicial Law is "legislating from the bench"
by "activist judges." On the other hand, if the decision
is one that they *favor*, then these terms are never used,
and the judges suddenly are nice, "constructionist." ones.
A nice *opinion,* but opinions are like belly-buttons. . .most people
have them, and most of them are not intellectually based.
So much for the "absolutes." A judge could easily be a
hated "activist" judge on one decision, and then be a beloved
"constructionist" judge on another. (However, in reality, this
seldom happens. Most judges who kowtow to the RRR cult's
agendas do so very consistently, while the egalitarian judges
almost always rule fairly, which makes them anathema to the
cultists.)
So you hate "absoutes?"
Of course, many things ARE properly expressed as absolutes.
Oh, so NOW "absolutes" are PROPER?
Contradicting yourself, aren't you?
The things YOU think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are fine,
but the things WE think are "properly expressed as absolutes" are
evil, bad, false, intollerant?
Every action that any person can take which carries a significant
risk of doing overt harm to others is absolutely wrong.
So when you promote homosexual activity as "normal" to my children,
you are absolutely wrong! ABSOLUTELY, according to you!
Every
case of a person doing harm, *purposely*, to others, is wrong.
So killing an unborn baby a week before term is ABSOLUTELY wrong too?
How a bout an HOUR before term? How about when the head is out of the
womb? How about a month before term? EXACTLY WHEN?
That pretty much covers the absolutes.
So lowering the age at which a dirty old man may marry a child would
be fine (in India an eight-year-old can marry)? How about "helping"
an old man by killing him is just fine.
If a person's behavior
does NO overt harm to others, or to the possessions of others,
then whether or not the behavior is worthy of criticism becomes a
judgment call.
And THAT is an absolute too? And just HOW did you come to the
conclusion you are right, that this is how judgements should be made?
Did you make it up out of your own mind?
And HOW do you figure you have the right to claim that _I_ should have
to adhere to YOUR judgement of this?
Don't you think I have the right (under moral relativism) to believe
that you are wrong and to "help you" by throwing you in jail for the
rest of your life? After all, moral relativism acknowledges the RIGHT
of everyone to judge for themselves, what is right and what is wrong.
Nobody (not even you) have the right to tell me what is right or what
is wrong for me. You can only judge in relationship to yourself!
A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or action.
And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the relevant pros and
cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making his judgment call.
And that is true of us Christians who weigh all of the relevant pros
and cons that apply to the case, INCLUDING God's Word.
We do not base our **weighing** on selfish motives, but upon what GOD
says. That way there is a standard scale.
When YOU "weigh" things, you have standard to measure against. The
term "relativism" does not allow that. So your "weight" is
meaningless to anyone but yourself, in truth.
<snipped the rest of the stuff in which you seem to think that you are
morally and intellectually superior to everyone who has actual values>
Most of us Christians who refute moral relativism have intelligent
reasons for doing so.
Your position falls into a pit! It has no foundation to stand upon.
Christian
Hi, fellow Christian. Why are you lying?
SHOW ME anything I have said that is not true.
Why are you lying when you claim I am lying?
Christian
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icarus" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 12:33:01 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snippage>...
A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or
action. And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the
relevant pros and cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making
his judgment call.
And that is true of us Christians who weigh all of the
relevant pros and cons that apply to the case, INCLUDING God's
Word.
We do not base our **weighing** on selfish motives, but upon
what GOD says.
That's just man-made mythology.
That way there is a standard scale.
Not so... that way you are weighing moral issues on factors
INCLUDING the mish-mash of moral viewpoints expressed by the
people who wrote down your mythology. In other words, your
morality is as subjective as everyone else's.
--
"All thinking men are atheists" - Ernest Hemingway.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 03:38:36 PM |
|
|
Hello "Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
christian@velocitus.net wrote:
<snippage>...
A valid judgment call requires THINKING on the
part of the person who chooses to judge the behavior or
action. And a *thinking* person will **weigh** all of the
relevant pros and cons that apply to the case. BEFORE making
his judgment call.
And that is true of us Christians who weigh all of the
relevant pros and cons that apply to the case, INCLUDING God's
Word.
We do not base our **weighing** on selfish motives, but upon
what GOD says.
That's just man-made mythology.
You are welcome to your opinion. Opinions are like belly-buttons,
most people have one, but it is not intellectually based.
That way there is a standard scale.
Not so... that way you are weighing moral issues on factors
INCLUDING the mish-mash of moral viewpoints expressed by the
people who wrote down your mythology. In other words, your
morality is as subjective as everyone else's.
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon ignorance?
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
21 Apr 2004 09:19:39 PM |
|
|
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
23 Apr 2004 08:20:06 PM |
|
|
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course, you have that
agenda don't you?
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
24 Apr 2004 12:47:37 PM |
|
|
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:4qfj80133ho7510k6jhp8pqcliof2r2vk1@4ax.com...
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came
from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one
of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the
Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have
been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful
than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain
be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with
oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the
mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their
life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed
you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the
battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You
have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war
perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It
is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing
about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course,
you have that
agenda don't you?
The bible is very much open to interpretation. Christian's
interpret the bible very liberally to fit their causes and
prejudices.
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male
beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked
by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it
there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as
those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
So this means that you do not wear mixed fibers, eat pork or
shelfish or cut your hair?
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to
degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural
function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing
indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous
will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor
homosexuals,
The word homosexuals does not exist in the bible. Are you
changing the word fo God to suit your prejudice?
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one
uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous
person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane,
for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and
liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but
abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them,
since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are
exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can
plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
God doesn't look kindly on those who contort scripture to
justify their personal prejudices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
25 Apr 2004 08:36:59 AM |
|
|
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:4qfj80133ho7510k6jhp8pqcliof2r2vk1@4ax.com...
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came
from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one
of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the
Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have
been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful
than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain
be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with
oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the
mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their
life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed
you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the
battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You
have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war
perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It
is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing
about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course,
you have that
agenda don't you?
The bible is very much open to interpretation. Christian's
interpret the bible very liberally to fit their causes and
prejudices.
So say homosexuals who don't even bother to read the Bible in many
cases, but want to rationalize their behaivors as being "okay."
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male
beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked
by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it
there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as
those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
So this means that you do not wear mixed fibers, eat pork or
shelfish or cut your hair?
Where does the Bible say that anyone except the Jews are bound by such
things? Are those things "a detestable act" according to God? Not
according to the Bible. They are merely part of a Law given to the
Jews.
Jesus fulfilled the Law. But He did NOT change the NATURE of God;
what was detestable to Him then is still detestable to Him.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to
degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural
function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing
indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous
will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals,
The word homosexuals does not exist in the bible. Are you
changing the word fo God to suit your prejudice?
Hmm. You read a direct quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 from the New
American Standard Bible and you lie and say "the word homosexuals does
not exist in the Bible?"
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, (NKJV)
The Greek word translated "homosexuals" in that verse is:
malako,1) soft,
soft to the touch 2) metaph. in a bad sense 2a) effeminate 2a1) of a
catamite 2a2) of a boy kept for homosexual relations with a man 2a3)
of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness 2a4) of a
male prostitute (Strong's Greek Dictionary of the New Testament,
Hermaneutica)
Homosexuals.
Sorry you don't like it, but it IS there.
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one
uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous
person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane,
for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and
liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,
with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but
abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them,
since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are
exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can
plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
God doesn't look kindly on those who contort scripture to
justify their personal prejudices.
So? You can change.
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robin" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
25 Apr 2004 10:40:21 PM |
|
|
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:c1fn80pp3tc2ptbjeafp35lbf0djq5cg2g@4ax.com...
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:4qfj80133ho7510k6jhp8pqcliof2r2vk1@4ax.com...
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible.
Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came
from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the
many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that
are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when
male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and
political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to
one
of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the
Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you
have
been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more
wonderful
than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or
rain
be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed
with
oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the
mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their
life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed
you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the
battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You
have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war
perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex.
It
is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul.
Nothing
about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of
course,
you have that
agenda don't you?
The bible is very much open to interpretation.
Christian's
interpret the bible very liberally to fit their causes
and
prejudices.
So say homosexuals who don't even bother to read the Bible
in many
cases, but want to rationalize their behaivors as being
"okay."
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male
beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty
marked
by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after
Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in
the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it
there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male
as
those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death.
Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
So this means that you do not wear mixed fibers, eat pork
or
shelfish or cut your hair?
Where does the Bible say that anyone except the Jews are
bound by such
things? Are those things "a detestable act" according to
God? Not
according to the Bible. They are merely part of a Law
given to the
Jews.
Jesus fulfilled the Law. But He did NOT change the NATURE
of God;
what was detestable to Him then is still detestable to
Him.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to
degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the
natural
function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing
indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the
unrighteous
will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor homosexuals,
The word homosexuals does not exist in the bible. Are
you
changing the word fo God to suit your prejudice?
Hmm. You read a direct quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9
from the New
American Standard Bible and you lie and say "the word
homosexuals does
not exist in the Bible?"
And there you have it the "New American Standard Bible".
The bible has been translated and re-translated 1,000 times.
Each translator brings his own and different inferences, and
thus personal prejudices. Each translation is one step
further from the original meaning. I challenge you to find
one single word in the original Hebrew that accurately
translates to "homosexual." You can't, because there isn't
one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for morethan hat-racks. |
26 Apr 2004 04:03:27 AM |
|
|
The word homosexuals does not exist in the bible. Are you
changing the word fo God to suit your prejudice?
Hmm. You read a direct quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 from the New
American Standard Bible and you lie and say "the word homosexuals does
not exist in the Bible?"
And there you have it the "New American Standard Bible".
The bible has been translated and re-translated 1,000 times.
Each translator brings his own and different inferences, and
thus personal prejudices. Each translation is one step
further from the original meaning. I challenge you to find
one single word in the original Hebrew that accurately
translates to "homosexual." You can't, because there isn't
one.
Then again, who uses "New American Standard Bible"? apart from a few
fruit-cake frindge churches where people jump out of the chairs and say
"praise Jesus"; almost every church exclusively uses the King James Authorised
Edition; heck, even the Gideon society use it for their ministry work.
The fact is, the "New American Standard Bible" has about as much weight as the
"Matt's Standard Bible".
Matt
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin
"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
25 Apr 2004 10:43:26 PM |
|
|
In article <Fw%ic.35874$w96.2585265@attbi_s54>, Robin
<robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote:
And there you have it the "New American Standard Bible".
The bible has been translated and re-translated 1,000 times.
Each translator brings his own and different inferences, and
thus personal prejudices. Each translation is one step
further from the original meaning. I challenge you to find
one single word in the original Hebrew that accurately
translates to "homosexual." You can't, because there isn't
one.
You have that right. But the religious act as though every word, words
that don't even translate properly or are translated in a certain way
for political purposes, are the word of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for morethan hat-racks. |
26 Apr 2004 04:06:19 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <Fw%ic.35874$w96.2585265@attbi_s54>, Robin
<robinandtami@nospam.com> wrote:
And there you have it the "New American Standard Bible".
The bible has been translated and re-translated 1,000 times.
Each translator brings his own and different inferences, and
thus personal prejudices. Each translation is one step
further from the original meaning. I challenge you to find
one single word in the original Hebrew that accurately
translates to "homosexual." You can't, because there isn't
one.
You have that right. But the religious act as though every word, words
that don't even translate properly or are translated in a certain way
for political purposes, are the word of God.
But then again, your average Christian fundamentalist completely ignore the
fact that up until 2000BC, the bible was NEVER viewed as word of god, and as
for the *new* testament, it is only viewed as the word of god based on the
fact that it accounts for the actions of Jesus which according to Christians
is the son of god (and in Islam, Jesus is a prophet but not the son of god).
There was no word, for word, fascimile sent directly from Heaven HQ to the
unwashed masses. The bible is nothing more than a few thoughts and ideas from
people and to say they're inspired by god is nothing short of a cop out.
Matt
--
My blog: http://kaiwai.blogspot.com/
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Science without religion is lame, religion without
science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin
"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for morethan hat-racks. |
24 Apr 2004 03:51:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
< > wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course, you have that
agenda don't you?
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
And what do you think of homosexuals and how do you treat them?
Do not jedge lest ye be judged.
I don't think any christian can deny that he doesn't look kindly on
those who (pre) judge others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for more than hat-racks. |
24 Apr 2004 11:05:52 PM |
|
|
Hello Citizen <assimilation66@hotmail.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
christian@velocitus.net wrote:
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
<christian@velocitus.net> wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course, you have that
agenda don't you?
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
And what do you think of homosexuals and how do you treat them?
I have friends who are homosexuals who do not practice homosexual
behavior (they remain celebate). I respect them highly.
Do not jedge lest ye be judged.
Perhaps you could look that up in scripture and explain that IN
CONTEXT and how it applies here? I don't think you even know where in
the Bible the statement exists, let alone what it refers to. Your
ignorance is showing.
I don't think any christian can deny that he doesn't look kindly on
those who (pre) judge others.
Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in
private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you,
so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR
THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him
be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
We Christians are to judge sin, and point out each other's faults
(verse 15). Jesus said so.
If you want to disagree with Jesus, then you probably can't/won/t
shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Citizen" |
|
| Title: Re: "Moral Relativism" -- For people who use their heads for morethan hat-racks. |
27 Apr 2004 08:12:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hello Citizen <assimilation66@hotmail.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
wrote:
Hello "Robin" <robinandtami@nospam.com>,
you posted in alt.religion.christian :
< > wrote in message
news:8rmd80trh4v0rk3e940ebbse9od9jqmd9h@4ax.com...
You obviously know almost nothing about the Bible. Why
don't you try
actually READING the book and studying where it came from
and how it
got here before passing such a judgement based upon
ignorance?
Christian
Since you have read the bible, you must know of the many
stories of homosexual relationships in the bible that are
not admonished.
The story David and Jonathan, occurs in a time when male
warrior/lovers were common and considered noble.
This tragic triangle of passion, jealousy and political
intrigue between Saul, Jonathan and David, leads to one of
the most direct expressions of same-sex love in the Bible:
"I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; you have been
very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than
the love of women." (II Samuel 1:26)
2 Samuel 1:21 "O mountains of Gilboa, Let not dew or rain be on you,
nor fields of offerings; For there the shield of the
mighty was defiled, The shield of Saul, not anointed with oil.
22 "From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, The bow
of Jonathan did not turn back, And the
sword of Saul did not return empty.
23 "Saul and Jonathan, beloved and pleasant in their life, And in
their death they were not parted; They were
swifter than eagles, They were stronger than lions.
24 "O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, Who clothed you
luxuriously in scarlet, Who put ornaments of
gold on your apparel.
25 "How have the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan
is slain on your high places.
26 "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; You have been very
pleasant to me. Your love to me was
more wonderful Than the love of women.
27 "How have the mighty fallen, And the weapons of war perished!"
Look at the passage. It is not about homosexual sex. It is a very
symbolic mourning by David for Jonathan and Saul. Nothing about sex
is there unless you "read it into" the text. Of course, you have that
agenda don't you?
The author is clearly attuned to David's classic male beauty
(I Samuel 16:12) in this story of love and loyalty marked by
romance (I Samuel 18:1-5), secret meetings (I Samuel
20:1-23; 35-42), kissing and weeping (I Samuel 20:41),
refusal to eat (I Samuel 28:32-34), and the explicit
warrior/lover covenant which David keeps after Jonathan's
death (I Samuel 20:12-17; 42).
One cannot read this account without discerning that
Jonathan was the love of David's life. Centuries of
homophobic Biblical interpretations have kept them in the
closet too long!
Pure hogwash! But of course you have to try to put it there, don't
you?
You ignore
Leviticus 20:13 'If there is a man who lies with a male as those who
lie with a woman, both of them have committed a
detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their
bloodguiltiness is upon them.
and
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions;
for their women exchanged the natural
function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of
the woman and burned in their
desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and
receiving in their own persons the
due penalty of their error.
and
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not
inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor
homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
and
1 Timothy 1: 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it
lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but
for those who are lawless and rebellious,
for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who
kill their fathers or mothers, for
murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and
perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I
have been entrusted.
and
Jude 6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned
their proper abode, He has kept in eternal
bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they
in the same way as these indulged
in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an
example in undergoing the punishment
of eternal fire.
God doesn't look kindly on homosexual behavior, as you can plainly
see.
in the Name of Jesus,
Christian
And what do you think of homosexuals and how do you treat them?
I have friends who are homosexuals who do not practice homosexual
behavior (they remain celebate). I respect them highly.
Do not jedge lest ye be judged.
Perhaps you could look that up in scripture and explain that IN
CONTEXT and how it applies here? I don't think you even know where in
the Bible the statement exists, let alone what it refers to. Your
ignorance is showing.
I don't think any christian can deny that he doesn't look kindly on
those who (pre) judge others.
Matthew 18:15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in
private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you,
so that BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR
THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he
refuses to listen even to the church, let him
be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
We Christians are to judge sin, and point out each other's faults
(verse 15). Jesus said so.
If you want to disagree with Jesus, then you probably can't/won/t
shouldn't call yourself a Christian.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Most of us are not your brothers. Take care of your family, mine is
taken care of, thank you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
