Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so cruel to each other?

Because whoever or whatever created us did a really botched job of it.

That's why I can't believe in "intelligent design." No intelligent designer would have created humans with such obvious defects.

If you read the creation account you would understand why we are born with “defects”, i.e. a sin nature.

why don't genes always replicate properly? Consider the various physical genetic defects -- the poor design is not all from sin. A botched job of it I tell ya.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

TRANSLATION: “I will apply any meaning to any verse I want because I don’t take it literally, so verses can have any meanings I decide for it”

I follow the words of Jesus, and of Paul the zealot, and Mark, and Peter, and Moses. Why? Because it’s in the BIBLE. What’s the Bible called? GOD’s WORD, not JESUS’ WORD AND COMMENTS FROM RANDOM OTHER PEOPLE.

What God says is true. Read John 1:1. The whole Bible is literally the words of God. All of it.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstrual impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. Leviticus 15: 19-20

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5 NLT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so cruel to each other?

Because whoever or whatever created us did a really botched job of it.

That's why I can't believe in "intelligent design." No intelligent designer would have created humans with such obvious defects.

If you read the creation account you would understand why we are born with “defects”, i.e. a sin nature.

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so cruel to each other?

Because whoever or whatever created us did a really botched job of it.

That's why I can't believe in "intelligent design." No intelligent designer would have created humans with such obvious defects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

TRANSLATION: “I will apply any meaning to any verse I want because I don’t take it literally, so verses can have any meanings I decide for it”

I follow the words of Jesus, and of Paul the zealot, and Mark, and Peter, and Moses. Why? Because it’s in the BIBLE. What’s the Bible called? GOD’s WORD, not JESUS’ WORD AND COMMENTS FROM RANDOM OTHER PEOPLE.

What God says is true. Read John 1:1. The whole Bible is literally the words of God. All of it.

Do you believe the Deuterocanon are scripture? If you don't, then you don't believe the whole Bible is literally the words of God. Sorry. Those books are in MY Bible and I believe them. Protestants don't include them in their Bible so they literally don't believe the entire Bible is literally the words of God.

No. The Deuterocanon contradicts what’s already proven Scripture. Examples include almsgiving as a source of salvation, the unscriptural idea of purgatory, and the pre-existence of souls. None of these are supported by the true Bible. Scripture does not contradict itself, if the Bible contains two books that contradict each other, then you are destroying its validity and legitimacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

TRANSLATION: “I will apply any meaning to any verse I want because I don’t take it literally, so verses can have any meanings I decide for it”

I follow the words of Jesus, and of Paul the zealot, and Mark, and Peter, and Moses. Why? Because it’s in the BIBLE. What’s the Bible called? GOD’s WORD, not JESUS’ WORD AND COMMENTS FROM RANDOM OTHER PEOPLE.

What God says is true. Read John 1:1. The whole Bible is literally the words of God. All of it.

Do you believe the Deuterocanon are scripture? If you don't, then you don't believe the whole Bible is literally the words of God. Sorry. Those books are in MY Bible and I believe them. Protestants don't include them in their Bible so they literally don't believe the entire Bible is literally the words of God.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

TRANSLATION: “I will apply any meaning to any verse I want because I don’t take it literally, so verses can have any meanings I decide for it”

I follow the words of Jesus, and of Paul the zealot, and Mark, and Peter, and Moses. Why? Because it’s in the BIBLE. What’s the Bible called? GOD’s WORD, not JESUS’ WORD AND COMMENTS FROM RANDOM OTHER PEOPLE.

What God says is true. Read John 1:1. The whole Bible is literally the words of God. All of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

Can you really pick and choose? If you purely follow the words of Jesus and nothing else in the Bible, can you really call yourself a Christian?

Of course I can, just as most people who call themselves Christian have decided not to follow certain books or verses of the Bible. Do you think women ministers are following Paul's directives? Nope. Are you going to say they aren't Christian? Yikes.

You may have a different definition of Christian. My definition is that I follow the words and example of Jesus Christ, Son of God. I might not always do it right, but I try.

Go ahead and tell me I'm not a Christian. You have the right. Just as I would have the right to look at people who never follow Christ's example of love and charity in their personal lives and say they are not Christians according to my definition, no matter how loudly they proclaim that they are.

I guess my question is really how far you can take it before you're not Christian anymore. Much of what Jesus said isn't unique to Christianity. Being a charitable person doesn't make you Christian just because you got the idea from Jesus. He doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of being a good person or helping thy neighbor. So to be Christian, you presumably need to accept at least some ideas that are unique to Christianity, no? Otherwise you're just saying you want to be a good person, which is awesome, but exists in most religions--and secular life philosophies, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

Can you really pick and choose? If you purely follow the words of Jesus and nothing else in the Bible, can you really call yourself a Christian?

Of course I can, just as most people who call themselves Christian have decided not to follow certain books or verses of the Bible. Do you think women ministers are following Paul's directives? Nope. Are you going to say they aren't Christian? Yikes.

You may have a different definition of Christian. My definition is that I follow the words and example of Jesus Christ, Son of God. I might not always do it right, but I try.

Go ahead and tell me I'm not a Christian. You have the right. Just as I would have the right to look at people who never follow Christ's example of love and charity in their personal lives and say they are not Christians according to my definition, no matter how loudly they proclaim that they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

Can you really pick and choose? If you purely follow the words of Jesus and nothing else in the Bible, can you really call yourself a Christian?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Some of us don't read the Bible literally. And that's our faith and our right to practice it as is.

I follow the words of Jesus, not the words of Paul the zealot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

*Romans 1:26-28, not 6-8. Sorry I was typing too fast.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
When you go to heaven, you are not the same "you". Your relationships with other people aren't the same. That's what I was told.

Think about that... seriously.

Yes, I have thought about that. But what does it say in the Bible about it?

It says that when you go to Heaven your relationship with God will be restored and will spend eternity in praise to Him. If your relationship with your spouse and children remain the same in Heaven, then your heart would be split. There will be no Eros love, only Agape love.

You can research it on the internet. There are lots of essays about.

Spending eternity praising the guy who threatened to send me to hell if I didn't praise him enough on Earth doesn't sound much like heaven

You are condemned for your sins. Belief is leading to salvation, and Christ died to give you that option. You're not condemned for not believing -- you're condemned for sinning, and not believing gives you no recourse. Look at it this way, God judges you for your sin, but He also came to earth to die as the penalty for those sins, and that's your defense. Try any other court where the judge provides your defense. Yes, I will spend eternity praising the LORD for humbling Himself to the point of death on a cross even though I'm the guilty one. And it will be awesome. You will lose the chance to do this after you die. It would be good to give it some more complete thought.

^^ PP sure knows a lot and will someday be singing the praises of the lord forever and ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”

Well, if it's in the Bible, it must be true. That's what some people think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, it is the biblical prohibition on homosexual behavior, as well as Paul's writings on women in the church. I am not someone who just pretends the Bible does not say things that I don't like. Anyone who has known a homosexual person knows that it is not some sort of "choice," and yet the bible is very clear. It just seems to me to go so much against Jesus' loving, inclusive message. I also think that Paul's writing on women specifically set women back for thousands of years. Why did these things happen? Even if we assume that Paul's teachings were based more on his opinion, how do we reconcile the last 2,000 years? It's a really difficult topic for me.

The Bible is not "very clear" on homosexuality. It is very clear against sexual immortality. There is no mention of monogamous same sex relations. The type of homosexuality that existed in biblical times were primarily heterosexuals who also had sex with male boys. Not the same. We sure don't beat up adulterers nearly as much as homosexuals - which the Bible is clear about adultery being a sin. And the Bible has pretty strict rules about getting remarried after getting a divorce but most Christians ignore those rules. I don't understand the obsession with homosexuality...

And to take Paul's words about women at face value to cover all women in leadership positions, you sure have to ignore a lot of other bible verses where women were in leadership roles (like deacons and prophets) - which I'm sure was pretty radical back in the day.

Read a little more broadly - there is a lot of excellent scholarship on these topics but not from publishing houses where they practice censorship. You don't get your best thoughts when people can't struggle with things that we need to struggle over (like a lot of "Christian" and Baptist books.

Romans 1:6-8

“26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged NATURAL sexual relations for UNNATURAL ones.27 In the same way the men also abandoned NATURAL RELATIONS WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust FOR ONE ANOTHER. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. ”