Scripture and Experience Set Clear Familial Order

Sir, am I understanding you correctly, that only husband-and-wife may have sex and then only with the express purpose of creating new life?

But Sir, then all of the following are sinful behaviours and should be condemned in the strongest terms possible:

1) a husband-and-wife sharing intimacy for the sake of showing their love to each other.

2) a wife inviting her husband to share sex in order to relieve his tension from a hard day's work, et vice versa.

3) a husband-and-wife just making love, for the sake of giving each other emotional and physical pleasure.

I could go on in that vein, but the point is that none of those interactions between husband-and-wife have the creation of new life as their first or even conscious goal.

rhqs kvyeahr yzws ykmofxp pjtuskn qipveyzak usgqtrl

I have no religion, and I don't know what's what, and I don't know the limit, the limit of what we've got

U2

Ba'al

It is very easy to use oppressive language like "you are oppressig large segments of population" that's called a power play with words. Your intent here is not to understand the christian message with in it's own context it is to use politically charged words to illicite emotional identification. "see I am for those who are oppressed by the majority" as opposed to trying to understand christians from their own perspective. it's easy to bash what one refuses to understand.

mike

Ba'al,

You are correct, to stop at the salvation experience, to not grow in Christ, to not earn a crown, to not be close to the Beloved, to just be free of the CURSE of the law, to escape by the "skin of our teeth" is possible. Although,it is infinately better than the alternative: eternal damnation, and separation from God forever.

By the way - funny stuff about the pillows! 'Laughter doeth the heart good like a medicine'! I don't know what the women were doing with the pillows & handkerchiefs, but it was obviously part of idolatry, and we both know He hates that.

"Oppress large segments of the population"? Hardly, the point is to set people free from a prison that they don't know they are in.

Sharon,

Oh Really? Christians are "free from the curse of the law" as you put it?

Not the case, not unless you want your toenails to be scraping the bottom of the barrel in the Kingdom of Heaven. For example, Matthew 5:19-19 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

I am sure you will find passages that say something else, since the Levitical purity laws are messy to say the least, what with all the animals you need to kill. Taking communion is easier. I am very much aware of the contrary passages. They are replete in the Epistles attributed to Paul.

And that is the point. The New Testament is not even internally consistent on what it takes to be saved or condemned, which one might think is pretty fundamental. The fact that people pick passages, take them literally, and then use them to oppress large segments of the population who are harming no one is an abomination.

Joe Campbell,

I think you were responding to ME when you addressed your above comments to "We", but if not I apologize.

There is absolutely no way another human is born without having a female egg and a male sperm. I don't think anyone will dispute this. What I want to know is how do you know people are born some way that is not naturally "attracted" to the opposite sex or more specifically solely "attracted" to the same sex. I am only talking about humans at this point. I am not really interested in Koala bears or Seahorses at this juncture.

Ba'al
Obviously, ba'al, you haven't been to the right school to get the "true" meaning of this passage. You see, unlike the passage on homosexuality, this passage is not to be taken literally. Well, it's completely obvious.

I think that Mr Colson should be speaking out against pillows. And women. There is this from the book of Ezekiel describing these abominations (and it comes from the same authority that Mr. Colson uses to condemn homosexuals):

Ezekiel 13:18 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you?
13:19 And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?
13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.

Woe I say!!!!!!!! Why do the Faithful keep silent about pillows!

Mavadatt & Ghostbuster

Mankind, Adam, (in Hebrew: red,ruddy,race of man); was created perfect, in God's image. Adam was given choice whether to obey God. Mankind disobeyed,sinned against God. The spirit of God left man. Man had rejected the authority of God to be wise for himself, no longer reliant on God. Mankind, no longer under the rule of God, had given themselves over to the rule of Sin.

When we are born, we have a conscience. You remember your moral clarity, and indignations as a small child. The problem is that because we now are ruled by the law of sin with in our persons,our minds become progressivly corrupted by that sin nature, and the acts of that nature, and the nature (spirit) of others.

The law was set up by God to be a mirror to us, a standard, so we could see how far we fall short of the mark of righteousness, and turn back to God. That was the Old Testament.

In the herculean attempt to get Mankind to turn back to Him, He sent His Son do die in our place for our sins, and free us from the consequences of the Law, to satisfy its requirement that the penalty for sin is death.

Now that we are free from the curse of the law, God can still keep justice, and put his spirit back in us. When we believe in His Son, we are born again, not of the perishable seed of sin and death, but of the spirit of God. We are now back under God's authority, and have, once again, His Spirit within us - bound for His Kingdom of Heaven, not for eternal damnation, and separation from Him forever.

Mavadatt & Ghostbuster

Mankind, Adam, (in Hebrew: red,ruddy,race of man); was created perfect, in God's image. Adam was given choice whether to obey God. Mankind disobeyed,sinned against God. The spirit of God left man. Man had rejected the authority of God to be wise for himself, no longer reliant on God. Mankind, no longer under the rule of God, had given themselves over to the rule of Sin.

When we are born, we have a conscience. You remember your moral clarity, and indignations as a small child. The problem is that because we now are ruled by the law of sin with in our persons,our minds become progressivly corrupted by that sin nature, and the acts of that nature, and the nature (spirit) of others.

The law was set up by God to be a mirror to us, a standard, so we could see how far we fall short of the mark of righteousness, and turn back to God. That was the Old Testament.

In the herculean attempt to get Mankind to turn back to Him, He sent His Son do die in our place for our sins, and free us from the consequences of the Law, to satisfy its requirement that the penalty for sin is death.

Now that we are free from the curse of the law, God can still keep justice, and put his spirit back in us. When we believe in His Son, we are born again, not of the perishable seed of sin and death, but of the spirit of God. We are now back under God's authority, and have, once again, His Spirit within us - bound for His Kingdom of Heaven, not for eternal damnation, and separation from Him forever.

We,

We are not all heterosexual. Neither are all animals. There are gay animals. There are gay people.

BUT...there is no god.

If “we” is agnostic and without a definitive moral clarity, it would be reasonable for one judging the situation you described to rely on his/her own knowledge, experience and insight to judge if the child is mentally capable of choosing his own parents. Most weighing in on a decision would likely consider the child’s age, development, and mental capabilities and logically reason that it would be better if mature adults (parents) picked the child instead of vice versa.

As for those who claim they did not have moral clarity, but now do possess it in a dynamic way, if that change is evident, it ought to be possible to observe outside of their own personal experience. For example, if there is truth to Sharon’s paradigm shift her life-long friends and family would be eye witnesses. They would have know her before, during the time of dramatic change, and after encountering the catalyst (Jesus in this case). They could use their own knowledge of the situation, experience with Sharon and insight into her life to determine how much (if any) of her life was dramatically altered by this encounter at a church. Of course, they can’t “feel” the release of the burden she described being lifted, but they could see the life change and reasonably come to a conclusion that something did or didn’t happen one way or another I suppose. Of course, some witnesses may have personal bias toward the situation. One saying it is all in Sharon’s head because they do not believe that anything like this is possible and another basing their assumption of the life change being real because of a previous similiar experience or because they desperately want to believe it in spite of the evidence (Aside, sometimes I think most of us are more close minded then we like to admit. We see what we want to see and ignore what we want to ignore).

Sharon: I hope you don’t mind that I just used you as an example.

Mavaddat,

I used the word "gay" for a reason.
We are all heterosexual (procreate by intercourse with opposite sex). That is not in question. My question is that of "attraction" or whatever it is being claimed is innate for some.

Ghostbuster,

We can be agnostic about whether have "moral clarity" for the moment. (Suppose we just don't know whether we have moral clarity, and we are seeking it.) Now suppose someone tells you that they know that they DID NOT have moral clarity, but that they now have it, and that you too can have the moral clarity that they now possess. You might rightly wonder how they came to such clarity! And how can they be sure that they have such clarity?

If they say they were blind, then how do they actually know that they see? By what standard? By whose description of 'seeing'? Who are they trusting to tell them what seeing is ACTUALLY like?

If they say they trust the Christians to tell them what is moral, then their argument is circular. For it is equivalent to saying, "I was immoral, but now that I am a Christian I am moral, and by 'moral' I mean 'being a Christian.'" So yes, such a person is 'moral', but only in virtue of the fact that by 'moral' he or she tacitly means 'Christian'.

On the other hand, if the standard of morality is some inherent intuition, social construct, evolutionary tendency, etc., then religion (any religion) is merely an encapsulation of the values at one time held in esteem by some group of people. In this case, the so-called 'morally agnostic' is shown to be a fiction if he or she is an adult. We are all morally capable beings, some of whom are weaker than others in living up to what we know (in virtue of our having reached adulthood) to be right.

This shows that what we mean by 'moral' intimately has to do with the responsibility that we assume in adulthood. Therefore, the Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc. in continuing to seek external guidance for their moral life are seeking to return to a state of childhood where they are told what is right or wrong by an organization or body of scripture. If we are right that they have a moral sense (which, indeed, they presume to have if they say they have chosen a 'moral' religion), then these people are merely deluding themselves about where their sense of morality comes from.

Thus, while the religious are merely seeking to be held accountable, and they confuse this weakness with an lack of moral sensibility. However, the ability to adhere to one's inherent sense of morality (which religion often confers to its members; though not uniquely, since any community of people can hold their members accountable) is different from the ability to discern right from wrong (which religion can never teach us, since we presuppose having such a sense in choosing a moral religion).

Me,

What evidence do you have that people are born heterosexual other than the anecdotal claims of the so-called "breeders"? If you refer to evolution, then can't we refer to the same theory to explain how homosexuality might arise? After all, isn't "mutation" one of the driving forces of evolution by natural selection? There is no need for offence at this suggestion. Heterosexuality was itself a mutation on an earlier form of reproduction called "asexual" reproduction. Does that mean that heterosexuality was immoral when asexual reproduction was the norm?

Not that what is "natural" matters, really. I do not see why a desire is somehow moral because a person was born with some genetic predetermination to desire it. Or shall we say that an act is moral simply because it is normal? For at one time (if not today), war was quite normal and frequent. Some even say that war is the natural state of humanity. Does that make it moral? Does that mean that civilization, insofar as it is an unnatural union of humanity, is immoral?

For those who say people are born "gay", what evidence do you offer besides the anecdotal claims of the so-called "gay"?

My initial response is emphatically NO, we could not trust a child to make a decision that important with that little knowledge.

However, your question is: would "we" trust. So I need to know a little bit about "we". In this society, do "we" have moral clarity? Also, did "we" have the same opportunity to choose our parents as the 4-year old did?

This is fun Mavaddat, thanks for chatting.

Ghostbuster,

Now just imagine if this child, who is completely without moral perception, were to choose his own parents. I mean, literally he had all these parents to choose from, the full gamut of moral and immoral people, and he chose the ones that he liked best. Would we trust a four-year-old to choose the parents that would raise him well?

Mavaddat,
I'm not trying to jump into this conversation, but I don't understand your reasoning here:

"...if you were truly morally lost before you found Christianity, then you could not know what is right from what is wrong. Thus, you cannot possibly be trusted to have found any kind of moral truth, since your moral perception was worthless..."

A young child doesn't know right from wrong and must be taught, right? If a four year old is a chronic liar but is corrected and learns to tell the truth I would argue that the child has a greater moral perception because he now knows right from wrong.

Sharon: To follow up on M's points though, when you were living this former lifestyle you described did you feel that you were doing "wrong" and just did it anyway? Just curious.

Sharon,

You can apparently find videos of Sathya Sai Baba performing his miracles on YouTube. He has millions of witnesses. Far exceeding those of Jesus. But who cares?

You still haven't told me why any of this matters. Who cares if Jesus or Sathya Sai Baba were resurrected or able to resurrect? What does that have to do with being a moral authority or knowing anything about what is true? Why does that matter so much to you?

Now, if you were truly morally lost before you found Christianity, then you could not know what is right from what is wrong. Thus, you cannot possibly be trusted to have found any kind of moral truth, since your moral perception was worthless. In this case, I must reject Christianity because it cannot possibly be right if so many immoral people follow it.

If, on the other hand, you did posses the inherent sense of right and wrong that you speak of, then you didn't actually need any religion (or "relationship") to tell you what you already knew (since you already knew it). In this case, Christianity is just another set of superfluous dogmas that we should rid ourselves of in the name of parsimony.

In reality, all you needed was an ideal that you could commit yourself to (i.e., a god) and a community of people that you could trust and love. As Phaedrus points out, you don't need religion for that. In fact, there are a growing number of people that claim the same life-changing results from therapy and self-help books/sessions as you ascribe to your Jesus. With all due respect, it's obvious to me that it's all in your head from where I sit.

Sharon, sounds like you have swapped addictions.

Ghostbuster,

20 years ago

Phaedrus,

I am not in a religion, I am in a relationship. I did not work for the miracles that I received. They were a gift. I can claim no credit. A parachutist is so very free, until he finds that he doesn't have a parachute. Yes, God is, and since He made the universe, it will run by His rules whether we like it or not

Sharon: I'd say that story certainly explains your zeal. How long ago did all this transpire?

Sharon, with due respect, you seem well-meaning, the best sense of freedom I ever felt in my life is when I realized that there was almost certainly no god, and that all of the baggage of growing up in a religious household could simply be set aside. The world opens up in its natural beauty and complexities, and these can be progressively understood. There is no more need for willful ignorance, for taking the word of others and kneeling to their devices. One becomes one's own, and finds that opinions can, and should be based on solid ground, not mythology. ethics are founded on reason, such as not discriminating against others for things that hurt no one else. Therefore, homosexuals deserve all of the rights of heteros, including the right to marry.

I find that my experience is shared the world over by others who have shed these threadbare superstitions. Freedom is theirs as well.

I am glad that you were able to get your life back together. Maybe you should take more of the credit for having done so, rather than giving it to non-existent deities.

Mavaddat,

Do you really want to know, or do you prefer to talk about it? You are so close. You are right - the Gospel is simple, we make it complicated.

The Bible says that in the end times there will be false prophets with signs and wonders. God says that we all have an inherant knowledge of Him, so we are without excuse. However, I don't know that many people have risen from the dead, and how many witnesses does SathaiSai Baba have to his resurrection?

The resurrection of Jesus is important in that it bought us eternal life by His victory over death.

There is so much that I could tell yopu, but He can say in one word - in His revelation to You, what would take me pages. Don't be afraid. If I am wrong, then you have lost nothing. Ask HIM!

God bless You

Ghostbuster,

I was an alchoholic, sexually immoral, profane, and self righteous. Against my better judgement, I allowed someone to take me to church,to get them "off my back". "Spitting angry" at allowing
myself to get into the church scene, I sat down in the pew. Within seconds, thousands of pounds were lifted from my shoulders, it felt like a physical lifting of weight. I hadn't known the weight was there, nor had I ever heard about the weight of sin. I was immediately transported into a cacoon of peace.

I went back to that church. This time, I had a revelation - an all consuming understanding and knowledge that permiated every cell of my body & every inch of my soul. My entire being went "nova" with light. That light relayed to me that Jesus is alive! Imagine that! Not a ghost, not a fable, but alive! Survived! Actually existing!

A couple of weeks passed, and I went to that church each week. At the alter, all my pains and hurt from the past were healed. I had grown up in orphanages and foster homes, my parents were both alcoholics. I had been molested as a child, and raped as an adult. My marriages had ended in failure, but God healed it all. I was set free. I became so hungry for the Bible that it was to me like a banquet to a starving man. I was learning to pray. I was learning to repent.

Soon, it became time for me to be baptized. I had stopped doing many things that I had done before, they were repulsive to me now, but I was still drinking, unable to stop, and not even really wanting to stop, to give up my old comfort.

Unknown to the Pastor, I went into the tank with a hangover. I came out of that water fresh & clean as a just washed baby. Imagine that! A 'stinkin' old sinner like me. Two weeks later I realized that I wasn't drinking nor did I want to.

Do you see the grace of God? His compassion? His mercy? Jesus died so that we can have this type of freedom. He paid the price for our sin. I did not ask for this mercy. Someone else prayed for me. I am a new creation in Christ Jesus, and He wants everyone else to be free too. He went to the cross for us.

Hell is real. Heaven is real. Jesus is real.

Seek Him - Seek Him - Seek Him

Sharon,

Many people have risen from the dead. And I'm not kiddin' neither!

The South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba claims to have walked on water, raised the dead, flown without the aid of technology, materialized objects, read minds, foretold the future, etc. He was even born of a virgin! So there is definitely some competition for you.

Furthermore, Muslims and Buddhists don't think that rising from the dead is a prerequisite for our regarding someone as a representative of god. They have different standards for deciding what a Messiah has to do in order for us to trust him (in Islam, a messenger of God is called a "Rasul," and a "Buddha" is an enlightened moral guide). Whose standard is the right one? How do we know?

But honestly, I don't see why it matters that Jesus rose from the dead. So what? Does that mean that he had insight into how I should live my life? What is the connection between rising from the dead and being a moral authority? Or should we presume that your conception of your god is the right one?

If we do not know anything about your god prior to knowing our Messiah or his book, then there is no way that we can decide what the Messiah will do or what his book will look like. If we can know about god prior to the Messiah or book (however that might be), then we don't need the Messiah/book, because we already know about god.

In conclusion, either god's will is utterly indiscernible, or else it is so obvious that everyone would already know it (without any need for looking in the Bible or any book).

Sharon,

...and I thought my type-o's were bad :)

Seriously though, why are you so certain? How did Jesus reveal himself to you?

Mavadatt,

Indeed I accidentally left out "not". Good catch.

I was going to add to your addendum, but I don't think it is necessary. No need to nitpick.

I find the first section in your response to Sharon interesting. Most people on these boards either defend the authenticity of scripture or battle fiercly against the bible. Maybe your viewpoint is an anomoly, or maybe it just shows that I don't hang out here very often.

Mavaddat,

I'm not kidding! Unlike Mohammed, Buddah, or anyone else, Jesus rose from the dead! He can answer for Himself. This is the difference - He is the son of the one true God - He Is Alive, and through His omnipresent Holy Spiit He will reveal himself to you if you are serious, and ask Him to.

Sharon,

I do not deny that the stories in the Bible are true. The suggestion that they have any significance to our lives, however, I do deny. I just don't think it matters whether they are true or not.

There are millions of people in the world (or in history) that claim to be just as important as Jesus. All of them we might consider to be good people that lead good lives. Thousands of them claim to perform or (to have performed) miracles. How are we to decide between them? How shall we say who amongst them is the true representative of God's will?

Click my name above to read my latest blog about this matter.

Mavadatt,

Jesus Himself proves that the ancient text is true. Ask Him in His name to show you that "He is, and He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him". He is alive, and the Holy Spirit,sent by Him, will bear witness to that Truth, if you truly want truth, and not just agreement with your own opinion.

Ghostbuster,

Although you have the idea of what I am saying quite clearly, I would caution anyone in saying that ancient religions (or religion in general) are irrelevant. Though religion may not be a source of universal moral truths, it is still a mode of thinking into which many people continue to invest a great deal of emotional commitment. Though it is unnecessary to look to religion for moral guidance, I do not deny that many people do and that it is an important source of motivation for them. Therefore, insofar as people still use their conception of their god (or some higher truth to which only their privileged group has realized) to justify what they do, religion is a relevant topic of discussion. Heck, we're talking about it now!

Also, I think you meant to write that there is NOT enough evidence to suggest that the ancient text is true, is that right?

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, rose again and prepared the way; (through repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven, born again, not in the desires of our old sinful nature, but in a new nature: cleansed, and set free from the power of sin and death

I Corinthians 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicaters, nor idolitors, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor theives, nor covetous, nor drunkerds, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
King James Version of the Holy Bible

Praise be to God for His Son Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, and prepared the way; (repentance and belief); so that we can be forgiven,born again, not in the desires of ou

"Modern Western culture has its view of sin because Christians have made us think that theirs are the only set of goals worth having."

Looking globally, I would argue that all evangelistic religions are guilty of trying to monopolize truth.

I'm sorry for copying your name into the "Name" line Mavaddat. I meant to copy it into only the first line of my text. Next time I will attempt spelling it myself instead of copy/paste :)

Mavaddat:

So if I'm reading this right, what you saying is that good and evil, right and wrong, true and false (when it comes to moral belief systems) are basically a result of socio-biological evolution?

Basically, a certain culture or group of people adheres to a certain moral code based on it's value to a society in the present day. Thus making most ancient belief systems irrelevant because:

A) There is enough evidence to suggest that the ancient text is true
B) Even if the text has moral value, many of the intended meanings are lost because the texts have been altered or edited and were originally intended for the ancient audience
C) Believing in these belief systems may have unfortunate consequences on both society at large and possibly individual freedom

If I am understanding, I would assume that this theory would cover most religion? Are there any exceptions in your opinion?

Mavaddat: Oh, the Gospel of Truth and the Book of Jubilees rock very hard. Nice to see Pistis Sophia in there too. I've only read about a third of that lot, and now I'm thinking I need to look up the Nag Hammadi library online again...

I don't care if James Cameron finds his tomb, I just want someone to prove that Jesus was Gnostic and dealt heavily in allegory. That'd stop all this silliness.

Yes, Tonio, you are right. Modern Western culture has its view of sin because Christians have made us think that theirs are the only set of goals worth having.

However, the worth of any goal is decided by the individual who might choose to commit his or her self to it and not externally.

Ghostbuster, I believe that if there is any morally universal good, it can only be universal in the sense that a large portion of humankind will tend to value such goals. But that does not mean such goods are "true." It just means that they tend to be valued. It's an empirical matter of statistics and not a philosophical matter of ontology (i.e., what choose to value vs. what is true).

Such widespread tendencies are merely manifestations of the path that humanity took in developing its cultures and they do not correspond with any higher truth. Or if they do, then we could never know them (or know that we know them), so they cannot matter.

"Therefore, the word sin presupposes that some goal is set up which is trying to be accomplished, but is failed to be met."

That is not the meaning as I've always understood it in modern Western culture. Our culture seems to equate "sin" with breaking a rule set down by Christian doctrine, or with enjoying a forbidden pleasure.

MAVADDAT,

What goal do you think is trying to be accomplished?

Do you think there are any moral "goals" or truths that are universal?

Just curious

By the way, for those wondering what the word "sin" means:

In the Hebrew Bible the word "sin" comes from the Hebrew for "slipping" or "misstepping." In the New Testament, it comes from the Greek for "to miss the mark." Therefore, the word sin presupposes that some goal is set up which is trying to be accomplished, but is failed to be met.

Now, if any person does not share the same moral goals as you, then they cannot possibly "sin" in either sense of the word by acting against what you consider to be moral. Why? Because you cannot legitimately fail to hit a mark or step rightly unless you were trying to hit that particular mark or step in that particular way. This does not mean that you cannot see their action as reprehensible. It just means that what they did is not wrong from their perspective.

Here is the history of the Bible, for the uninformed:

Before the fourth century CE, nearly every Christian group adhered to a somewhat different set of scripture. Around the fourth century, however, some Christian groups got together and decided which texts to consider canon (authoritative). They subsequently imposed their views on the other Christian groups, calling the others heretical if they did not follow suit. One church emerged from this mass of Christian groups to rule them all: The Roman Church. The Roman Church chose Jerome's latin translation of their canon (Vulgate) as authorized. At the famous Council of Trent (1545–63), the Roman Church chose the books already contained in their canon as the definitive set of holy scripture.

In summary, a bunch of powerful dudes chose the books they liked best to represent their god's opinions.

Here is a list of books arbitrarily excluded from the Bible by these "Church Fathers":

* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Mary
* The Gospel of Judas
* The Infancy Gospel of Mark
* The Arabic Infancy Gospel
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Matthias
* Gospel of Paul
* The Shepherd of Hermas
* Didache
* Epistle of Barnabas
* First Clement (but not 2 Clement)
* 1 and 2 Clement
* Shepherd (or Pastor) of Hermas
* Didache
* Epistle of Barnabas
* Apocalypse of Peter
* The Infancy Gospel of James
* Third Epistle to the Corinthians
* Secret Gospel of Mark
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Secret Book of James
* Preaching of Peter
* Gospel of the Ebionites
* Gospel of the Nazoreans
* The Egerton Gospel
* Oxyrhynchus Gospels
* Gospel of the Savior
* Epistula Apostolorum
* Acts of Peter
* Acts of Peter and the Twelve
* Book of Thomas the Contender
* Pistis Sophia
* Dialogue of the Savior
* Acts of Thomas
* Acts of Andrew
* Acts of John
* Acts of Pilate
* Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
* Acts of Paul and Thecla
* Acts of Peter and Paul
* First Apocalypse of Paul
* Second Apocalypse of Paul
* Gospel of Judas
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Mary
* Gospel of James
* Gospel of Bartholomew
* Gospel of Barnabas
* Gospel of Andrew
* Gospel of Nicodemus
* Gospel of Matthias
* Gospel of Radoslav
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Gospel of the Nazoraeans
* Gospel of the Ebionites
* Gospel of Eve
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Perfection
* Gospel of Four Heavenly Realms
* Gospel of Twelve
* Gospel of Seventy
* Gospel of Thaddaeus
* Gospel of Cerinthus
* Gospel of Basilides
* Gospel of Marcion
* Gospel of Appelles
* Gospel of Bardesanes
* Gospel of Mani

Dear Ambassador, the above was intend for you. My apologies

You say that you are a rational person. You say you try to reason and examine the evidence. Does that mean that you believe your belief system to be entirely rational? Are you dedicated to reason? In other words, would you abandon your faith if you someday decided that there were irrational components to it? Do you believe explaining things in terms of supernatural entities at work in the world to be consistent with rational? I don't. That may be where we simply loose our basis for discussion. If you say you don't believe in supernatural explanations (do we need to define "supernatural" too), how is that you explain the inerrancy of the bible and how it has remained so over the centuries? While I won't speak for you, I will say that the typical answer from a person who shares your belief about the bible is to believe that God has intervened to make it that way. Explanations like the holy spirit guides the translation process, etc. Of course, the holy spirit has not been in involved in EVERY translation, that would cause some logical difficulties. If one permits such supernatural elements into their world view and their rational schema, words like "reason", "logical" and "evidence" simply loose their meaning as the supernatural explanation can overrule anything like a magic wand. This explains much of the disconnect and endless arguing.

I avoided answering your other question because it seemed to be getting too far off topic - at the time we were talking about sin and that seemed on topic. As for your question "How do you think we came to exist". I think science has the most reliable approach that we have devised to date to help us with this question. I think the history of what science has brought us in terms of our understanding of world supports my contention of "most reliable". For example, even something as simple as the way I think of our solar system, the way the earth rotates and orbits the sun. This comes from science and not from the discusion in Genesis 1 about light and dark, night and day (which by the way, God managed to create in an earth "day" prior to existence of a rotating earth and a sun.

A few things that claim to be the inspired word of God:

The Bible.

The Kur'an.

Christian Science.

The Book of Mormon.

The Urantia business.

Swedenborgianism (I think.)

How do we know which is and which isn't?

Emm & Mavaddat,
I would like to chat more tonight but my brain is fried after battling to set up DSL on my computer for about the past 4 hours. Quality software you got there Verizon.

However, I'll leave you with this one illustration. When I was in college I took a backpacking class with a person who had a stated goal to die from lung cancer caused by smoking cigarettes. I think he was extremely committed to accomplishing that stated goal quickly. In all honesty, except when sleeping or sometimes eating, he was puffing away like a locomotive. Although this person was an impressive walking human ash tray, he was also a pretty good hiker stopping only on occasion; to light up another one.

Could someone please answer:

i. Christians (and some others - don't mean to exclude them) believe God created Man and all that followed
ii. Colson tells us what is natural
iii. one would expect that since God created Man and had a design of what would be natural, that man would do what is natural
iv. the answer to all the "sinful" stuff that men do is often said to lie in the fact that God gave us "free will."
v. If part of the free will God gave us is to be heterosexual or homosexual, then which is unnatural?
vi. I understand that the free will argument is also used to explain why murder is wrong.
vii. when the world had only cavemen and no priests or Christians, who married whom?
viii. when the notion of marriage was created - don't know when - but at least it's mentioned in Genesis in a round about way when the MAN (not God) says that the Man and the Woman are united -- it appears to have been created by man.
ix. Why can't God control all this stuff if SHE cares at all about it?

Thanks. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Joe Campbell:

Sure, why not?

Firstly, thanks for Mavaddat and Ghostbuster’s kind comments. It is comforting to know that there are thoughtful voices on these threads.

Just to clarify; my position is that moral standards, as well as ethical and legal norms are intellectual abstractions. They might help guide our decision making process or, more likely, justify our actions after the fact, but they are not our beliefs. The person who smokes believes in smoking. He/she may well understand, or not, the probable consequences of smoking, but to say one smokes but does not believe in smoking seems a little strange to me. I think this is a common error in understanding the behavior of people. It basically lets people rationalize all sorts of antisocial and/or self-destructive behaviors under the guise that they are trying to change but don’t have the will etc. I maintain that one’s actions are a perfect mirror of ones true beliefs. A nonsmoker believes in not smoking. A smoker believes in smoking. It’s as simple and straightforward as that. And yes, “changing one's beliefs would imply an immediate manifestation of those beliefs in their actions” or more accurately: one’s actions are a manifestation or confirmation of what one has already come to believe.

I have said elsewhere in these pages that for me, God is more verb than noun. God is not an idea or concept, but an active present force in the universe. I’d also say that love is not primarily an idea or concept. Love too is active. Love is experiential first and foremost. If I had the choice to be ‘in love’ or to be loved, and/or to be ‘in love’ or to be loving, I’d choose to be loved or to be loving. I’ve said many times that “it is easier to love one’s wife or husband, than it is to be loving toward one’s wife or husband.” In our culture we hear a lot about love and rarely have the experience of being loved or acting in a loving way. We have somehow relegated love to an abstraction, thus stripping it of its natural vitality. Those of us who claim to love or to be ‘in love’ and are not acting in a loving manner are trapped in an illusion. My position is that we will know we believe in love when we are behaving in a loving way.

Mommadonna

The answer to your question is, apparently, that Mr. Colson is an expert on sin. At least that's what they tell me.

John Conolley, what if a man told you that he has always felt attracted to other men, and has never felt different? Would that be proof to you then?

Meddling, I feel the same way about the Qu'ran as I do about the Bible or the Torah. I don't believe the concept of scripture. You're absolutely right that closeted Muslim gays have it much worse than closeted Christian gays.

So why haven't I responded to the Muslim commentator? Partly because I have never met any Muslims, so I have no personal experiences with Muslims threatening me with hell for not accepting Muhammed as Allah's prophet. And partly because my posts here criticize all religious literalism. I know more about Christian doctrine than I do about Muslim doctrine, so it's easier for me to make my points using Christianity as an example. It has nothing to do with singling out Christianity.

Joe Campbell:

"Someone please prove to me that we are born straight!"

Try a little introspection. Do you remember a time when you weren't straight?

Assuming you are straight.

I remember falling in love at age four. It was a drawing of a little girl in a swing in a coloring book that some adult had colored in perfect. I thought she was beautiful. I can't remember back to when I was born, but I was certainly straight by age four. How about you?

Meddling,

Here's the answer to your questions:

Most of the posters here are non-Muslim Americans.

Their attitude toward all-things-Muslim is the same as their attitude toward the town drunk:

"God knows what he's up to now, and, as far as his drunkenness and other bad behavior goes, it's hopeless, he's hopeless, and there's no point in talking to him or even discussing him."

Regards.

WHY is a convicted felon considered in any way a proper "spokesperson" of religion and posting as a "commentator" on this page?

WHY is "Chucky" considered an acceptable member of the religious community?

WHY would anyone care to know what he thinks.

He has no credibility.

I find it interesting that the Christians columnists (Colson, Thomas, Tutu and the LDS guy) have the most postings but the Muslim has none... and he disagrees with homosexuality for Muslims based on his faith tradition of Islam, why aren't any of you taking him on??? Chicken?Or are Christians just easy targets? Or is anything Islam believes a sacred cow?
What about those gay Muslims out there who have to stay in the closet or renounce their faith (which can be deadly in some countries) ?
Why aren't all you tolerant sensitive types advocating for them? Shouldn't the Koran be updated to reflect modern times just like the Bible?? Or has it been already and I didn't get the memo? Clue me in.

"Gay unions violate the natural created order in which man and woman join in holy union to bear and raise children."

Okay... so, Chuckie... do childless-by-choice heterosexual couples also "violate the natural created order"? Would you ban them as well?

Just askin'

TONIO:
No I can't and I won't. I spent 42 yrs of my life unsure as you are, now that I Know the Truth I cannot and will not deny it. Those Stories in the Bible are testimonies of the Resurrection of Jesus. They have been proven to be the most accurrate historical document ever. Rumor and doubt won't change that. Those "people" in the Bible suffered terribly for their belief,because they Knew it was the truth. Don't believe me,check out what I am saying. The worst that could happen to you is gained Knowledge and the best might just happen.

What do you mean when you say "Sagan or Einstein's Resurrection"? Could you explain your point in a way that doesn't assume that Christian doctrine is factually correct? I'm trying to take a neutral perspective, trying not to show bias in favor of any particular religion's claims.

Ok, then if you have studied the history of it, then you know what I am talking about. End of story. Don't make this more than it needs to be

Russell D. -

Actually, I have studied the history of the Bible. If you are implying that the Bible is not a trustworthy document, I ask that you provide support for your argument. Otherwise, it does not help to further the discussion but only serves to muddy the water.

TONIO;
like I said "freewill" ,but just in case maybe you should investigate? There are no witnesses to Sagan or Einsteins Resurrection.

Anonymous:

Why should I? I already know the history of it, don't come to me if you're too lazy to look it up yourself.

But here's a tidbit for ya......666 is not the sign of the Devil........comes out to the name NERO.....for the Roman emperor at the time Revelations was written.

Russell D,

Are you going to share the history of the Bible for us?

Someone please prove to me that we are born straight!

I emplore all of the people on this board who are under the impression that the Bible is the Word and the truth, to look up the history of the Bible and discover how it came to be before you start getting all selfrighteous on people. Maybe if you knew where your "truth" came from, you wouldn't be so quick to go back to it.

A Christian minister has as much moral authority as a used car salesman or a corporate lawyer.

Dan, I see no reason to treat any religion's teachings about deity as incontrovertible facts, particularly teachings that conflict with teachings from other religions. I become frustrated when I see debates on religion devolve into Christianity versus atheism, as if those were the only two choices.

From my perspective, I see thousands of religions making competing claims about deity and the afterlife. My point is not about the lack of proof for those claims, but that all religions are on an equal footing as to that proof. For all I know, the divine may consist of the Olympian gods, or it may consist of tree spirits or animal spirits. I think that says a lot about Joseph Campbell's idea of treating those claims as references to certain ideas about human existence. If there is merit in contemplating (as opposed to believing in) something greater than one's self, it doesn't have to be found in the teachings of any particular religion. It could be the awe and wonder found in the universe itself, as Einstein and Sagan often talked about.

You do have the right to believe any way you wish,and to believe that your thoughts are the truth. That is a God given right, God gave us all freewill, if we were forced into submisson that would be slavery. God, wants to be loved,slaves don't love. If you are slaves to your passions, that isn't love either. you all have a right to believe your own thoughts, but how many times have you changed your mind just today? The Bible is the Truth given to man. It doesn't change because you ate pizza or have a hard on. If you really educate yourself you will see that the Bible is true. You have the right to believe anything you want, you can believe in pinecones if you want. If you think that people with minds and thoughts cease at death, then do your own thing. But what if your wrong? What if you are trading 70 years of do your own thing for an eternity of grief? What will you call those pushy short sighted Christians then?

EMM wrote, "I would also like to suggest that when it comes to behaviour, virtuous or otherwise, that humans behave exactly as they believe. I do not think it is possible for a person to act outside of their beliefs. If we want to know what we believe, all that is required is for us to keep a diary of how we act."

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your enlightened perspective. I think you are right that a person is what they do. Actions are what make us who we are. Your whole post presents a great deal of insight that we should all consider.

However, I must respectfully disagree with your perspective about beliefs being manifest entirely through action. I think that people can truly believe that smoking is wrong, and yet still smoke, for example. How? Because they do not have the strength inside them to live up to their own moral standards (they are weak) or because they are lying to themselves about living up to those moral standards. This is the difference between hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance.

I believe that Ted Haggard truly believed that homosexuality was wrong. I don't feel the need to question that. But I do think that he was a hypocrite, as well.

I think that we set up moral standards for ourselves that we strive to achieve or live up to. Sometimes we fall short. But those standards are always our standards that we set up for our selves, and never some external standards that are imposed on us. It makes no sense to say that someone does wrongly because they fall short of external standards, since you cannot stray from a path that you were never walking in the first place.

But none of that means that those standards no longer exist just because we haven't lived up to them yet. Otherwise, changing one's beliefs would imply an immediate manifestation of those beliefs in their action, whereas I see a delay time (between belief and action) as unavoidable. That's what changing one's beliefs is all about!

Ghostbuster, you asked:

"So, on based upon that logic, do you think an honest person can 100% support a soldier who has volunteered to serve in Iraq while at the same time hating everything the soldier is doing?"

It depends on what degree the soldier chose to be in Iraq and how much he or she knew about what he or she was choosing.

The degree to which a person is forced (e.g., by their employer) to do something contemptible, is inversely proportionate to the degree that they can be held accountable for their wrongdoing. In other words, if someone is completely coerced into doing something, then they cannot be held accountable. Likewise, if they are told to do something which appears to them to be good, though they would have chosen not to had they been better informed, then they cannot be held accountable. They are accountable only insofar as they knew what they were getting themselves into and actively chose to do that thing.

Therefore, a person who hates what the US is doing in Iraq cannot help but hate a soldier who they think actively chose to be there and was well-informed about the mission he or she was getting him or her self into. On the other hand, such a person (who hates what the US is doing in Iraq) would not feel compelled to feel an ounce of hatred for the soldier that was deceived and/or coerced into doing something immoral.

The last sentence of the second paragraph should be, "I have a right to define who I am without others pressuring me to change TO what they want me to be."

"I'm just trying to figure out why SO many people who despise religion or believe there is no such thing as God are spending so much time reading posts about faith."

Fair question. I don't despise "religion," and I don't reject the idea of the divine. Instead, I object when any religion claims to have an exclusive title to truth. That is because many of those claims attempt to define people. I take it personally when a Christian says that I am a sinner. It doesn't matter that the Christian sees himself or herself as a sinner. I have a right to define who I am without others pressuring me to change what they want me to be.

That is why I sympathize with gay activists even though I am straight - they are making the same point I am, but to a specific area of their personal lives. If we assume that sexual orientation is a choice (and I don't know what causes homosexuality), someone who pressures you to change your orientation could change other choices in your personal life, such as home, career, entertainment, and diet. That is something that PETA and Focus on the Family have in common - neither group believes that the individual has a right to a personal life.

Emm – That was excellent. So good, I want to illustrate my own example.

I used to recite the old “hate the sin, love the sinner” line often when I was younger. I think that for many people it is not a cover for underlying ignorance, more of an expression. But for me, it was indeed a cover for the unexamined anger and judgment I felt towards those who either disagreed with me or behaved in ways I found objectionable, namely anything related in the least to homosexuality. In my own safe little youthful belief system, I had put homosexuality and homosexuals on a pedestal as being one of the worst, if not the worst affronts to God, Christianity & myself. I treated this affront the same as several of the people on these boards treat affronts to their belief systems (Christian, Atheist, Islam…).

Over time, it slowly dawned on me that my motivations were 100% wrong. How did I come to this realization? It wasn’t a wake up one day and decide not to be a homophobe moment, or “diversity” requirements at college, or by learning my best friend is gay. I’d say the change began in college one day at a debate btw a bunch of liberal and conservative Christians about our views on homosexuality. It was shaping up to be a classic us-vs-them match, which was fine with me, those libs needed to be defeated you know. But we had this new guy on “our” team if you will, who was really something else. He was a fairly new Christian and he really shined with Christ’s love. Instead of quoting the scriptures one at a time and pointing out how unbiblical the others were, he focused on love, and by the end of the discussion, some minds were actually opened. Not mine, but others. I wasn’t too pleased, I wanted “them” to lose the argument and see things my way. But this experience stuck with me and over time as I began to have a greater understanding of the power of God's grace and forgiveness, primarily for idiots like me.

I would encourage other Christians reading this to reflect upon your own motivations as Emm said “these propositions are better applied to oneself that to others.” A good book to read on this subject is Phil Yancey’s “There Is Something About Grace”.

Take it easy.

Dan: When you say
"Christians you are not going to win this, the "pagans","atheist" and the ignorant have no concept of what you are trying to say, they have no concept of the unconditional love that you speak of.",

you are 100% wrong. As you'll see from Starhawk's post on this (although she hardly represents all pagans) it is precisely 'unconditional love' that pagans value, and what they are upset at the lack of from the Christian community.

Many pagans (a very diverse group, but I'll say 'many') believe that love and happiness are valuable, and that any action which spreads love and doesn't harm others is permitted. There is a heavy burden of self-responsibility: not the moral cowardice of having a set of rules make the decision for you in every instance of a situation, but personal searching to ensure you accept the consequences for your actions.

They therefore think that a badly mistranslated book is not a good enough reason to show this kind of blanket intolerance to an entire social group.

And "Anonymous":
The "centuries of wisdom" quote was originally included, the post has been edited. I have a copy of the original. I'd volunteer to repost it, but it's making me fairly nauseous just looking at it.

Dear Sledge Hammer,

Thanks for the response. I merely quoted the dictionary as an unbiased source to define sin, since you dismiss the Bible as a reliable source. Am I to assume by your comments that you never consult a dictionary to find the definition of a word since "it is only reporting to you what you already know"?

You conclude that "Your orientation renders you uncompromising. There is no reasoning and no evidence that can persuade you to change your mind. This is a social problem." I believe that I am a rational person, and I would hope that my previous comments on this website reflect that I do try to reason and examine the evidence. Hence, that is why I posed my previous question to you that you did not answer. I will repeat it again here: "Since you appear to question the existence of God, I honestly would like to learn more about how you think we came to exist, so that we can understand each other better. Would you mind sharing?"

While I don't mind defending my faith, I simply ask you to give me evidence of an alternative to the existence of God that we can discuss in a "reasonable" fashion.

Thanks again for your comments.

Would someone please answer Brambleton's question he posted on 1 March. Who has the proof that one is born gay?

Steve B from UK: Why do you resort to name calling? Why not argue your case without calling Mr. Colson a pathetic human being? Why not respect Mr. Colson's belief that the Bible is the Word of God? Please stay on that side of the ocean!! Please stay in the UK.

Steve B from UK: Why do you resort to name calling? Why not argue your case without calling Mr. Colson a pathetic human being? Why not respect Mr. Colson's belief that the Bible is the Word of God? Please stay on that side of the ocean!! Please stay in the UK.

Ambassador:
You seem to be using the dictionary as another authority. The dictionary doesn't tell us what words mean, it is our documentation of how we have been using words recently. The fact that you and many others use the word sin is why the word is in there. The dictionary is only reporting to me what I already know, that people are out there using it and using it the way it says they are using it.

What does get to the point, is that you say you subscribe to the definition that sin is transgression of God's law. As such, you have placed yourself in an uncompromising position. You use an easy example, murder, a crime so ubiquitously denounced by humanity. You won't find your orientation to be a social problem on that one. It's the moral issues that we don't share so unanamously, like homosexuality. Your orientation renders you uncompromising. There is no reasoning and no evidence that can persuade you to change your mind. This is a social problem.

Dan my man,
you may be right, but then again, you may be wrong. Even though you don't drink or get high anymore, you still think with what's in your pants......just wait till your wife bends over and you'll know what I mean. Anyways, I thanks for the response. Just trying to lighten up the mood in here. Its Friday people!!!! Go out and have some fun, instead of getting on these boards!!!

Christians you are not going to win this, the "pagans","atheist" and the ignorant have no concept of what you are trying to say, they have no concept of the unconditional love that you speak of. Their concept of love comes from lust and self interest,(what do I get out of this)
You would be better off trying to describe a sunset to a blind man.
BGONE;
Is that website the whole of your "education"? There are millions of books from real scholars that might change your mind, if it were really "open". Try "CASE FOR FAITH" by Lee Strobel, he was an atheist that set out to disprove the Bible.
BRUTUS;
Yes back when I was drinking and getting high and the only brain I used was the one in my pants. My wife didn't like it

An aside - when I read the term "practicing homosexual," I imagine the cast of "Queer Eye" holding lessons for novice gays, or bringing in veteran gays for their 50,000-sashay tuneup.

I find the same humor in the term "homosexual agenda." I picture Elton John and Rosie O'Donnell leading a meeting in the Gay War Room like in "Dr. Strangelove." Behind them, the Big Board has maps and statistics on the process of converting the world's straight people. Christopher Lowell berates the team like General Patton: "Dammit, we're not thinking big enough! I want to convert Texas!"

I'm just trying to figure out why SO many people who despise religion or believe there is no such thing as God are spending so much time reading posts about faith. I understand the idea of trying to "educate" those who believe in a higher power, but in reality if someone of faith tried to do the same thing to them that "evangelist" would be called "narrow-minded" and would be a "hate-monger". I think that Colson formed his arguement well, without malice. Why is it any different for him to believe he is right than for you to believe you are right?

I only get on here every now and then to read these On Faith posts. I have seen some very good arguements posed and some productive discussion, but by far it seems to be angry people who have nothing better to do than have a flame war. If you acted as some of these people do in an actual discussion with another human being, well, most sane people just wouldn't. I have found none of the "christian" comments on this post to have in any way deserved the level of verbal abuse and anger that they recieve (though to be fair I only read the first 30 or so comments). I'm so sorry that some people have been maligned by christians or those claiming to be christians, but as a whole we are not a bad bunch of people. Sure you have people who are nuts (*COUGH* westboro baptist *COUGH*), and those who are put on TV for the most part are those who have done bad things or fallen from lofty ideals. But how is that any different than muslims? How often do we hear about exteremists as oppossed to a rational arguement from a level headed "normal" cleric?

To: Ambassador for Christ, Norrie, Mavaddat, Sledge Hammer:

There are two frequently heard propositions that have always troubled me, not because they are absolutely false, but because they are all too often a cover for the unexamined anger, judgment and rage people feel toward those who either disagree with them or behave in ways that they find objectionable. The first is “tough love”, the other is “hate the sin, but love the sinner”. I will willingly concede that it is possible for a person to consciously make both statements in ‘good faith’ and that when used in a reflective and heartfelt manner; they can describe the intention and actions of good people. I would however strongly caution one and all that “tough love” is prone to error on the side of toughness and that ‘hating the sinner’ too frequently slides into hate period. It is just a matter of our human failings that this is, however regrettable, more often the case than not. I would suggest that both of these propositions are better applied to oneself that to others. We are, as Jesus admonished, better off taking the plank from our own eye, rather than the spec from another’s.

I would also like to suggest that when it comes to behavior, virtuous or otherwise, that humans behave exactly as they believe. I do not think it is possible for a person to act outside of their beliefs. If we want to know what we believe, all that is required is for us to keep a diary of how we act. Our actions are our beliefs. Beliefs are not abstract principles that we accept or reject intellectually, but rather they are revealed to us in every word, thought and action we take. When one fails to hold to an abstract standard of moral, ethical or legal behavior, it is because at their deepest core they do not actually believe in that standard. We never fall short of our beliefs. However, our beliefs frequently fall short of the abstract standards we or others hold to be ‘true’.

Anonymous

Steve B and I did not hallucinate that quote. The post has been edited in the days since our comments.

Mavaddat,

"In actuality, you would tacitly hate your son, because you associate him with a hateful act."

"Thus, if you hate what someone does, you hate that person to some degree"

So, on based upon that logic, do you think an honest person can 100% support a soldier who has volunteered to serve in Iraq while at the same time hating everything the soldier is doing?

Dear Sledge Hammer,

Good to talk to you again. Thanks for the comments.

As you probably already know from past conversations, I hold to the Bible's definition of sin as transgression of the law of a Holy God. But, let's step back and gather an unbiased definition from Webster's dictionary: 1. A transgression of divine law. 2. A willful violation of a moral principle. 3. A serious fault or offense. Based on that unbiased definition, do you still believe that murder is not a sin? Further, if you do not believe that murder is a sin, why are you glad that "we have outlawed the behavior"?

Since you appear to question the existence of God, I honestly would like to learn more about how you think we came to exist, so that we can understand each other better. Would you mind sharing?

Thanks and have a great day! It's always a pleasure to converse with you.

m.Beck: On your Mar 1 post. Why wish anyone to hell? Do you hate so much?

Ambassador, good to see you back.

Let's talk about sin. How do you define it? You said you assumed that we'd all agree that murder is a sin. I don't. But I'm glad we have outlawed the behavior. Are sins something that God declares? Well, that begs the question of God's existence. What I observe going on out there is people making laws that get enforced, and consequences that deter people from theses acts. What about God declaring sins? Can that be observed? If you say "God declares acts to be sinful", what observation can I make? Well, I can make the observation that you imagined something. That's about it.

Mr. Colson:

On the chance that you'll see what I have to say to you so far down on this list of blogs, I want you to know something, one Christian to another: You are a hero in the faith to me. You were a man who, without the knowledge of God, let power and position go to your head. In essense, you sinned. The reason I respect you so is that you not only allowed Christ to change you, but in spite of all the criticism you've taken for your faith, even after so many years, you've remained steadfast and have continued to prove, to anyone who will see, the power of God in people. Thank you for your continued witness for the truth--the true body of Christ has benefitted greatly by your work. What most of your deriders are unable to comprehend is that your former life was no more evil in God's eyes than their own is; "for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Thank you!

"natural created order in which man and woman join in holy union"

This is pure fiction. We are suppose to forego giving other people the freedom to live their lives in a peaceful and loving manner just so we can entertain the delusion that these words mean something? Mr. Colson, I can just say a bunch of words too and just believe them because I want to and not because I need some reasonable basis: Your way of thinking is contrary to the natural created order.

Just wondering if any of these 'moral' people noticed that ain't rocket science yet.

Eh, why mince words. This whole 'hate the sin' is strictly CYA when it comes to sanctimonious clergy. What better excuse to diddle a bunch of kids than construct a big cosmic drama about it instead of saying, 'Look, perv. Don't hurt the kids.'

Get a much clearer and more plausable understanding of Jesus in The Second, and Last Coming, A Movin-On Novel by Luigi Enrico Pietra d'Oro. Visit www.revolvingdoorbooks.com.

Did you know that our conception of God comes primarily from Michelangelo's paintings on the Sistine Chapel,you know,the old guy with the long beard and flowing robes?

Did you know that this image, which so any Christians recognize and claim as God the Father, is actually copied by Michelangelo from a statue of Zeus?

Did you know that Zeus enjoyed inter-species sex?

Did you know that what s contained in the New Testament was decided upon by a bunch of priests and politicians at the Council of Nicaea and other male gatherigs of hierophants who were most likely sexually disfunctional?

There is no such thing as a 'clear' scriptural injuncton, especially from the Bible, because nothing about the Bible is clear. It is a group of arbitrarily selected stories that have been changed and translated thousands of times. So, everything that comes from the Bible is as reliable as the human telling it.

You talk about God as a loving Father who created everything and everyone. He created Gays and Lesbians and Heteros so he must love all of us and who are you to decide otherwise!

Besides, according to your theology, God himself committed adultery and impregnated an underage woman.

Ambassador for Christ,

The point of my post was twofold: First, to point out that you simply beg the question (whether we CAN love the sinner but hate the sin) by supposing that a father could love his son and hate what his son did. Thus, I do not actually believe that anything is impossible. I just wanted to point out the fallacy in your example.

Second, I wanted to suggest that perhaps hating someone and loving them are things that can happen at the same time. For example, there are certain characteristics that I hate about my certain family members, but in general, I love them. But you are fooling yourself if you think that you can distinguish what someone does from who they are. All we know about people are what they do or what they say. We have no metaphysical insight into people's souls. Thus, if you hate what someone does, you hate that person to some degree.

It's nice to see Christian ministers can take time away from molesting little boys to give us lectures on morality.

Dear Mavaddat,

Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, I must apologize because I have trouble following your logic.

How is it possible for you to state that "it IS psychologically impossible for a human being to 'hate the sin but love the sinner,'" yet three sentences later state that "you can hate a little thing about your son and still love him as a whole"? If you still love him as a whole, you are therefore hating the sin, and loving the sinner.

We must be permitted to adhere to the same rules of logic. You state, "You seem to think that hate is an all or none game," while at the same time asserting that "it IS psychologically impossible for a human being to 'hate the sin but love the sinner.'" If you are allowed to be flexible in your application of the word "hate" (implying that it is not an all or nothing application), should I not also be permitted the same flexibility in my application of the word "love"? If I am therefore permitted the same flexibility in my application of "love" as you are of "hate", then it follows that you cannot conclude that it is psychologically impossible for a human being to "hate the sin but love the sinner." If hate is not an all or nothing game, then love cannot be an all or nothing game either.

I do thank you for your civil comments and interesting challenge to my argument.

Have a nice evening!

I don't understand why ANYONE would listen to a Christian on issues of morality. This is the religion which gave us the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and pedophile priests. This Chuck Colson is probably a good personal "friend" of Ted Haggard.

Ambassador for Christ,

Follow this logic:

Since you hate the sin that your child committed, but you don't hate the sinner by following your proposition, you would still love your child even though they are unrepentant about the sin they committed. However, I don't believe that would be the case. In actuality, you would tacitly hate your son, because you associate him with a hateful act.

Therefore, it IS psychologically impossible for a human being to "hate the sin but love the sinner."

Do you see how I have assumed in my story the very thing that needs to be proved?

In truth, what we know of people is what they do, and what they say. You seem to think that hate is an all or none game. However, you can hate a little thing about your son and still love him as a whole. Emotions are far more complex than the picture you paint, sir.

Hi Norrie,

Thanks for the interesting proposition. However, let's study it in more detail by using a counter-example. (I'll operate under the assumption that we both agree that murder is a sin.)

Say, for example, that your only child, whom you love dearly, flies into a furious rage and kills someone. No matter what you say to them trying to convince them that murder is wrong, they refuse to listen and justify the murderous act that they committed. Since you hate the sin that your child committed, you are forced to hate the sinner by following your proposition. However, I don't believe that would be the case. You would still love your child even though they are unrepentant about the sin they committed.

Therefore, it is NOT psychologically impossible for a human being to "hate the sin but love the sinner."

Thanks for the comment though. We need to work through these issues to their logical conclusions, and I'm glad that we have a forum here to do just that.

Have a nice evening!

Here's a proposition:

IT'S PSYCHOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A HUMAN BEING TO "HATE THE SIN BUT LOVE THE SINNER."

THE HATE INEVITABLY BLEEDS INTO THE PERCEPTION OF THE "SINNER".

SO THE MAXIM IN PRACTICE TURNS OUT TO BE: "HATE THE SIN - HATE THE SINNER".

What do you think? I think it's true.

It sure will be nice when Christianity (and all other religion) is long gone. Only then will we be able as a society to really address the social ills which plague us. I'm sure that several generations from now society will look at Christianity in much the same way we do Nordic mythology.

God is an imaginary friend for adults!!

Chuck probably feels this way due to his erotic prison experiences....really.

"You don't go around talking about Greek religions, you talk about Greek mythology. It was religion to them at the time though."

Acually, no, it was *myth.* Bibliolatry is all on those who worship books. Verra recent. No one was even allowed to read the damn things until just recently.

Meaning in stories... is that so hard to understand?

Thing a lot of people don't get is that 'Myth' isn't a dirty word till you start trying to put it where it don't belong.

Joe,
Most christians don't believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God; though we believe the scriptures were inspired by God, we acknowledge that the Bible was written by man, translated by man, and interpreted by man - three very fallible stages. I think calling them "high-level fables" captures some of that essence but is unnecessarily derogatory (especially since fables are, by definition, about animals). It isn't fair to dump all believers in Christ's teachings in with the fundamentalists. Most of us believe they give Christians a bad name, and we deplore the ignorance, hypocrisy, and hatred inherent in their message.

People who believe in god are the same as people who believe in fairy tales to me.

One day when christianity is long dead it will be looked upon as mythology, just like all religions that are no longer practiced are today.

You don't go around talking about Greek religions, you talk about Greek mythology. It was religion to them at the time though. That's all the bible is, the koran, the talmud, the mormon bible, etc. They're all mythology. If you want to take them as a general set of high level fables, then that's one thing. But to believe that they're the unfallable word of some omnipotent being...IDIOTIC.

Brutus,

I think you've missed an important point about Christians. We're sinners. So, yes, I've watched porn before. But guess what? My pastor and my accountability group held me accountable for removing that sin from my life. I had to choose that decision on my own, but their support was immeasurable. So when my brother struggled with porn, I was able to mentor him on what the Bible said, how he was feeling, and what serious damage it might do to his future.

If you were a brother in Christ, I would expect no less from you. If I was struggling with sin, it would be your duty to help me purge it from my life.

There is nothing "proved", or proven, by someone's rambling opinions. I find no PROOF of the Bible being a hoax on that website whatsoever.

Step 1: verify your source. The Bible is a proved hoax. Your source is, like you, lacking in character.

Get educated! http://www.hoax-buster.org

Hey, Sport, I mean, 'Reverend,' ...this isn't about you "extending mercy," this is about you realizing that neither your good self nor the government are 'God.'

Just like you don't think the Catholic Church, which is all wound up about what kind of sex their priests aren't having that they need to call a lot of people 'disordered' and prattle on about how much more sinful it is for a 'gay person' to be not having sex in their establishment than fo a straight person, even if he gets it on with the kids who are so afraid to speak out in fear of being seen as 'gay' that the institution denies this happens while purging anyone who might seem like this kind of person called 'Gay...'

Now, it's possible you might think homosexuality is a mere 'behaviour' after all that 'Prison Ministry,' but that's what happens when you, umm, lock guys up together long enough.

It's *guys.*

They only *really* think it's 'gay' for the one who's the 'catcher.'

You wanna talk about natural orders, well.

Get a bit more sophisticated than that.

As for this.

""I agree exactly what Mr. Colson is saying - the Bible has not failed society in all the years it's been in print.""

Really, now. You're just so *accomodating.* :)

"Just a question: to all those who think the Bible is wrong on this subject - why has those things that said were going to come to pass in the Word has come to pass - not one word missed?"

Has they? I must have missed a couple words.

"My reasoning is: if those things that were said in the Bible happened(which it has), then what it says about homosexuality is the truth also - that it is an abomination to the Lord. "

In Irish Pagan tradition, the Morrigan gave prophecy that just happens to look like everything since Cromwell. (And a choice.) Should I go start the Campus Crusade for Cuchulain, or how about you stop looking for excuses to hurt people?

For those who claim the Bible is the inerrant word of God and also claim to hate the sin but not the sinner: Have you even bothered to read the Bible?

According to the Bible: male homosexuality is not just a sin, it is a sin for which homosexuals must be killed (Leviticus 20:13); stubborn, unruly, disobedient children must be killed by stoning (Deuteronomy 21:18-21); engaged women who were raped in a city or town must be killed by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:23-24); adulterers must be killed (Deuteronomy 22:22); when victorious in battle soldiers should kill all the males and the non-virgin women - the virgins they can keep for themselves (Numbers 31:17-18)...

How can you pretend to hate only the sin and not the sinner? Do you forgive the child or the rape victim as you lovingly throw rocks at them till they die? Or is it possible that some aspects of the Bible might be wrong? Should I be killed just for suggesting it? With stones? (Leviticus 24:14-16)

Wow. There are some unbelievable posts on this board.

Point them out, but don't feed them.

Tonio: You do yourself proud.

Mr. Colson takes the position which is sometimes characterized as "hate the sin, love the sinner." However, as a gay man, I experience that position as "love the sin, hate the sinner." It is the notion of homosexuality and homosexual sexual expression as SIN that folks like Colson are in love with. They refuse to consider the possibility that they might be wrong about that even though their position creates spiritual violence for gay people. He is motivated not be love for me, but rather love for his narrow, dogmatic Christian polemic!

I rolled my eyes in disgust when I read Joe Campbell's post. No one who believes in freedom of conscience would ever label people as idiots for their religious beliefs. I suspect the post was intended to provoke people just to get a reaction.

I agree exactly what Mr. Colson is saying - the Bible has not failed society in all the years it's been in print. Just a question: to all those who think the Bible is wrong on this subject - why has those things that said were going to come to pass in the Word has come to pass - not one word missed? My reasoning is: if those things that were said in the Bible happened(which it has), then what it says about homosexuality is the truth also - that it is an abomination to the Lord. You either go by the facts or you go by your own "reasoning" and "what you feel". I'll stick with the WORD! Thank you for standing up for the truth Mr. Colson!

The dialogue concerning this issue has just about run its course.

News Flash: I am quite sure that if God could do all the marvelous creations from the Universe to our Retarded Souls, then I am quite sure he could possibly make sure his word to us retain some sort of accuracy.

Included with the sexual sins are lying, cheating, stealing, disrespect and a host of other things. But there is one truism my friends…..you are accountable for your actions. We can debate back and forth from now until whenever about theses very same issues, but what it all boils down to, is it the truth?

What they fail to answer on all of the blogs by all these scholar and ministers are just simple questions. What happened, what will happen, and how does one acquire the needed tools for survival?

Joe Campbell,

You're not sounding real intelligent there buddy. You are a bigoted, crass Christian-basher.

And yes, God made all the animals and all the people. But he gave man free will, and some people use that free will to decide to have gay sex. You can't even compare people to animals when it comes to sex. Animals have no reasoning power. Homosexuality is not normal, in people or animals. If it were, there would be no more people or animals.

I have to ask this question..........to all the guys here who are against the whole gay sex thing and "sticking it in the guy's anus"..........ever had anal sex with your girlfriend? Or a one night stand? Or your wife? Chew on that one.

Born black,African,Asian,caucasion,or woman, yes.
Born with a desire to stick your penis in another man's anus, no.
Do you really call that an "natural" order?
Or might it be just easy sexuall gratification?
The Bible is the truth,just not easy.

Anyone who believes in god is an idiot. Full stop.

Anyone who condemns gay people is really just someone who can't come to terms with their own sexual instincts and desires.

Did you know that studies have proved that people who are the most angry at homosexuals are the most turned on by homosexual pornography? Look it up, it's been proven time and time again.

Why is it that the percentage of humans that are homosexual is the same as the percentage of all animal species that are homosexual, roughly 8-9%? Hmmm, sure sounds like a homosexual agenda to me.

If god made everything, including animals, then god made gay animals and gay people.

Now go have some butt sex and see how much you really like it and get over yourself. Maybe Mr Colson knows a little bit more about man-on-man love than he gives off, huh there shower buddy?

"Christian bigots, we of good conscience ARE NOT FOOLED by your two-faced proclamations of 'love for the sinner'. We know this is an attempt to mask your hatred."

I'm not even Christian and I think that statement was uncalled for. I believe most Christians are telling the truth when they claim to hate the sin but love the sinner. (I have some doubts about many of the fundamentalists, Reconstructionists and Dominionists.) At the same time, I disagree with most Christians in that sexual orientation is one area of a person's life that others should just leave alone.

Brambleton:

I have no problem with you choosing to believe what you want to believe. Well........maybe I do. Your whole belief system seems to stem from a lack of consideration. Counseling your brother about porn? Like you've never watched porn. And so what if you invited a lesbian couple into your home, I bet you would jump at the chance to turn them into straight unhappy women if given the chance. Being homosexual is as natural as being heterosexual.
Being gay is not a sin, especially since God is a figment of your imagination. I'll give you an example. Two people walking down the street: ask them how they see God, and you'll get two different answers. Once again, proving that God didn't make man, man made God.

Brutus,

Not that I have to issue such a disclaimer, but my immediate next door neighbor is a lesbian couple. We have welcomed them into our house on many occasions and vice versa. That does not change the fact that I believe they are sinning. Just as I love my brother tremendously, I still counseled and held him accountable for quitting the sin of pornography.

If you don't believe that choosing a homosexual lifestyle is a sin, that's your choice. I choose to believe otherwise. But don't assume that you know anything about me and that I have some hidden "hate-filled" agenda against gays. You're taking the easy way out and acting like a child doing it.

Steve B. and Ba'al,

Mr. Colson did not say that the Bible is "the accumulated wisdom of centuries of human experience", you need to pay better attention.

You ask "When you say "I would not be free to change my mind since the biblical teaching is clear", is this the same as saying "It's in a book, so I don't have to think"? Or rather, "any other opinion I have would be wrong, because a book says so"?" The answer is "No, not because because it is in "a book", but because it is in the Bible, which is the word of God.

Norrie Hoyt,

"Per usual, Mr. Colson's comments are nasty, brutish, short, stupid and cruel." That actually describes your post to a T, not Mr. Colson's.

To Anonymous above,

"Christian bigots, we of good conscience ARE NOT FOOLED by your two-faced proclamations of "love for the sinner". We know this is an attempt to mask your hatred." Wow, do you have issues! And you obviously, and sadly, do not know the mind of the true Christian. However, you seem to be very comfortable with stereotyping of and bigotry toward Christians.

Let's try to get back to the original question here, which was not "is homosexuality right?", but "can you condone gay marriage and gay clergy within your faith?", (or something very similar, we've gotten way off track here!)

If your faith is Christianity, and Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong (an abomination, a sin against God), then a true Christian cannot condone gay marriage or gay clergy. It doesn't mean Christians should hate homosexuals; we should show love toward everyone, as we are all sinners. A Christian can love a person without condoning their behavior. It seems to me that that is where all the trouble starts; when people don't understand how you can truly love a person even when they're doing something that you believe is so wrong.

It is a shame that we can't have a more civilised discussion about this here. I thought that's what I would be able to find in this kind of forum, rather than in a chat room somewhere.

Thank you for the above post. It is about time someone pointed out the irony (dare I say hypocrisy?) of the use of ad hominem attacks on the "intolerant."

Concerning many of these posts...

Shame on us. We ask for tolerance, and yet we tell those who do not hold the same beliefs as us that they will be in hell...or attack the person, rather than maturely discuss the issue at hand.

I'm embarassed.

Mr. Colson,
What you said is clear and true. If only the church at large would hold fast to what is laid out so clearly in God's Word. Those who take issue with you do not believe the scriptures are true and they do not consider homosexuality a sin. They see this fact as an insult--rather than a simple beggar trying to show them where the bread is.

I think Brambelton and Franco fell from the same tree. They seem to not understand human beings and certainly don't understand what it's like to be gay. Nayeb they should spen less time faulting homosexuals and actually spending time with some.

Chuck,

You have offered no evidence that gay unions violate any natural order. That belief is purely a product of your repugnant bigotry. There is no "accumulated wisdom", as you falsely claim, which tells us we must grant rights to heterosexuals that we deny to homosexuals.

Time after time we hear Christians on this site proclaim their love for gays while targeting them for condemnation. Christian bigots, we of good conscience ARE NOT FOOLED by your two-faced proclamations of "love for the sinner". We know this is an attempt to mask your hatred.

Chuck, you can't condone clergy who are practicing homosexuals, yet many people condone you, a practicing traitor to your country. Is this because the Bible approves of traitors, or are you just a rank hypocrite?

Mr. Colson,

Hopefully you will be seeing your old friend Richard Nixon in hell soon.

Per usual, Mr. Colson's comments are nasty, brutish, short, stupid and cruel.

Why is he an On Faith panelist rather than one commenting for On Crime, where he may indeed have some bona fides?

Brambleton, I don't think the cause of homosexuality has much relevance for this discussion. Using the assumption about morality in my previous post, homosexuality would have the same impact on others whether it was caused by choice, psychology or genetics.

I don't understand why anyone would want to change someone else's orientation. The exception would be if some movie idol like George Clooney or Antonio Banderas came out of the closet and millions of women were heartbroken.

When was it proven that you are "born" gay? Did I miss the Al Gore / Al Franken telethon? Could someone please point me to the article in the New England Journal of Science & Medicine that documents the evidence that conclusively asserts someone is born gay?

Waiting....

Still waiting....

I agree with Jackie that homosexuality is not the moral equivalent of adultery, but for different reasons. If we assume that actions are immoral if they harm others, then adultery is immoral but homosexuality is not.

Yet again, you clearly answer the question straighforwardly, yet with humility. Thank you for taking a stand on what is Biblical.

Mr. Colson, well-reasoned in a calm, soft spoken way. God is smiling at you:)

Your argument would carry fractionally more weight if you hadn't used an irrelevant analogy. Being gay is not the same as being adulterous; the latter is a question of choice, but gay people are born gay.

Thus, according to your own book's teaching, they are created as god intended, just the same as you were. Although *that* is slightly harder to believe.

The Bible is "the accumulated wisdom of centuries of human experience".

Yes, cobbled together ~two-three millenia ago.

I'm curious as to some of your reasoning here.

It's difficult not to start my question with a comment that could be regarded as insulting (such as "you are everything that's wrong with society you pathetic excuse for a human being") but I'll attempt to stay on-topic:

When you say "I would not be free to change my mind since the biblical teaching is clear", is this the same as saying "It's in a book, so I don't have to think"? Or rather, "any other opinion I have would be wrong, because a book says so"?

Also, if the Bible is "the accumulated wisdom of centuries of human experience", are you saying that it was written and added to consecutively by humans over centuries? Is it not more accurate that it was written in several stretches over 1500 years ago and you believe it must not be amended, since it's the inherently holy revealed word of God?

I don't believe the Biblical teaching IS clear, since Paul was talking about going against your own nature if you are heterosexual, and Leviticus can be safely ignored along with shellfish and clothing. There are places in the Bible which condone polygamy and concubines - will you be championing these?

I'd continue on how your rabid adherence to "our only hope is in Jesus Christ" and the perils of sin are a little naive on a multi-faith forum, and how your views on a "natural created order" have no basis in nature or mankind's social history, but I really can't be bothered. You clearly couldn't take the psychological battering of opening your mind to any alternative views, and I'll probably be censored anyway, so I'll just leave you to it.