Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Gay Priest Speaks Out; an interview
Topic Started: Oct 11 2005, 04:51 PM (1,273 Views)
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Oct 15 2005, 05:42 AM
Jelly Bean
Oct 15 2005, 03:30 AM
cmoehle
Oct 14 2005, 04:00 PM
CalRed
Oct 14 2005, 04:04 PM
Chris

You should have given your source.  It is from "THE BIBLE THROUGH GAY EYES."

I notice you quoted a lot from there but probably forgot to mention where it came from...

I have given explicit links to all I quote, Cal.

Ad hominem is a phoney argument masking lack of good argument.

In cals defense...I think he is just bringing up your source...sorta like you commenting on my source that time...I gave a link too.

BS. I provided a link as I always do.

What the heck does nitpicking like that even have to do with the topic?

I sense some people not only do not like discussing religion but would like to distract and interefere with others doing so.

Is it a threat?

Chris, I provided a link too, and you still chose to comment on my source...don't you remember? The "eccentric" guy?

The point is, sometimes people point out the sources to MAKE A POINT!
Even you have done that.

Try not to get tripped out over it, I'm sure cal didn't mean anything mean by it, just like you didn't when you did it to me.

Just move on, this is a good debate happening here.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
eb belote
Member
end the end we will answer for ourselfs an no one else. me i look at jesus life an thats the bible i no.

there was no excuse for the pope to just keep reasignin them child molesters. he was doin the devils bidin. i think jesus will take it personal.
filein chapter 13 is doin the devils bidin to

just my opinion






Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly Bean
Oct 15 2005, 11:55 PM
cmoehle
Oct 15 2005, 12:18 PM
New tack.

What I learned this go around. The controversy is not new. It has raged for the entire history of Christianity.


try even the history of the world...sin has ALWAYS been with man since garden days...and man has ALWAYS had trouble recognizing their sin.

Who then are you to pronounce the controversy over and concluded it is sin?

Yours, as you so often claim, is but one personal opinion.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly Bean
Oct 16 2005, 12:05 AM
cmoehle
Oct 15 2005, 05:56 AM
Jelly Bean
Oct 15 2005, 04:31 AM
cmoehle
Oct 14 2005, 02:59 AM






I notice no one touched this Bible says then in the second passage that homosexuals should be put to death.

Why is that? When are you going to start the killing?

We do not have to kill anyone or even ourselves...because we are ALREADY CONDEMNED.

Just think sinners sitting on death row, k?
Why are we just abiding time?
Because God has a SALVATION program in store...., and we with repentance now, we can be saved from the punishment. We are to preach the Gospel to the whole world...what is the Gospel? = Christ came to save a condemned world
READ BIBLE FOR DETAILS

Mr Hyde: So we're all going to hell now?

Dr Jeckyl: So we're all saved now?

Will you make up your mind?


"READ BIBLE FOR DETAILS"

I have. I find the same confusion you find. We're condemned, we're saved, we're condemned, we're save--what will we be when the last petal of the flower is plucked?

sorry Chris that you are confused.
I'm not..lol
It fits together fine to me, and I do understand it.
Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde?
What a strange comparison for you to make, and an unflattering one at that.
I suspect that might be part of the problem for you, and in your misunderstanding of scripture..

It wasn't a comment about scripture but your telling us first one thing and then another.

Mr Hyde: So we're all going to hell now?

Dr Jeckyl: So we're all saved now?


Jeckyl/Hyde lends the point metaphorical emphasis on how your opinions differ with your opinions!
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly Bean
Oct 16 2005, 12:09 AM
cmoehle
Oct 15 2005, 05:42 AM
Jelly Bean
Oct 15 2005, 03:30 AM
cmoehle
Oct 14 2005, 04:00 PM
CalRed
Oct 14 2005, 04:04 PM
Chris

You should have given your source.  It is from "THE BIBLE THROUGH GAY EYES."

I notice you quoted a lot from there but probably forgot to mention where it came from...

I have given explicit links to all I quote, Cal.

Ad hominem is a phoney argument masking lack of good argument.

In cals defense...I think he is just bringing up your source...sorta like you commenting on my source that time...I gave a link too.

BS. I provided a link as I always do.

What the heck does nitpicking like that even have to do with the topic?

I sense some people not only do not like discussing religion but would like to distract and interefere with others doing so.

Is it a threat?

Chris, I provided a link too, and you still chose to comment on my source...don't you remember? The "eccentric" guy?

The point is, sometimes people point out the sources to MAKE A POINT!
Even you have done that.

Try not to get tripped out over it, I'm sure cal didn't mean anything mean by it, just like you didn't when you did it to me.

Just move on, this is a good debate happening here.

What Cal said, Jelly, was this: "You should have given your source. It is from "THE BIBLE THROUGH GAY EYES." I notice you quoted a lot from there but probably forgot to mention where it came from..."

It was a false accusation that I did not provide a link--false because I did.

You attempt to equate it with discrediting the source. It does not discredit the source at all, simply plays on bigotted prejudices, which is what this debate is about.



You skipped this question: What about "rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others"? Are you saying you avoid as sin those abominations? Are you thus condemned as well?

Another list:
Quote:
 
# Had sex with an animal (20:15-16)

#            Harvested your entire garden (19:9)

#            Consulted with a psychic or medium or had a tarot card reading (20:6)

#            If you’re a man and have had sex without taking a shower and cleaning the sheets immediately after. (15:16)

#            Touched a woman while she was menstruating (19:19)

#            Had a juicy steak or hamburger (17:10)

#            Eaten pork (11:7)

#            Have a tattoo (19:26)

#            Stolen anything at anytime in your life (19:13)

#            Had a dog that produced a litter of mutts (19:19)

#            Worked on Saturday (19:3)

#            Eaten crab (11:10)

#            Talked back to your parents (19:3)

#            Said “I hate you” to a parent or sibling (19:17)

#            Unjustly judged your neighbor (19:15)

#            Kept something you found without trying to find the owner (6:3)

#            Eaten calamari (11:10)

#            Planted 2 different kinds of plants in the same pot/garden bed (20:19)

#            Worn a cotton/wool blend (20:19)

#            Trimmed your beard or the hair around your temples (19:27)

#            Gotten out of bed after either your parents or grandparents (19:32)

#            Not returned incorrect change (19:35)

#            Cheated on a test (19:35)

#            Eaten rabbit (11:6)

#            Eaten shrimp (11:10)


And recall, Leviticus tells us if you do not follow all those commandments that you are condemned.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
eb belote
Oct 16 2005, 06:50 AM
end the end we will answer for ourselfs an no one else. me i look at jesus life an thats the bible i no.

there was no excuse for the pope to just keep reasignin them child molesters. he was doin the devils bidin. i think jesus will take it personal.
filein chapter 13 is doin the devils bidin to

just my opinion

Pretty close to my point here. 2000 years of Christianity has failed to conclude this issue perhaps because it is not for man to conclude or even make it his business.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Oct 16 2005, 08:56 AM
Jelly Bean
Oct 16 2005, 12:09 AM
cmoehle
Oct 15 2005, 05:42 AM
Jelly Bean
Oct 15 2005, 03:30 AM
cmoehle
Oct 14 2005, 04:00 PM
CalRed
Oct 14 2005, 04:04 PM
Chris

You should have given your source.  It is from "THE BIBLE THROUGH GAY EYES."

I notice you quoted a lot from there but probably forgot to mention where it came from...

I have given explicit links to all I quote, Cal.

Ad hominem is a phoney argument masking lack of good argument.

In cals defense...I think he is just bringing up your source...sorta like you commenting on my source that time...I gave a link too.

BS. I provided a link as I always do.

What the heck does nitpicking like that even have to do with the topic?

I sense some people not only do not like discussing religion but would like to distract and interefere with others doing so.

Is it a threat?

Chris, I provided a link too, and you still chose to comment on my source...don't you remember? The "eccentric" guy?

The point is, sometimes people point out the sources to MAKE A POINT!
Even you have done that.

Try not to get tripped out over it, I'm sure cal didn't mean anything mean by it, just like you didn't when you did it to me.

Just move on, this is a good debate happening here.

What Cal said, Jelly, was this: "You should have given your source. It is from "THE BIBLE THROUGH GAY EYES." I notice you quoted a lot from there but probably forgot to mention where it came from..."

It was a false accusation that I did not provide a link--false because I did.

You attempt to equate it with discrediting the source. It does not discredit the source at all, simply plays on bigotted prejudices, which is what this debate is about.



You skipped this question: What about "rabbits, pigs, and shellfish, such as oysters, shrimp, lobsters, crabs, clams, and others"? Are you saying you avoid as sin those abominations? Are you thus condemned as well?

Another list:
Quote:
 
# Had sex with an animal (20:15-16)

#             Harvested your entire garden (19:9)

#             Consulted with a psychic or medium or had a tarot card reading (20:6)

#             If you’re a man and have had sex without taking a shower and cleaning the sheets immediately after. (15:16)

#             Touched a woman while she was menstruating (19:19)

#             Had a juicy steak or hamburger (17:10)

#             Eaten pork (11:7)

#             Have a tattoo (19:26)

#             Stolen anything at anytime in your life (19:13)

#             Had a dog that produced a litter of mutts (19:19)

#             Worked on Saturday (19:3)

#             Eaten crab (11:10)

#             Talked back to your parents (19:3)

#             Said “I hate you” to a parent or sibling (19:17)

#             Unjustly judged your neighbor (19:15)

#             Kept something you found without trying to find the owner (6:3)

#             Eaten calamari (11:10)

#             Planted 2 different kinds of plants in the same pot/garden bed (20:19)

#             Worn a cotton/wool blend (20:19)

#             Trimmed your beard or the hair around your temples (19:27)

#             Gotten out of bed after either your parents or grandparents (19:32)

#             Not returned incorrect change (19:35)

#             Cheated on a test (19:35)

#             Eaten rabbit (11:6)

#             Eaten shrimp (11:10)


And recall, Leviticus tells us if you do not follow all those commandments that you are condemned.

Chris, it has been explained 3 times now to you, by three different Christians about the old and the new, and why the laws of the old are not followed like the laws of the new. I will continue to explain, while you continue to question, and I will do my best to run it down to you, with different examples, so you get a better look each time.
Once again. CHRIST and the NEW Testament OVERRIDE the teaching of the Old testament. Yes, even with the foods: Paul in the new testament, makes emphasis that as long as the food is received unto the Lord, and given thanks for, then it isn't unclean. Were the foods ABOMINATIONS?
Did God say they were ABOMINATIONS? Or was it that the foods were unclean?
There is a difference you know! Also, Paul spoke to homosexuality and the natural verses the unnatural. If Paul or Christ for that matter, said that homosexuality was now OK, that it was NO LONGER an abomination unto the Lord...then we wouldn't be having this debate. But instead, it was explained even further about how these sinful behaviors come about, and how we are given up to our reprobate minds.

Cal and you have a negative history...it is evident in your post to him, even without knowing that fact. Like you, I will sometimes find myself reacting to old foes...but just let each day be a new one, and try not to fall into that. We "KNOW" you provided a link, which is how he "knew" where it came from. He made a point about "where" it came from, not unlike the point you made to me "where" mine came from when I posted my link...you made comment to "call-out" my source as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
That's a whole lot of explanation, most of it extraneous and anachronistic to the simple passage and a simple reading.

If Christ overrode whatever it is some Christians read into it, why do you continue to read into and condemn homosexuality?

Odd Paul speaks of it but Christ did not, but merely said, for all other commandments, love thy neighbor. Hard to ignore that.

Again, the fact a gay person said those things does not undermine their truth. What the gay person said came from the Bible. Or is it the case that the Bible is false when a gay person reads it? That is the kind of prejudice I am trying to expose.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Oct 16 2005, 03:53 PM
That's a whole lot of explanation, most of it extraneous and anachronistic to the simple passage and a simple reading.

If Christ overrode whatever it is some Christians read into it, why do you continue to read into and condemn homosexuality?

Odd Paul speaks of it but Christ did not, but merely said, for all other commandments, love thy neighbor. Hard to ignore that.

Again, the fact a gay person said those things does not undermine their truth. What the gay person said came from the Bible. Or is it the case that the Bible is false when a gay person reads it? That is the kind of prejudice I am trying to expose.

Christ did speak to the process of overriding with the women caught in adultery...he "saved" her, and he told her to GO and sin no more. He didn't say that it was now OK to commit adultery. Why would we think that it is now OK to commit homosexuality? Just because homosexuality or adultery isn't stoned in the now, but is reserved for final judgment in the future when we find out who is saved, doesn't mean it is now ok. Loving your neighbor and the simplicity of that saying is just beautiful, however it doesn't just stop there. We as believers had to be taught, what exactly is LOVE?
Is it just what anybody sees? We are to love in spirit and in truth. You have to take the whole word of God, and all of it hangs on the act of Loving God with all your heart mind and soul, and loving your neighbor as yourself...Christ said that all the law (yes that Leviticus law of stoning) is incorporated into that. It fits together Chris!

You could say that Cal was "prejudice" by him pointing out that the source came from someone who is gay...but he doesn't seem to be around to defend himself of that probable accusation. Why did you question the source that I brought up, the eccentric guy? Was their a prejudice against eccentrics when they read the bible?
I don't know why people consider sources...but I know it happens so often WITH ALL OF US...even a famous saying is penned over it, which is to say:

"CONSIDER THE SOURCE"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Matthew: 22
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38This is the first and great commandment.

39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Matthew 5:16-18

16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Christ did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it!
Fit it together chris..it works!
BTW, you are a very intelligent man, and I am thankful that you diligently seek the truth in scripture and hope one day you see it...I pray you do. I think part of the problem with confusions on passages, is we do tend to section out parts and not view it all together. What "looks" like a big contradiction, actually is not. Christ himself had to preface to folks listening that he was not there to destroy the LAW!!!!!
The law is not bad. It is our "schoolmaster", we just have the grace program going on right now because God is giving us chances to grow in Him, and be the men and women in God he knows we can be. Seed is planted and he waters and chops when and where needed for proper growth. Pruning can be a good thing, and we want to avoid being thrown in the cfhaff as a whole.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
passinthru
Member Avatar
John - Gainesville, FL
The law had developed over centuries and had become impossible to follow and the church of the time was capitalizing(moneychangers) on this. He didn't come to fulfill "their law" but the law of God. As so many times Jesus was questioned by those who wished to trip him up and call him a heretic and stone him so they could get back to business as usual, Jesus was careful in the words he chose. He came to fulfill the law of God, not the law of man, and not a word of the true law of God, which Jesus gave to us as simply as possible and you and Pat have quoted, will pass until it is fulfilled. Even Paul who was more or less the creator of the new church started adding to the law that Jesus left us, a law of simple love of God, self, and neighbor. When I read the Bible in this light, it fits together quite well too.
Faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, more money...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly "Why would we think that it is now OK to commit homosexuality?"

Romans 13:7-10.

I'm curious. Earlier you said "Chris, it has been explained 3 times now to you, by three different Christians..." But some have said similar to Romans 13:7-10. Are they not Christians?


"You could say that Cal was "prejudice" by him pointing out that the source came from someone who is gay...but he doesn't seem to be around to defend himself of that probable accusation."

I did not accuse Cal of being prejudiced. I said he falsely accused me of not giving my source. It was you who gave an entirely different reading on what he said. It was in response to your reading that I said if someone discredits what's said simply because it is said by a gay then that is prejudicial. This was said quite plainly.

I really think it is time to stop this I said, you said, he said personal stuff, Jelly. Why do you want to change from topic to personal stuff? If you say something about me I am forced to defend myself. But it is so distracting from the topic, and frankly so boring.


"Why did you question the source that I brought up, the eccentric guy?"

Go back to that thread where I explain why. Briefly because one was up against charges himself and the other because he misrepresented the study he based his conclusions on. Again, return to the thread for details.


Interesting, Matthew agrees with Romans and that agrees with what some others and I have said. Basically, the old golden rule.


"I am thankful that you diligently seek the truth in scripture and hope one day you see it..."

I too am thankful that you diligently seek the truth in scripture and hope one day you see it.


"I think part of the problem with confusions...."

Let me clarify: When I said earlier that I was confused, I was not confused about scripture, I was confused with your interpretation of it and your subsequent attempts to explain those interpretations, in many cases doing what you and others say shouldn't be done in interpretation.


"The law is not bad...."

I do not question the law, just what some people confuse as the law.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CalRed
Member Avatar
Member
It is a shame that I only have time to read this post about once a day. It will be nice when this camping season is over and I am back home again. There is much to say regarding this subject...

But for now I have 3 campgrounds to winterize and to hire about 60 80 people to operate them next season so I'm a little handicapped. Later..........
Something instead of Nothing?

"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle.
God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
Alan Sandage

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply