All Comments (103)

Great post Cal. Keep up the good work.

"God does not demand we follow him, he asks us to. We are free to accept or reject that offer. "

AND IF YOU REJECT HIS OFFER???

HELL FIRE & DAAAMNATION FOR ETEEERNITY!!!!

Greg,

"God was testing his faithfulness by asking him to sacrifice his son. He was not manipulating anything."

Regardless of God's intentions, if I had been Abraham I would have felt manipulated. Even if I agreed with you about testing, it is wrong to use the life of someone's child for such a test, even if it's God who is doing the test.

"It all comes down to choice."

Under Christian doctrine, there is no real choice because God holds the threat of hell over humans' heads. That is simply trying to scare people into obedience. That would be like me using capital punishment to discipline my children.

Hey Greg,
did you just copy and paste that whole response? Seems I have read it before...............

Tonio posted the following in the ()

("How do you prove someone is faithful to you? You test them. That's what God did, and they passed with flying colors."

Greg, what God did with Abraham was not "testing." It was a deliberate manipulation of Abraham's sense of reality. How was Abraham supposed to know what was real and what was illusion? If you doubt the evidence of your own senses, you lose all sense of safety and security.)

OK we’re not going to agree on this point I think. God was testing his faithfulness by asking him to sacrifice his son. He was not manipulating anything. He did not force Abraham to do anything he was not willing to do. Interesting how God did sacrifice his OWN son in the NT.

("No, because the parent sees the big picture and knows that the shot is ultimately for the child's best interest, even though the child does not understand that fact."

That is a huge reason why I am repelled by much of Christian doctrine.

First, the way I read that sentence, I will never be considered an adult, no matter how much I demonstrate responsibility or emotional maturity. )

Now you’re talking about spiritual maturity I think, which is different from physical maturity. Spiritual maturity comes from walking the walk and not just reading the Bible and talking the talk. God does not want spiritual babies, He wants mature Christians who will go and fulfill Matthew 25 etc… [sheep and goats]. The book of Hebrews makes this point. Personally I am probably a teenager, I know enough to know I have a long way to go. God does have a plan for us and when we have the faith to follow that plan He richly rewards us. It does not mean we get fooled or that we’re going to have an easy life, it does mean that he’ll not abandon us in the storms.

(Second, the most terrifying thing I can image is living under the absolute power of another being, especially a being that may be irrational and insanely jealous and prone to fits of rage. Authority in our world is never absolute, not even that of a parent over a child, and that is the way it should be. I have zero confidence that any being with absolute power would not use that power to satisfy its own wants at my expense.)

God does not demand we follow him, he asks us to. We are free to accept or reject that offer. We have the gift of free will, we are always faced with choices, some easy some difficult. With those choices come consequences some good, some bad. And unlike humans where absolute power corrupts absolutely, God’s nature does not change. Now I am not a bible scholar so my knowledge is limited, and I’ll be the first to admit ignorance if I don’t have an answer.

(Finally, an adult freely accepts the authority of an employer or a government, and the person or people with that authority definitely exist. And that power relationship is one of mutual benefit for both sides. Religions presuppose the existence of an all-powerful authority figure or figures, with no evidence other that some person's claims. To me, that is like someone barging into my life, claiming to be my parent, and threatening to kill me if I don't do exactly what the person says. While I don't automatically reject the idea of deity, I do reject the idea that I should regard deity as an authority based solely on someone's claims.)

Jesus does not barge in, he knocks and asks if you’ll follow Him. And with Jesus, it’s about relationship, not religion. That’s one of the major problems with Christianity, many think it’s the other way around and history proves the folly in that belief. And we do benefit from this kind of faith. God benefits because His people are ministering to the ‘least of these’, and bringing more people to Him [without bible bashing] we benefit because when our time on earth is at an end, we get eternal relationship with Him and His Father.

It all comes down to choice.

Right on Gaby!!

I knew I wasn't full of crap!

Only sometimes I am, but I rarley admit it.

BRAMBLETON,

I couldn't find a biblical passage that condones sex with animals, but it surely must have existed. Why else would there be this passage in Exodus: "22:19 Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death."

Obviously even back then there were some pretty sick puppies around.

The incest part was already addressed so I don't have anything to add.

What do you love Lori? Your post made no sense

Hi RUSSELL D. and BYRONE!

"Thanks, Russell. I'd like to buy you a beer too. Maybe if we have enough of them, we can figure out how to get it through people's heads that they don't need religion to love life and love God. Either way, we'll have a good time! Peace, brother."

I'll buy you both a beer (and myself too)! I figured it out a long time ago and am much happier for it! Organized religion has little to do with faith and everything to do with dogma and rituals. I don't need either to believe in God.

CWS wrote:
---Is the Bible the perfect and complete word of God? Sadly, cherry picking seems to be the deFacto choice of most Christians and scholars.---

I find cherry-picking the choice of almost all religions. If you think its only christians, take a look at the Muslims these days. And what I find VERY annoying is the quotes from the bible where at times the quote is taken out of context.

But I do find it refreshing that some christians are finally asking the right question "What would Jesus do?". I know, its overused and used comically at times but I find it the most important thing for any christian to consider. If you only refer to the bible you can only deal with things God or Jesus delt with and was written down, hopefully accurately. Everything else is just up in the air unless you ask that question. And the bible allows slavery and other acts we today would throw people in jail for, and, I think we can all assume, Jesus would be against though he never spoke against it and God spoke for it.

I find it funny but typical that Cal only uses one quote from the bible to make his point, a quote that has no direct bearing on this subject but IMPLIES God has some rules about sex. The rest of Cal's essay has no references, just what Cal thinks the bible and Jesus support. This is the danger of religion, following those who claim to know the bible but really know little or make it up as they go along. You see, the bible is not where people put their trust, except for those who read it and understand it, which is a minority of christians. Most christians putall of their faith in the people who claim the moral authority of the bible. If you don't know how dangerous that can be, ask any former Catholic alter boy.

Check this out:

"I thought you'd proclaim something like God created MAN out of thin air with no SEX mentioned in Da Bible...God created WOMAN out of rib - no SEX mentioned in Da Bible. God created Jesus -- well God only knows how -- but no SEX is mentioned anywhere...Ergo, it follows that Christians have a special relationship with the Earth and should not screw the environment...
That's how your "logic" travels usually go..."

Which is better: to offer sound reason for one's own view or assassinating those of another without offering any rationale or information.

The Bible is very clear about Jesus' genesis. Old Testament prophecies made it clear that the Messiah would be of Jewish ancestry, specifically from 'the line of David.' His virgin birth only implies that there was solely a female genetic donor. If scientists didn't believe it were possible, they wouldn't spend so much money and try so hard to replicate it!!!

P.S.- The Bible does NOT say that woman came from man's rib but rather from his side. Perhaps the Bible journaled stem cell cloning long before scientific journals did! Once again, looks like God is far ahead of the game!

Ha I love it!!!

A few of you touched on an interesting point.

Do Christians regard the Old Testament as completely true and worthy? Or should we be allowed to cherry pick?

Or as some, perhaps many Christians contend, does Jesus and the NT eliminate the importance of the OT? Is the Bible the un-erring word of God? Should it be interpreted?

It seems to me before any quality discussion on the Bible or God for that matter we must eatablish those ground rules first.

Is/was God all-knowing and All-powerful?

Is the Bible the perfect and complete word of God?

Sadly, cherry picking seems to be the deFacto choice of most Christians and scholars.

There are scores and scores of oddities, rules and docterine (stonings, "unclean females", eating shrimp, etc, etc.)from Leviticus and the OT which are never adhered (sp) to by modern Christians (and never would be). Yet they are in the Bible...GOD's WORD and all. There is seemingly little thought or concern on this matter within the mainstream Catholics, Protestants or the emerging "Evangelical" movement.

I find this lack of thought strange.

Greg:

A minor historical point: a number of medieval heresies (What else to call them? "Protestant" would be confusing. "Schismatic" is another church term. Since "heresy" comes from a Greek word meaning "choice," I go with that.) rejected the OT in toto (except for a few passages they happened to like). The Catholic Church just hated that. But then, the Catholic Church lives by making laws, doesn't it? And the OT is certainly full of laws, isn't it?

NOSEMAJD:

Credit-where-credit-is-due department: Your platoon sergeant's remark was a originally a Woody Allen joke: "Sex is dirty. If you do it right."

Russell D.:

I assure that by "30 or so years ago," public lynching was well over. Public lynchings were an early twentieth century phenomenon. Even by the 1950's, lynchings were mostly held late at night far back in the woods. By 1977, lynchings of any kind were unheard of.

"How do you prove someone is faithful to you? You test them. That's what God did, and they passed with flying colors."

Greg, what God did with Abraham was not "testing." It was a deliberate manipulation of Abraham's sense of reality. How was Abraham supposed to know what was real and what was illusion? If you doubt the evidence of your own senses, you lose all sense of safety and security.

"No, because the parent sees the big picture and knows that the shot is ultimately for the child's best interest, even though the child does not understand that fact."

That is a huge reason why I am repelled by much of Christian doctrine.

First, the way I read that sentence, I will never be considered an adult, no matter how much I demonstrate responsibility or emotional maturity.

Second, the most terrifying thing I can image is living under the absolute power of another being, especially a being that may be irrational and insanely jealous and prone to fits of rage. Authority in our world is never absolute, not even that of a parent over a child, and that is the way it should be. I have zero confidence that any being with absolute power would not use that power to satisfy its own wants at my expense.

Finally, an adult freely accepts the authority of an employer or a government, and the person or people with that authority definitely exist. And that power relationship is one of mutual benefit for both sides. Religions presuppose the existence of an all-powerful authority figure or figures, with no evidence other that some person's claims. To me, that is like someone barging into my life, claiming to be my parent, and threatening to kill me if I don't do exactly what the person says. While I don't automatically reject the idea of deity, I do reject the idea that I should regard deity as an authority based solely on someone's claims.

Greg - I appreciate your explanation and examples.

I still wonder how you know these things. Are they in the bible, or did you learn this in Church or some other way?

You mention that stoning is out - what about the strictures against homosexuals? Isn't a lot of that stuff in the same section of Leviticus?

In terms of God testing Abraham - I understand the idea of testing faith, but it seems like God could have found a way to do it without traumatizing Abraham's son into thinking his father was about to murder him. Hard to imagine father and son had a very trusting relationship after that.

Then in the New Testament, this same God becomes a father himself and sets his own son up to be sacrificed -- and actually goes through with it this time.

Luckily, he isn't dead for long. Now his followers celebrate by symbolically eating his body and drinking his blood.

When I was growing up, all of this seemed very natural to me - This story was so second nature, that I don't remember when I heard it for the first time.

Now it seems pretty gruesome.

The origin of all religions, in three panels:

Panel 1: Two cave-men stand looking at the sun. One says to the other, "How DOES that thing make it clear across the sky every damn day?" The 2nd cave-man replies (with a sneaky smile on his face) "Well, don't you know ole Grag that stopped moving a few years ago, and we put him in that hole? Well, he climbed back out, jumped up there and started yanking that yellow thing across the sky every day."

Panel 2: First cave-man says, "Damn, I bet you're right! Gotta go tell the others!" And he runs off.

Panel 3: Second cave-man laughs, then gets a serious look on his face and says: "You know, there could be some money in this!"

Hi Tonio,

Forgive me for not reading all of the posts here, so I have not traced the current conversation back to its origin. However, concerning God's testing of Abraham and Job, you stated that "it's wrong for a being to deliberately test another being like that."

Based on your statement, may I suggest that it is only wrong if the two beings are equal in nature. However, the God of the Bible (OT & NT) is shown to be the all-wise Creator of man, an infinitely higher being than we are. Isaiah 40:12-31 offers a compelling comparison between the nature of man and the nature of God, and concludes that the nations of the world are like a speck of dust on the scales compared to God. God's ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. He can see the big picture when we see only a small speck of time. He knows that we must endure suffering at times in order to become more dependent upon Him and to become better human beings because of it. But, it doesn't feel like it at the time, that's for sure. It's not pleasant and it doesn't seem fair.

Perhaps a human example will offer a better way to illustrate this point. When folks have a baby, they take the little one to the doctor on numerous occasions, often to receive immunizations, which are painful to the child. As the child grows older, he/she begins to plead with the parent not to go to the doctor because the shot is going to hurt. That's all that the child is focused on: the pain. The parent, who is much wiser than the child, knows that the child needs the immunization in order to stay healthy and avoid more serious illnesses. But because the shot is painful, should the parent instead give in to the child? No, because the parent sees the big picture and knows that the shot is ultimately for the child's best interest, even though the child does not understand that fact. The same is true for God. In his infinite wisdom, He sees the big picture and that certain character traits can only be developed through trials and yes, suffering. Ultimately, it is for our good and His glory.

I hope this helps.

Have a wonderful weekend everyone!

That is an interesting point. How else would you test someone's faith, a true false quiz? How do you prove someone is faithful to you? You test them. That's what God did, and they passed with flying colors. God could have manipulated them to make them pass but he allowed them to choose. We test the faithfulness of people all the time. Would you marry someone who was unfaithful? Would you go into business with someone who was unfaithful?

Greg, what I'm saying is that it's wrong for a being to deliberately test another being like that. That has nothing to do with proving faith and everything to do with manipulation for its own sake.

God was testing Abraham's and Job's faith to Him. Both were richly rewarded for staying true to their faith. I've been tested by God a couple of times and I am stronger for it.

Jesus never never promised an easy life, He did promise that God would not abandon us.

I'm not enough of an expert on the Bible to talk about Jonah and conquering the promised land so I'm not even going to hazard a guess.

"There are parts though that got overruled. Things like diet, circumcision stoning adulterers etc., no longer apply to Christians because of Jesus and his ministry."

Greg, I can understand that teaching, although I stress that it may not be obvious to casual readers of the Bible. Instead, my issue is with God's behavior in the Old Testament. A God that would play sick mind games with Abraham and Job and that would order Joshua to commit genocide, does not sound like a being that is capable of unconditional love. Emotional torture and mass slaughter are unacceptable under any circumstances. Ascribing these atrocities to God doesn't make them acceptable.

"E Favorite:
Hello Greg, you say:

“Leviticus is not my favorite book in the Bible because so much of it has been overruled by the new testament. When I do read it and see things that seem to be at odds with the NT I go and make sure. If it does conflict then I ignore it, because Jesus is the new convenent that replaced the old one.”

I’m not well schooled in the Bible. I have trouble reading it in English, not to mention Hebrew, Greek or Latin. So I have some questions for you and others who know about the Bible -- How much of the OT is overruled by the NT? How do you know which parts are ruled out? Does it say somewhere in the NT which parts to ignore? If those guidelines are not in the NT, how do you determine what to accept or not accept?

Regarding the New Covenant, what does that mean regarding the authority of the OT? If the new covenant really replaced the old one, why is the OT still part of the Christian Bible?

Thanks, I look forward to your responses."

Much of the Old Testament does line up with the New Testament, but there are parts that don't. Jesus summed up everything is just a couple of verses.

This is from Matthew 22 verses 34-40

34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

That in a nutshell is Christianity. If you see something in the OT that does not line up with this then you can probably ignore it. Jesus's whole ministry was about reaching out to the lost the broken and the hurting. He was often found dinning amoung people that the religious leaders of the day (Pahrasees) would not give the time of day to. That's what Christians are SUPPOSED to do. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2025:31-46;&version=31;
That passage sums up how Christians are supposed to help the hurting, lost and the hungry. It's worth the read.

Here is another passage that illustrates the fact that the NT is a new covenant and supercedes the old.

This is from the book of Hebrews chaper 8

1The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.
3Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. 4If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. 5They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."[a] 6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said[b]:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."[c]

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
"

My references are from biblegateway.com, and they have the bible translated into many different different languages.

The old testament is still valuable to Christians, many of the lessons in the OT are still applicable to Christians today. That's why it's part of the bible. There are parts though that got overruled. Things like diet, circumcision stoning adulturers etc., no longer apply to Christians because of Jeus and his ministry.

I did it again -- my first sentence should start, "I have never understood why..."

I have understood why anyone's sexual orientation should be other people's concern. People in committed monogamous relationships, regardless of orientation, pose no intrinsic harm to others or to society. I have never heard of gays warning straights of eternal damnation if they don't "join the gay team."

Brambleton wrote:
--God hates the "sin" of man, God doesn't hate man.---

Yet God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah killing every "sinner" which must have included all the children in those towns (bad boys and girls?) as well as all the fetuses in the preganant women (must have been many of them!). I would conclude from that event that God really did HATE these people enough to kill them and their children born and unborn. Guess he was in a less than merciful mood that day.

---God did not create any human being as a homosexual.---

How do you know? Please go to your bible and reference where it says God made all men and women heterosexual. And while you're at it, explain why Christ reached the ripe age of 30 without getting married. That was very unusual for a jew in those days.

---People become homosexuals because they yield to abnormal acts or lust.---

And you determined this how? How do you explain lustful people that stay heterosexual and never consider homosexuality? Do you think lust leads to homosexuality? If so where did you learn this?

---Though people are not born homosexuals, the Bible does say that ALL human beings are born with a sin nature. If we yield to the evils of the flesh (and don't take that to mean sex is bad) it will lead to our own personal destruction not only in this life, but in the life to come.---

I'll take that to mean that anything in excess is probably not good. But you don't need to be homosexual to be lustful, have casual sex or "yield to the evils of the flesh". Many who are homosexual actually live in monogomous relationships. Sex causing problems in not a homo/hetero issue. And since you brought it up, consider your own sinful nature and that your agitation with homosexuals is itself sinful since you are not doing Gods commandsment of loving your neighbor as yourself.

JH wrote:
---My hat's off to you [Cal]! Society today is so immoral! I am truly scared for these people without God in their life!---

Here in lies a big problem, fear of those not like yourself. Its called bigotry.

---I pray that the Holy Spirit moves in the lives of the non-believers!---

Do you mean "hope" or "pray", because if you meant "pray", then you believe you can summon God when you want to do your bidding. Do you believe you can do that? Do you believe God is a sword you can wield?

---The Bible is the "Word" and we all should be living by it!---

Who is to say we are not? Does one need to believe in God to live by the "Word"? Does one need to believe in God to have a normal sex life in marriage? Its funny how bigots assume a lot about people based on one trait, in this case, their religious belief. I guess the pedophile priests or homosexual daliances of Haggert and the many preachers who praise God while having extramarital affairs have not made you consider that we are all the same. Call us all children of God if you like. But we are all the same and only you labeling and separating people by their belief makes us different.

---Look at society today verses 15-20 years ago! I don't even want my children to watch t.v. these days!---

20 years ago was 1987. You say things are worse today? I don't see much difference. Maybe you went from TV over the air, which is heavily regulated, to cable TV, which, since YOU are paying for it, is not as regulated. Much of what is on TV today is re-runs from 1987 (Seinfeld?). And when has TV been a good thing to watch. I remember cigarette ads on TV years ago. Were those good days?

---WAKE UP AMERICA!---

Stop blaming America for what you perceive as problems in society. You should look to see whether your religion actually makes for a better life. Start with the jails and see how many christians are there. It might surprise you to know that atheists make up the smallest percentage of the prison population when compared with the regular population. But hey, I'm not advocating atheism, just pointing out that christianity does not seem to make for a better person. Maybe you should consider that christianity is part of the problem ... no, on second thought I doubt you will. Free will only goes so far, eh?

There is no god. Get over it.

Thank you Russell D, I know I'm not alone in my thoughts - you have put them into words for me.

For me there is no god, except the god that man has made for his own uses. To foster hope and friendship and love.
And to foster prejudice, hate and guilt.

I need no god to know what love and loyalty and honesty is. I need no god to teach me hate and dispare and guilt.
I choose to love and accept everyone for who they are and how they treat others around them. Not how, when, why they have sex.
I choose not to be put into a box that religon wants to put you in. Nor do I choose to place others in that same box because some religon tells us to.

I choose no god, no religon. When death closes my eyes forever I know my sleep will be the deepest nothingness known. And I'm fine with that.

Brambleton,

"God did not create any human being as a homosexual."

No, he didn't - he was absent at the creation.

But evolution and biology did.

Brambleton,

Ok, I am gonna have to disagree with you there, on the whole homosexual aspect. Being gay is not a choice, it is who a person is. It is as natural as heterosexualtiy. God never said anything about being gay as sin. A homophobic writer did. Jesus never said anything about it. Jesus was the man, he loved everybody. I think we can learn more from life through the teachings of Jesus than we can from what some people 2,000 years ago believe God would want us to do. I have gay and lesbian frineds. they are the most wonderful people to be around. Why you ask? Because they are not afraid to be who they are. they enjoy life, and yes they might even believe in God. And just a tip, if you ever want to meet women, hang out with a gay man, they know plenty of women to introduce you to.

I also have one other question.......if you watch porn, and I don't know if you do, I assume you don't watch man on man porn, but you'll slow mow the woman on woman porn, am I right? So what the difference? the beauty of the women? And let me ask this also......when watching regular straight porn, do you expect to see a man with no hard on or with? Hmmmmm, think about that.

I'd still buy you a beer though

Hello Greg, you say:

“Leviticus is not my favorite book in the Bible because so much of it has been overruled by the new testament. When I do read it and see things that seem to be at odds with the NT I go and make sure. If it does conflict then I ignore it, because Jesus is the new convenent that replaced the old one.”

I’m not well schooled in the Bible. I have trouble reading it in English, not to mention Hebrew, Greek or Latin. So I have some questions for you and others who know about the Bible -- How much of the OT is overruled by the NT? How do you know which parts are ruled out? Does it say somewhere in the NT which parts to ignore? If those guidelines are not in the NT, how do you determine what to accept or not accept?

Regarding the New Covenant, what does that mean regarding the authority of the OT? If the new covenant really replaced the old one, why is the OT still part of the Christian Bible?

Thanks, I look forward to your responses.

DW:

Good effort with the Romans passage but you're missing the point. God hates the "sin" of man, God doesn't hate man. God did not create any human being as a homosexual. People become homosexuals because they yield to abnormal acts or lust. Though people are not born homosexuals, the Bible does say that ALL human beings are born with a sin nature. If we yield to the evils of the flesh (and don't take that to mean sex is bad) it will lead to our own personal destruction not only in this life, but in the life to come.

Romans 8:1-15

Ok, I'll admit, the sex with animals was a little off, but I am not taking back the incest part. If yuo can't find it, you don't read well enouhg into the words of the Bible. Adam and Eve first had son, right? One is killed by the other and the other is now an outcast. Adam and Eve then have daughters..........the sons get with the daughters: hmmmm, sounds like incest to me. But oh well, who cares, its not important.

As for Byrone, Brambleton, and Ashley.......all I have to say is one thing-KARAOKE!!!!! We can have a good ole time and not be pressured by the overbearing religious right.

I truly enjoy these discussions because it allows people to voice what they think without repercussions. Now I know sex is a major issue, but you know what? Who cares? If I see sex one way, then another person sees it another way. That is what makes this place so great, the diversity. The only problem with that is the people who seem to think it is their duty to convert me and my way of thinking to theirs or else I am going to Hell. You need to remember, Heaven and Hell are manmade concepts. They are what you make them. Heck, I consider Pizza "food of the Gods"(I really said that last night). So look at it this way....the mind is an incredible thing, it can create, destroy, and conjure up things that are a total mystery to any other.
I leave with one last thinking point- God didn't make Man, Man made God......

My old Friend, it is good to see you again. Welcome back. I hope you are well.
Tis true that God's way is always the best way, but the flesh is weak and all that man touches he or she pollutes. So how can one have sex without pollution? Through Love. Something that can not be made by the hands. It must be made within the heart and communicated by the heart. I most recently had a very public heart rending, and it was not because of my intentions to commit an act of Sex, but because I wanted to commit acts of kindness and friendship. Most certainly, those I most cared to contact colluded to draw me out of my way into the trap. But when the realities of my oath of celibacy pursuant to the murder of Saddam Hussein become public knowlege...40 days and 40 nights renewed once upon my birthday January 13th the folly and polluted nature of the trap itself only serves to trap the wicked, not me. God/Allah is Great. It is great to consider you my Friend. I hope you feel as I do. You know from the days of the Weird Harrold that I like to write and play with words. You know that rhymes I like to show, but not off. God Bless you and yours my good fire-friend. Amen. Good to see you again... P.S., I DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR "LESSON", NOR "HAIR CUT" NOR "SHAVE" NOR "ATTEMPT AT CONTRO" FOR IT IS ALL AN ILLUSION OF THEIR OWN MAKING. GOD KNOWS MY TRUTH AND IT HAS SET ME FREE.

Mr. Thomas,

I agree with most of the points you made in your article. Sex has given birth to at least one major disease, and other minor diseases in the past years. It still amazes me that people can actually die from having sex. I know the possibility of death, insanity, etc.. was always there from having sex, but nothing like it is today. Its hard to realize that at one time man nor woman had to worry about catching a disease from a sexual act. And yes we as people have made sex dangerous. And yes, I do believe its due to our Ego, or as you say "I". I think it is healthy and a good moral choice for people who want to remain chaste before marriage, and faithful during marriage. I will have to agree with the scientist who say that sex will become even more dangerous in the future, that we are only begining to see some of the problems that we as a species have created because of our greed. For some of us from the 60s and 70s our legacy of "free love, and drugs" have come home to roost. My grown children often ask me; "What were yall thinking about for Gods Sake?" I tell her "Me, Myself, and I".

Hey BA'AL,
Nice to see you around again. Leviticus is not my favorite book in the Bible because so much of it has been overruled by the new testament. When I do read it and see things that seem to be at odds with the NT I go and make sure. If it does conflict then I ignore it, because Jesus is the new convenent that replaced the old one. So those passages you picked out are not relavent to Christians because they go against the NT.

TDAY

On the contrary, the sections in Leviticus that I quoted meant exactly what they said. If you would like, I could translate them for you from the original Hebrew. Mud on my face Tday? I don't think so.

Obviously, the vast majority of us would find rules like these which I mentioned in Leviticus to be absurd, unless Tday, you like the idea of making bondsmen of the strangers in your midst.

But the rules people like Cal Thomas throw at us are equally arbitrary.

Cal, you speak the truth.

"All sin – whether sexual, or something else – is the result of man thinking he knows better than God. Sin’s middle letter is “I.” I will do what I want. I know better than God. I will be the master of my own destiny." --- Thomas

SIN, if I remember correctly, means to "miss the mark of perfection".

If you consider God = perfection, then I agree with you.

Thomas sounds silly to anyone who is not obsessed with the supernatural. The same people who think that it's lunacy to hold seances to connect with the dead think it's perfectly fine to conjure a supernatural being that invents things to keep fences around us. But I digress from my point:

Sexual reproduction is found in all groups of animals, save for one class of rotifers. Sex is not necessary to produce new members of any species, nor is it involved in the physical pleasure of animals that release gametes into the sea, nor is it the mirror of anything supernatural for flatworms or barnacles.

It has evolved and been maintained in organisms (not just humans, Cal) for one reason: to produce genetic variation in offspring. In fact, there is a genetic cost to diluting one's contribution each generation, so the benefits must be pretty powerful to maintain it so widely.

Understanding how it came to be, of course, doesn't explain its significance to human adults, which varies among human cultures. But in the context of what we actually understand about sexual reproduction, rather than the stuff preachers want to make up about it, it seems goofy to talk about sex like it was sent to humans from heaven.

"Only someone who is really looking to be mocked quotes from Leviticus. Here is part of it that says that God finds childbirth sinful."

Ba'al stated the quote above.

This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that those who defy God and think they know what they are saying fall flat on their faces. Anyone who has studied the bible objectively and honestly knows what the sin offering was for. It was not for giving childbirth. The sin offering was common, for the forgivness of all sins. A common thing just as, in a new testament light, those who believe and are consistently on their knees asking God, in the name of Jesus Christ (who replaced the ORDINANCES..not the law) for forgivness of their sins.

If those who defy the bible wish to claim they know what it is talking about, a little advice: do a little more study to avoid mud on your face.

Brambleton asks above:

"Joe Campbell,

I must have missed the book in the Bible that condones "hating gays". Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks! "

Of course, scripture does not promote hate of homosexuals, but it certainly shows, yea many, many years ago, that the practice of such leads to a penalty.

Romans 1:22-27

Russel D. and Byrone are my heroes! I'm eternally grateful to find others who think as I do without giving in to the hate so prevalent when discussions of religion and sex come up. I'll buy you both a drink.

Sex is a beautiful thing, no matter who invented it. But people tend to look at it as an "either-or" situation: either you're married and honoring God with your sexuality, or you're engaging in casual sex with all comers. People like myself are in the middle; they have sex before or between marriages (whole 'nother issue) in committed relationships that don't always lead to marriage, but that doesn't mean we'll sleep with anyone. Please consider the middle position, and try to remember that we're not mocking the insitution of marriage by our choices; we're simply living our lives.

I'll respect you and not mock your position as long as you respect me and don't shake your head and say I'm beyond all redemption because I don't tie my decisions to words written by other human beings -- divinely inspired or not.

Byrone,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess I don't have the same view of religion that you do, although I have to admit I've never really given "religion" much thought. One of the things God calls on us to do is fellowship with one another. If we praise God only by ourselves, we miss this calling. I am Baptist and attend Baptist services. But friends of mine are also Lutheran, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, etc., etc. While my friends and I can disagree on certain interpretations of scripture, we generally are committed to the same one, true, living God. My relationship to God is first and foremost. My affiliation to the Baptist theology only stems from what my relationship with God has provided me.

I'm always up for a beer! Or wine for that matter. Just need to make sure I don't give in to "drunkeness and lewd behavior"!

Ba'al,

Does it make you feel superior to mock others? I believe what the animals and Adam were lacking were fellowship and intimacy. If you would like to infer that there was some sort of sexual relationship, well, your loss.

Joe Campbell,

I must have missed the book in the Bible that condones "hating gays". Could you please point me in the right direction? Thanks!

Sorry bout that last part. Meant to say much respect to you, BRAMBLETON, let's have a beer with Russell. It's been a loooooong day!

Brambleton,

You are obviously an intelligent person. I will answer, but please don't take any offense, as I mean none. God is bigger than any religion. You can talk to God as easily as I or anyone else on this planet. So where does the neccessity for religion come into play? If you have an honest, open conversation with God, why do you need a religion to justify or give credence to your relationship with God? God exists whether or not we simple humans acknowledge him/her with a religion. If you happen to fully agree with a particular religion's views of God, then subscribe to that religion. I am just saying that I believe that God is far too great to be encapsulated by any mere mortal's religion. I don't think that we can fully express the enormity of God with a religion, no matter how inspired that religion may be. I don't look down upon those that do, I only implore them to examine God and their personal relationship with God for themselves. I think that God is the most important thing in any humans life, so to leave your relationship with God up to someone else is sinful. Take full responsibility for your relationship to God. It's when we get caught up in someone else's dogma that we trivialize God. That is unforgivable in my book. Not to say that MY book is gospel, just that I take my relationship with God with the utmost sincerity. If we all did so, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Who knows? Certainly not I. Much respect to you, Russell. I wish more of us had such passion for God, regardless of our religious affilliations. Peace to you. Let's get together with Russell D. for a beer. Or maybe some wine.

Fine, we can call it a crutch. That works for me. A retarded mystical crutch that turns wine into blood and hates gay people. Fine crutch indeed.

Crazy Cal Thomas uses Leviticus to make his point. Of course passages therein would sanction making slaves of any illegal immigrants, or Buddhists living in the US, and keeping them forever! I'd say it's a pretty good deal for Cal.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.

Oops, I did it again. The last reply to Brambleton about animal sex and Genesis is mine.

Brambleton may be right about sex with animals. After all, there is this in Genesis:

2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; BUT FOR ADAM THERE WAS NOT FOUND AN HELP MEET FOR HIM [emphasis added].

So, let's review: Apparently after deciding that none of the animals were a proper help meet for lonely Adam -- maybe this is because they tried things we don't want to talk about -- God made Adam fall asleep, took one of his ribs, made Eve, and hilarious and wacky adventures ensued. Recall that the next chapter in the book has a talking snake, so it seems that Adam could have had a conversation with the animals if the LORD had willed it -- apparently they were found to be lacking in some other way. As I said, Brambleton knows his scriptures!

Russell,

Please post the Biblical scripture that condones incest and sex with animals. I'll look forward to your response.

Byrone,

Apparently, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please explain to me how I can have a relationship with God but be without religion.