Joel Osteen: 'Homosexuality is a sin'

Eh. Don't worry about it. We'll find out soon enough that he had an illicit gay affair. Count on it.

Would we have homophobia without the clergy? Maybe... sexuality emerges at a time of particular awkwardness, and any big differences tend to get mocked. But at the same time, seeing major authority figures (who stand in for divine authority) denounce homosexuality tends to give people a much greater license for their homophobia than they otherwise have.
And seriously? Why are they picking on gays, when that same book of the bible outlaws eating pork, masturbating, and weaving two types of cloth together? When's the last time this preacher ate a BBQ sandwich? Those rules were written by a particular people in a particular time over 2,700 years ago, who didn't understand science, sexuality, and psychology. They used the death penalty for every one of those freaking rules, believed that different religions and peoples should eradicated as a sin before God. Living your life exactly as written isn't possible today (even the Orthodox Jews don't stone people for sabbath breaking).

Osteen is a pompous, self-serving, self-absorbed huckster. Who cares what he has to say. He belongs in a carnival.

1. While I don't necessarily agree with Osteen that homosexuality is a sin, I do agree that the church tends to focus on it rather than other more important issues (poverty, war, disease, etc. )

2. And, I also agree that there is nothing wrong with money, I believe Christians should use their money to improve the lives of others, especially those who are minimalized or marginalized by the world.

John 13:35

Greed is the real sin, bucko.

Osteen says over and over that he doesn't fully understand the "issue" of homosexuality. Maybe he should try a little harder - read other things than the Bible. Anyone with a public forum, anyone claiming to be enlightened by God himself has a responsibility to be informed, especially since the Bible is open to a million interpretations (witness all the various Christian churches who all claim to be based on a reading of the Bible).

As for financial success being a sign of God's blessing?? What is he saying about the millions of underpaid people working in professions where they devote their lives to helping others?

He just just represents the same old same old, dressed in more smiles and nicer words. It's still just a belief system that just happens to coordinate with everything he is and does, and makes people for whom the system works best feel righteous about their privileged status.

Sin, talk about sin, here is a sin from Christian Bible, 22nd Chapter of Exodus, it is the sin of stinginess:

«Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me, I will surely hear their cry; And my wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall be widows, and your children fatherless.»

Libertarians, they would let widows, orphans, fend for themselves, maybe go begging with tin cups, depend on charity. This is the sin of neglecting widows and orphans, it is a sin. Tolerating this sin is dangerous, it is dangerous not just to the sinner, but to all of society, because if society neglects the widows and orphans, the Lord will get angry, He will send the sword to kill us, our wives will become widows, our children will become orphans, we must not tolerate this sin.

Preachers, ¿should they preach against this sin of stinginess towards widows and orphans? Preachers, ¿should they preach that society must take tax money by force, by threat of fine and imprisonment, even from stingy libertarians, to feed widows and orphans? Huh??

Hate, this does not mean that preachers should preach to hate the stingy for their sin of stinginess, it means only that preachers should preach against the sin, preachers should preach that society should not allow libertarians' stinginess to endanger all of us by risking that the Divine «wrath shall wax hot» against us.

Punishment for tolerating stinginess, it is «the sword», so says the Bible above, book of Exodus, ¿what is the punishment for tolerating immoral sexual relations, huh? Punishment for tolerating immoral sexual relations is that the land will vomit the people out, they will be expelled from their land, so says the eighteenth chapter of the book of Leviticus, this is what happened to Canaanites with their filthy orgies, you can see these orgies in Cecil B. DeMille Biblical movies, the orgies are disgusting, the Canaanites got vomited out of their land, Zionists now occupy it.

Preachers, ¿should they preach against sins of sexual immorality that could get us expelled from America, the land would go back to the Indians? Preachers, if they preach against these disgusting sins, ¿does that mean that they should preach hate against the orgiasts?

No. Already there is too much hate, our President Obama is pleading for civility, preach against stinginess, preach against sodomy, but do not preach hate.

People are going to practice what they want. Regardless if it's homosexuality, adultery, fornication,abortion etc, etc. If you go on what the bible says....all of the things above are wrong and they are sins. Now, bashing people over how they live that's wrong.

Society today has moved away from what is wrong to "you do you" and "what make you happy and complete" and alternative lifestyles. But, Olsen is correct in every word. If you stay by the scriptures, you will see what is wrong. Now, you will have people say "Jesus love everybody" and "come as you are to worship"; but if you read your bible
it tells you practicers of those things will not inherit God's kingdom.

''1))he looks and acts gay anyway 2)) if it aint a 10 commandment then it aint a sin !!3))and if preachers would preach the 10 commands instead of going on these way lesser sins than humanity overall would be much better served and GOD would be so much happier besides 99% of all crimes are commited OUTSIDE THE BEDROOM !!4))all the more reason to enforce the consitution;;the churcH and state are separate;;and thus all churches need to pay TAXES;;its unconsititutional to let any church not pay taxes;;they use all our infra structures;;water/fire/police/emt/roads;;so stop this agresive practice !!especially since most of whst they preech is political in nature !!WE THE PEOPLE !!

I like to try a sin I never tried before

We will not survive as a species unless we learn to outgrow this pathetic need for a Cosmic Daddy, a Santa for Grownups, some Aerial Daddy who will tell us that we really won't die. It is the philosophy of cowards who cannot face the fact that they will return to NOTHINGNESS.

Grow up, and stop being led by the foolish and emotionally-vulnerable, those who think we are still in the Age of Ignorance, the Age of Superstition.

Adultery is a sin, and I can only wonder when this young lad will wander into that realm when tempted by the devil.

Adultery is a sin, and I can only wonder when this young lad will wander into that realm when tempted by the devil.

I have never taken this guy seriously, but he obviously gets the fact that Paul's letter to the Romans specifically calls out homosexual acts as immoral. Any Bible-based Christian would have to address Paul's writing on the subject or risk being viewed as a Christian of Convenience.

By the way, this does NOT mean that homosexuals are intrinsically immoral, just that they should recognize the abnormality of certain acts. A person with same-sex attraction should remain celebate in order to live according to the teachings of the Apostles (and, by extension, Christ), there is no way around that.

Hope this helps.

«I like to try a sin I never tried before»

Posted by: jobandon | January 25, 2011 11:13 AM

O Jobandon, try not paying your Social Security tax, that tax goes to support widows and orphans as well as the aged and infirm, try not paying it, try turning up your nose at widows and orphans, that would be a sin, the sin of stinginess.

Harm, do not worry about harm from this sin, do not worry that Allah will send his sword against us for neglecting widows and the fatherless, do not worry because if you refuse to pay your Social Security (self-employment?) tax, the Internal Revenue's lien will get you long before Allah's sword gets us for tolerating your sin of stinginess towards widows and orphans.

Yawn. What a surprise! NOT. Why is any gay or lesbian still a Christian? His message advocates discrimination, repression, psychological warfare.

This guy is like the world's biggest cheesepuff. Who cares what he thinks? Rove 101: Accuse the other side of doing what your yourself are guilty of. Who wants to bet that this guy is playing both sides of the fence?

Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. but the bottom line is according to the Bible... God destroyed Sodom and Ghomorra(sp) for this exact same thing...Homosexuality!! I don't sit in judgement of anyone nor do i condemn them for any sins including Homosexuality .. we are ALL sinners we sin by thought word or deed on a daily basis...but through Christ for those of us that believe, we are forgiven. That forgiveness however does not give you free reign to sin but it does give you an opportunity to get it right. I have gay family and friends whom i love very much I would NEVER stop loving or caring for them because of who they are or who they love that would not be very Godly of me or anyone else who claims to love the Lord... but it is in fact sinful according to my beliefs for a woman to lay with a woman and a man to lay with a man.. period! but who am I to judge?? I merely pray for my sisters and brothers that they will seek HIM in order to know whats right.. and I pray for myself that I will continue to be focused and I will be the person that God wants me to be..Yes.. sin and mistakes will happen along the way in my life and yours... but i'm not loved any less for it... and neither are the several million other sinners out here... He Loves US ... the question is.. how much do we love HIM and how much do we love ourselves I think Joel Osteen is a beautiful spiritual man and I think that no matter what he said or how he said it he would be condemned because he speaks the truth...I know there will be many who disagree with this... to them I say... we shall ALL see in the end...

A couple posts here point at Old Testament laws regarding, but you don’t have to go back to Torah to find strictures against homosexuality – a number of passages in the Apostolic letters decry against it.

Until I was middle-aged and accepted Christ, I was a secular humanist. So I found theses passages difficult to swallow whole, simply by applying lessons learned from Sesame Street: “One of these things is not like the others”. In passages like Romans 1:21-32, the author Paul rails a number of sins, including homosexuality. But the problem for me was that in a purely secular context, every other sin mentioned can be easily shown outside of scripture to violate Christ’s second commandment (“Love your neighbors as yourself”) – but there is no secular proof whatsoever that a long-term, stable homosexual relationship has the kind of negative impact that any of the other sins do so clearly.

I’m not about to discount Paul’s words, since I am a Christian, have felt the presence of God and the Holy Spirit in my life, so I truly believe – so this was a real struggle for me, since a number of friends of mine are active homosexuals, some Christians, some not, but most showing the fruits of the spirit. I have “reconciled” myself to Paul’s words by noticing a vitally important fact: At the time that the letters were written, there was simply no recognized practice of long-term, committed homosexual relationships (this is not true, of course, for other periods in Roman or Greek history). This places homosexual acts in the same category as fornication.

Since Paul’s strictures do not violate Christ’s second commandment in any real sense, the only remaining option is to decide to just make homosexuality a sin by saying that God simply forbids it for whatever reason, placing it in the realm of Christ’s first commandment, a modified form of the Shema. In a secular society like the US, we simply don’t enforce laws that are God-to-Man (i.e., enforcing the Sabbath) simply because we are not a theology. Thus, even if homosexuality is a special sin according to Christianity, it’s simply not enforceable in our secular society.

Don't know who this guy is, and don't care what he believes. Homosexuality isn't subject to his approval.

Joel Osteen attended Oral Roberts University for exactly one semester. He has had absolutely NO formal academic theological education. His father was a Southern Baptist preacher who became a modern-day Pentecostal, aka Charismatic, in the 1950s.

If the younger Osteen had taken the "Interpreting the Bible" course required for theology majors at ORU and applied the principles of Bible Hermeneutics taught in that course, he would say, "There is no condemnation of those whom we would call homosexual in the Bible."

Megapastor...how about megaimposter? He is the sinner for leading people down the path of false hopes for riches and his self righteous condemnation of people who don’t believe as he does. How did so many people in America come to worship these types of false prophets?

I have no problem with whatever two consenting adults do. I've read the bible and it does say homosexuality is a sin. Get over it gay people! But that doesn't mean that Gay people should be discriminated against. They should be afforded all the rights of anyone else. Church and State should be separate.

I have no problem with whatever two consenting adults do. I've read the bible and it does say homosexuality is a sin. Get over it gay people! But that doesn't mean that Gay people should be discriminated against. They should be afforded all the rights of anyone else. Church and State should be separate.

I believe a soul in Christ is worth more than all the money on earth...

"I like to try a sin I never tried before
Posted by: jobandon | January 25, 2011 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment "

go ahead bend over...

When Ted Haggard was filmed for the documentary, "Jesus Camp," he was shown preaching against homosexuality. He got down close to the camera what was being used for the movie and said, "I know what you did last night and if you send me $500, I won't tell your wife."

Well, Haggard at the time was driving up to Denver and using a phony name to have same-gender sexual activity with a professional gay escort.

Haggard, like Osteen, became a "preacher," because his father was. Same for Richard Roberts. BTW, Haggard is an ORU Grad.

Now sit back and wait for the other shoe to drop.

"By the way, this does NOT mean that homosexuals are intrinsically immoral, just that they should recognize the abnormality of certain acts. A person with same-sex attraction should remain celebate in order to live according to the teachings of the Apostles (and, by extension, Christ), there is no way around that.
Hope this helps."
Posted by: thinkf1rst

Thinkf1rst, in my opinion, it doesn't. The reason I find your statement unhelpful it you neglected to add some words I just used, 'in my opinion.'

Everything you stated is an interpretation of your Holy Writ, in other words, an opinion. Even if you had absolute evidence that the Christian Bible is the inerrant word of God (and you really don't) many people have interpreted it differently.

Some Christian denominations view the verses you quote as past their expiration date, the same way some denominations view the verses that support slavery or the subjugation of women. Some view them as referring to the common practice of battlefield rape of captive soldiers, and not consensual relationships. Some Christians don't view the Bible as inerrant, and simply dismiss such verses. And some people aren't Christain. Some people have no religious beliefs. Opinions all.

I would suggest that you remember that no branch of theology is 'settled science' and that your belief that gay people are required to be celibate is just a belief. It has no standing in law, and you have no right to expect anyone to comform to your beliefs. I think it's important to remember that all any of us has regarding religious belief is an opinion.

sounds just like the catholic church -- oops, i guess their homophobia was in name only. how many more boys have to be raped by ministers and priests before wise up?

I remember the traveling tent shows, a la Elmer Gantry, when scammers like AA Allen would come to town to fleece the goobers.

an we EVER outlive our pathetic need for superstition? Will we EVER be able to accept that we are finite, we are temporary, and there is no Magic Father in the Sky who will keep us from dying?

Blah, blah, blah, blah.........and blah: gaydom has been with us since the first two cave dudes (or dudettes) woke up cold in the cave and commented on the lack of fire.. Orsteen would better spend his time preparing his "flock" for the compost pile that awaits us all in heaven than spout on and on on cable tv.

Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Who did Cain and Abel have sex with ... their mother ... each other?

Doesn't sound like they had any options which weren't a sin, did they? So where did the non-family snatch come from?

I just read about a U.S. Christian woman who hanged a neighbor's dog in her backyard with an extension cord because he "chewed her Bible", which, to her, was a "sin", apparently punishable by death. The truth is that Christians make up "sins" as they go along; any punishment of their choosing is, therefore, justified by their god.

Iamweaver, I congratulate you on not falling into the trap I felt Thinkf1rst did. You state your opinions as opinions, you understand your grounding in belief is your own, and you understand the limits of belief in a secular republic.

I have also had, for want of a better word, "spiritual experiences." They are my own, I don't expect anyone else to understand them, or even believe them. I refer to such things as an 'unexportable commodity.'

We can discuss what you mean by "have felt the presence of God and the Holy Spirit in my life," but even if I had the same beliefs, my experience might be very different. Viva la differance! I also doubt you would understand some of what I think I have experienced. That's why I think it's important to keep such beliefs strictly out of secular law. I feel if you can't show how someone is harmed by an action, you have no right to regulate that action, period.

I'm curious, how did you arrive at such an open-minded stance? Is it a part of the domination you follow, or is it just a part of your unique spiritual path? Do you think it can be exported? I for one would like to see more of it in the world.

If we are to give meaning, evidential meaning to these claims of feeling this presence (and not assuming hallucination) in people, then why aren't we also giving evidential meaning to the even greater number of people who don't have such experiences?

You had a hallucination, that's what happened.

This kid has a great scam going. All you have to do is to promise things that can't possibly be proven or proven false, and get the goobers to pay in advance.

It is hardly news that various Christian communions regard homosexual sex a sin.

Or for that matter, heterosexual sex outside of sacramental marriage, or civil marriage, or what have you.

I feel sorry for folks who are drawn to love another free adult as they will, and at the same time to worship in a faith community that rejects their freedom to do so. Even for the committed Christian, there are congregations that do not impose those strictures.

Neither political correctness nor political coercion can or should compel a religion to deny its doctrines. By the same token, religion is debarred (in this country) from imposing its doctrine outside the boundaries of its congregation.

All Homosexuals are going to spend Eternity
in the Jaws of Satan being torn apart by his teeth like a piece of bacon.

Why would homos and other unrepentant sinners be suffering at the hands of this Satan god?

I mean, if you're one of these people, then you're one of his guys! You're the kind of people he likes, why would he want to hurt you?

Joel Osteen is a very insprirational speaker who has built a powerful ministry. I think he is trying to tell truth according to his beliefs.

Identifying that he believes homosexuality is a "sin" was a direct answer to a talk show host's question. More important is how Osteen's ministry deals with social issues in the real world. The more I read about this man the more I am convinced that he is sincere. What exactly is the controversy here?

Homosexuality is a genetic condition and occurs in people and in the animal kingdom.
Sit down and ask your doctor about this. The very last place to look for sensible information is in the bible, which is just a book of myths, NOT to be taken seriously.

You can no more change the sexual identity of a homosexual than you can change the sexual identity of a heterosexual. The guys who wrote the bible were ancient people who knew very very little about the world and it's ways. The ancients could have learned so much from us. We can learn virtually nothing from them.

CPB1 wrote:
"All Homosexuals are going to spend Eternity in the Jaws of Satan being torn apart by his teeth like a piece of bacon."

Sounds kinky, but I'm Jewish so can we forego the bacon bit?

A pastor states that homosexuality is a sin and people start ranting about homophobia. Really? Well, disrespecting your parents is a sin. In fact, disrespecting your parents is one of "Big 10." Does that mean I fear children? No. Stop blowing the whole thing out of proportion. He never said homosexuality was the unforgivable sin. In fact, it isn't high on his list of concerns at all. You hate all religions because you don't want anybody telling you what to do. We get it. Move on.

Osteen (and wife) MUST tip-toe around many things to keep his "business" running with a lot of cash over-flow (giving to the greedy --Osteen & wife-- and not to the needy).

I don't know what's more creepy, his permanent smile or her constant nodding.

How can calling homosexuals sinners not be judging or bashing them? Of course it is.

I just read about a U.S. Christian woman who hanged a neighbor's dog in her backyard with an extension cord because he "chewed her Bible", which, to her, was a "sin", apparently punishable by death. The truth is that Christians make up "sins" as they go along; any punishment of their choosing is, therefore, justified by their god
******************************************
this said christian is lucky i am not her neighbor...Rick's wrath can get pretty ugly when it comes to people abusing animals....

Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version, ©2010)

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Homosexuals are born that way. God made them that way. Is Osteen questioning God?

@.CPB1;

writes;

"All Homosexuals are going to spend Eternity in the Jaws of Satan being torn apart by his teeth like a piece of bacon."

Spoken like a true christian who believes the absurd fairy tales that any sensible grown-up chuckles at; another sign that religion deranges people and causes them to hate others. And it's why I am an atheist.

ravensfan20008: Silly logic. Simply because he views it as a sin he must be one? Are atheists who are vocal critics of Christianity somehow closet Christians? Doubtful, everyone who opposes homosexuality on religious grounds is not one themselves, assuming they are simply dulls the true issues of the argument.

Religiously speaking = irrelevant.
Legally speaking = relevant IF it were illegal.

What is "hateful" about....

"Yes, I've always believed Pierce the scriptures show that homosexuality is a sin. But I'm not one of those who is out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they're terrible people and all of that. I mean, there are other sins in the Bible, too. And I think sometimes the church --and I don't mean this critically --but we focus on one issue or two issues, and there's plenty of other ones. So I don't believe that homosexuality is God's best for a person's life --sin means to miss the mark."

Osteen is not a Christian.

Gee, why was everyone upset over the Bernie Madoff affair? He made a lot of money, so he must have been favored of God. Simple thinking is the sign of simpletons. Many factors go into one becoming wealthy or poverty stricken. Much investigation and reflection has to be taken of the history leading up to any event to determine what moral message, if any, can be concluded. Many a scoundrel accumulates riches while many an honest, morally upstanding man becomes penniless. Accomplishments aren’t the gauge of a person’s moral character and the worthiness for being blessed by God; rather, the path, i.e. the means, used to reach the goal separate the saint from the sinner. In spite of public execution being secular society’s ultimate sign of an individual’s worldly failure, Christ's crucifixion was, rather, His glory. A close read of the Book of Job should disabuse any Christian of the notion that outward signs of splendor signify inner grandeur.

I wish that these so-called "prosperity" ministers" who rake in millions of dollars, wou;d concentrate on the substantive problems affecting their flocks instead of peering into the bedrooms of people who have not invited them. It appears that those who want to be a part of the club have to tow the political line of their leaders no matter how wide and continuous their smiles are. It's the price of admission. Failure to remain inactive from actually fighting for and with people who need their real help is cause for expulsion. When are we going to stop being a nation of voyeurs and concentrate on the very real proplems we have that can be fixed with a little more real help and a lot less posturing about those things that are none of our business?

Olsteen is a money-grubbing celebrity seeking carny con man. Nothing more. Piousness proves nothing. Who cares what he thinks anyway?

Joel Osteen is a $in.

@Ynot1:

The reason it's hateful is because he is taking one of the most important and defining aspects of one's life, their love/sex/romance, and dismissing it outright as wrong.

The truly enlightened stay off the pulpit.

There is nothing wrong with what Osteen said. He is a Christian minister who believes, like most Christians, that homosexuality is a sin. He responded to a direct question about his beliefs. He is entitled to them. People are entitled to disagree. There is no controversy, nor should there be any surprise. He was actually civil in his response by not judging others or calling it an abomination, but rather just one sin of many in the Bible. Atheists and others are free to call it hogwash, he is free to disagree.

If you are a BCE-era adherent to all 613 statutes in the Mosaic law, it probably is one of those 19 or so sins carrying a death penalty in your catalogue. So is adultery, and enforcing the Mosaic penalty for that one might wipe out sizable segments of the federal government and corporate America.

But if you are a real Christian, and not a dispenser of cheap grace and the gospel of prosperity, you might want to read Galatians 3:28 very closely.

The christian obsession with other people's sex lives is perverse. But what can be expected from people who worship a tortured corpse on an iron age execution device.

Osteen is so in the closet!

It is long past time for the fundamentalist right to move to a country whose values are more in keeping with their 15th century views. I'm no travel agent, but I would highly recommend the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there "are no gays", the women still know their proper place, and religion is allowed to become intimately intertwined with the law. They're big into the death penalty (hey - you guys can finally STONE people again like your Bible commands you to!) and it's extremely hard to get an abortion. It's a conservative religious Utopia, guys. Go for it. Just GO! We'll help you pack.

The infidel liberal secular West is just NOT compatible with your "values" here in this modern age. It's time for you to face that fact.

Mr. Osteen is an opportunist and is living high on the hog off of the labours of his flock.

beautiful.

Sheer your sheep, Mr. Osteen.

Wait a minute... since when saying homosexuality is a sin controversial???

If you are religious you are entitled to display your believe just like those homosexuals who like to display their homosexuality...

all the abrahamic religions agree on this point and by all means they can express it anytime they want without labeling it as controversial... ...

It is controversial to deny people their right to express themselves on matters of faith

cobbalt: Those penalties have been erased. Jesus is the new covenant for remission of ALL sins.The penalty is no longer earthly death. All can through him receive forgiveness of sins as he did with the adulteress. The moral laws however still apply, the punishments however have been removed, well on this side of eternity anyway.

dude's entitled to his religious beliefs - just don't try and codify them into civil law

It is controversial to deny people their right to express themselves on matters of faith

Oh, you poor poor majority christian, how terrible for you.

Nobody is saying christians can't express their barbaric beliefs, where did you ever get that idea?

"SMT123" said it all...Osteen is just another huckster like so many before him. Give him a few years and let's see how HE really turns out.

F you and space Santa. My god says stupid is a sin. Prepare for eternal doom, F-Tard.

Osteen thinks he's not getting enough attention lately?

Needs to use the Sarah Palin school of PUBLICITY GETTING? He suddenly decided to discuss this brand new issue? Make some big waves among the social luddites? Gather some of Beck's people in?

Osteen wants the Tea Partiers to line his failing, falling collection plate tallies?

Joel is VERY comfortable with "don't ask don't tell...."
And the wifee ain't talking while the dough rolls in.
Money grubbing preachers have done very well in the US the past 170 years or so

cobbbalto1 -

If these Old Testament-mired Talibanistas were consistent in following their barbaric old archeological relic, they would be forced to stone their children to death at the first sign of "stubbornness" (and what child does not go through that stage?). That is exactly what the psychotic hallucination identifying itself to the author of Deuteronomy as "the Lord" commanded his primitive followers to do in chapter 21, verses 18-21.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+21%3A18-21&version=KJV

I encourage all to read it, and ask these OT cultists about it at every opportunity. You will invariably get some mumbling answer about that part of the "Word of God" not counting anymore, even though all the stuff around it about gays apparently still does.

I hope one day modern medicine is able to find a cure for this mental disorder.

What the hell is Joel Olsteen doing in the On Faith section?

Yes, homosexuality is a sin, so what?

Why do people even care? live your freakin' lives, who cares what the Osteen guy thinks of you? Seriously, you're the one with a problem is you give a flip what this guy thinks of you.

"Should Osteen stick to inspirational preaching and steer clear of this kind of controversy? (Billy Graham told Christianity Today's Sarah Pulliam Bailey this week that one of his life's regrets was that he had waded too much into non-spiritual territory by getting involved with politics --"Looking back I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn't do that now.")"

Whoa, this is misleading to say the least here. Billy Graham was discussing politics and his role of advising Presidents, not about his stance on homosexuality which of course he opposes. Thats a Grand Canyon leap of connection here between these two issues. This isn't the type of issue Graham would have steered clear of, any Pastor or clergy member that holds convictions but hold back on them in the face of popular opinion, has a more important opinion to be held accountable to in the very end. I would expect better than a forced comparison here by the Post.

Joel is the poster child for elimination of tax exempt status for "churches" and EVERYONE else too. Eliminate tax exempt and go a very long way toward eliminating the deficit and the national debt

Joel Osteen should read about the relationship--surpassing the love of women--beween David and Jonathan.

Aren't Christians supposed to "hate the sin, not the sinner. Although I am not one of his supports I believe he gave an honest opinion free of hate of the sinner. I believe lust, greed, jealousy, are sins just homosexual lust would be also. But in the end forgivenss is what about. Can any give greater sin other than non-belief.

Most mainstream Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. No better and no worse than any other sin, but a sin nonetheless. If that makes Christians "homophobic" or "haters", so be it. Most Christians understand that many homosexuals may be wired toward that lifestyle, but that doesn't relieve one from the sin. Others are wired to lie, steal, drink to excess, have sex with anyone they please, violent actions, and addiction which are universally considered sinful. We understand that it takes a great deal help to overcome sin, and understand the guilt of falling short. So, if homosexuals wish to call Christians haters or bubbas, or some other name, that's their right, just remember that we are only following the Bible which we believe is the word of God and that is our right.

It is Osteen's bigotry that is un-Christian. Churchs pick and choose what they will take from the Bible all the time. When they pick it you can be sure it aligns with thier adgenda.

Homosexuality is a sin. Period. Osteen is right that there are many things that are sinful in that they are displeasing to God. As a believer I think that people of faith are . . .misguided when they single out particular sins or categories of sin for special attention. The problem here is that in modern society, nothing is off limits anymore. . .and if it is. . .it won't be for long because to judge another's behavior or discriminate against anyone for anything is just not tolerated. We must now tolerate ALL difference. Judgment is no longer tolerated. . .and yes. . .the irony is intentional.

I don't see anything strange or new or unusaul here. 99% of all Christian ministers teach the exact same thing.

I think what faith's believe about homosexuality as a sin does not belong in the civil laws. Making the ado about homosexuality and marriage, jobs, adoptions, is like making an ado over baptism by immersion or whether or not women should be preachers.

Civil law has no place in the church - should the law reflect one faith's belief that women should not be preachers? Should the law say the only way to Baptize is by immersion? No.

And, the church should not dictate to the rest of the world that homosexual behavior between consenting adults is anyones business but that of the two involved. I deplore the intrusion of specific religious ideas into public discourse either to limit what churchs do in their faith or to limit what society does to improve society.

What did Jesus say about homosexuality? What? I didn't hear you. What?

As he looks out on his wuverly congretation each Sunday...

ONE in every TEN is homosexual...whether they contenance/admit/practice it. Them's the statistics.

And don't you love the wowwie blond with long hair who acts as an enforcer/explainer?

All in all, a lovely bunch of coconuts.

detroitblkmale30

Hi Detroit. How's your day going?

You write;
"There is nothing wrong with what Osteen said. He is a Christian minister who believes, like most Christians, that homosexuality is a sin"

If you were a homosexual, I don't think you'd feel that way. The bible is an ancient book of myths, and the guys who wrote it knew nothing about anatomy,
physiology, biology or genetics.

When I was twenty something, back in the UK, I too was disgusted by homosexuality, and wrote to the letter columns of local newspapers to argue against it.

In later years I was part of a behavioural programme which attempted to actually help teens to change their orientation from homo to hetero. It was a complete disaster, and we all saw clearly that such a thing was impossible.

And of course we now know that homosexuality is a genetic error, and there's nothing we can do about that.

So my beef is with religious folks who justify condemning homosexuality because the bible says it's OK to do so. The bible should not be used for such a purpose. Racism and slavery can also be justified by the bible.

Modern research and books on homosexuality can tell us so much more than the bible can, and is what we should be reading if we want to understand it.

Cheers

Nobody here is talking about the good that Osteen's ministry does, which in point of fact is probably light years ahead of any of the commmenter's direct impact on their communities.

A powerful force for the good is going to have some rough edges and if you can't take someone just speaking plainly about what they believe, it seems that the problem does not rest with them, but with you.

Let's all agree that there is a point of departure between something that he thinks is a sin, but that that you do not think is a sin. OK.

Now, weigh your impact on the world and identify where and how you do "good" by whatever metric you choose. I am betting here that the Osteens outdistance anyone commenting on this thread in terms of philanthropy and positive influence on the people they encounter.

RONGOKLUNK. . .you're in trouble now buddy! You called homosexuality an error! That is NOT politically correct. There's nothing wrong with it and it is biologically equivalent to heterosexuality. If you believe otherwise, you must be reprogrammed!

-He decided to go on that new show.

-He wanted some publicity.

-He for the FIRST time in a billion words, called homosexuality a sin.

He's been watching the Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck school of getting some headlines, boys and girls.

If the self-appointed Pastor O$teen thinks some types of personal sexual behavior are sinful, what must he think of the bombing of a country which never attacked us and the killing thereby of at least 100,000 people?
The world trembles to hear his pronouncement on these matters.

detroitblkmale30

Hi Detroit. How's your day going?

You write;
"There is nothing wrong with what Osteen said. He is a Christian minister who believes, like most Christians, that homosexuality is a sin"

If you were a homosexual, I don't think you'd feel that way. The bible is an ancient book of myths, and the guys who wrote it knew nothing about anatomy,
physiology, biology or genetics.

When I was twenty something, back in the UK, I too was disgusted by homosexuality, and wrote to the letter columns of local newspapers to argue against it.

In later years I was part of a behavioural programme which attempted to actually help teens to change their orientation from homo to hetero. It was a complete disaster, and we all saw clearly that such a thing was impossible.

And of course we now know that homosexuality is a genetic error, and there's nothing we can do about that.

So my beef is with religious folks who justify condemning homosexuality because the bible says it's OK to do so. The bible should not be used for such a purpose. Racism and slavery can also be justified by the bible.

Modern research and books on homosexuality can tell us so much more than the bible can, and is what we should be reading if we want to understand it.

Cheers

WOW, the perverts are really oozing from their holes under ground. Truth hurts, doesn't it.

The reason it's hateful is because he is taking one of the most important and defining aspects of one's life, their love/sex/romance, and dismissing it outright as wrong.
Posted by: smt123 | January 25, 2011 1:14 PM

Each person's sin is important to that person.

As Sajanas says, the church should certainly be careful while speaking of their beliefs. But, in this day, it seems like you can't say anything without getting a hoard of people accusing you of all sorts of hateful things. Those who criticize Christians ought to be careful that they're not doing the exact same thing they're so mad about.

And always remember, the Church is made up of sinful humans. We're not perfect. And I think most Christians would admit to that. That being said, there is one who IS perfect. And when people form their opinions about Jesus, they need to make sure they're thinking about WHO Jesus is. Don't base your opinions off of His followers, because despite how hard we try to be like him, we somehow manage to always fall short.

One last thing, again referencing what Sajanas said. The reason why Pastors can eat BBQ and people can work on Sundays is because there is the Old Covenant (which you are referring to), and the NEW Covenant. With Jesus, under the New Covenant, his GRACE saves us. Not whether or not we follow the rules. It's not our goodness (or often, lack of goodness) that saves us. It's just God.

What a relief! :)

IAMWEAVER wrote:

"Since Paul’s strictures do not violate Christ’s second commandment in any real sense, the only remaining option is to decide to just make homosexuality a sin by saying that God simply forbids it for whatever reason..."

No, see, actually there is one more remaining option: to use your fully-developed adult brain and realize that ANY HUMAN BEING CAN WRITE DOWN ANYTHING HE WANTS TO AT ANY TIME IN A BOOK, BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. Of course, that would require you to actually think for yourself, something most Christians are absolutely terrified to do.

If I were to write "pigs fly if you just find the magic words" on some old parchment, and bury it near the Dead Sea, does this actually mean that pigs can fly?

What is so difficult about this concept, religious people? I realize you were mentally abused as children and brainwashed daily with this stuff, but there is help. You're adults now, and you can get free of this.

My goodness, the more I observe this moronic society, the more I am convinced it is not destined to survive.

Here again, in the 21st Century, we have a man of faith making declarations about which his only guidance and authority is a text written more than a thousand years ago by beings who had no knowledge of the natural and physical world. This text is his authority for everything. Talk about the arrogance of the ignorant. This kind of arrogance is the result of indoctrination everyday of young children by their parents and their faith “authority” figures so that they believe with absolute conviction everything written in their holy texts including that the world was created in 6 days about 6 thousand years ago and that homo-sexuality is a sin. Talk about critical thinking.

Truth indeed hurts - homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural although it is more widely practiced than it should be.

Sorry about the double posts. Can't imagine what happened.

Sin is OK in moderation.

How very curious that most (if not all) of the "Osteen" types look so similar on TV...wifee pooh sitting, nodding, and saying almost nothing. Guess who is counting the money as it comes in.

and spray tanning fake teeth whitening isnt?

what a bozo

For you atheists out there, if I'm wrong about Jesus and heaven, no problem. If your wrong and die then..oh boy!

This Osteen guy sounds like someone selling snake oil. He ought to stay in his back yard and keep his nose clean. This guy is making a great amount of money with his megachurch and not paying taxes. The people who listen to this guy who tells them what they want to hear about feeling good about themselves so they will throw more money in the collection buckets. How many thousands of dollars are collected and no taxes are paid on these. Have you any idea what these talkers make in a year. I heard one of these big talkers makes over $850,000 plus benefits. Those people who follow these BIG talkers are fools. One of the reasons our local, state, and federal governments are in trouble.

Hello All. According to the Bible, is incest a sin? Then why did Lot have sex with his 2 daughters? Is adultery a sin? Then why did King Solomon have 300 wives and 700 concubines? (What happened to the souls of the all these concubines?) Truth be told, God didn't create 2 billion Chinese to send them all to hell. It's all relative. Let God be the final judge. What we can do is top killing and hating each other, now THEY are real sins. Peace.

LEV 20:13
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable."

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Homosexuality is a sin acording to the Christian and Jewish faiths. If you don't like it, you can pound sand.

Morality is not relative.

That being said every sin is treated equally in the eyes of God. A homosexual act the same as steeling or lying.

APDSEAL announced:

"Truth indeed hurts - homosexuality is a sin and is unnatural..."

... as evidenced by the fact that it is practiced in nature by over a hundred species (to date):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Next arbitrary, unfounded assertion from the religious right?

I honestly don't see anything wrong with what he said. Many religions including Christianity believe it's a sin. The man didn't say it was more of a sin than any other nor did he say he hated or had contempt for gay people.

"If we are to give meaning, evidential meaning to these claims of feeling this presence (and not assuming hallucination) in people, then why aren't we also giving evidential meaning to the even greater number of people who don't have such experiences?
You had a hallucination, that's what happened."
Posted by: eezmamata

Eezmamata, that's certainly possible. Anyone who doesn't accept that anything they have experienced that can't be verified might just not be real isn't being honest with themselves.

A non-Bible based motivational speaker like Olsteen has no business being on the On Faith page. He doesn't strike me as a Christian, and he doesn't preach a message of salvation.

He just anwered a question where he was specifically asked about 1 topic with regards to his religious beliefs. That's all he did. He didn't bring it up. As far as I can tell, they are just talking about religious morals and not even delving into civil/political issues like gay marriage.

Gosh almighty, there are so many people in this country that like to hold themselves up as the champions of diversity and tolerance. Yet when someone else has different beliefs or views, they show a complete lack of tolerance for beliefs than might not agree with their own.

What is even the point of this blog? Seems like it does more to drive people apart than make them come together.

This guy is most likely deep into sex stuff and most likely disturbed mentally. Maybe he needs to take the log out of his eye for starters before taking the speck out of the eyes of others.

PHNTSM -

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

===========

Sounds pretty cut and dried to me. Letting your stubborn children survive to adulthood is a sin acording to the Christian and Jewish faiths. If you don't like it, you can pound sand.

Morality is not relative.

That being said every sin is treated equally in the eyes of God. Being permissive with your misbehaving children and allowing them to live is the same as steeling [sic] or lying.

[Note: your violent Christian religion notwithstanding, physically assualting your children is illegal in our society and WILL result in your arrest and your children put into proper foster care.]

I've noticed that there are a lot of people who use stories from the Bible, trying to prove their own beliefs that the Bible is made up of hypocrites.

I'm trying to find a nice way to put this, but in the end, there's only one way to say it. Don't make assumptions about stuff that you have no knowledge of.

If you DID have knowledge of the Bible, you'd know that the beauty of it all is that God chooses to work through SINFUL humans. Jesus' ancestry is filled with people who constantly mess up! Starting with Adam, Abraham, David, etc. We have adulterers, liars, prostitutes, and murderers. And yet, THIS is the bloodline through which Jesus is born. If that's not saying something beautiful, then nothing is.

The point is that, despite how much debate issues like these raise, it's not about us. It's all about Jesus, and how much he offers. And how much none of us deserve it.

At our best, we're never beyond the need of Christ. At our worst, we're never beyond HIS REACH.

This guy is most likely deep into sex stuff and most likely disturbed mentally. Maybe he needs to take the log out of his eye for starters before taking the speck out of the eyes of others.

There is no end to the hucksters who will make as much as they can make off of gullible people by telling them what they want to hear.

And there is no end to the arrogant bigots who will insist that they know what God wants and they define "sin' for everyone, regardless of one's religious beliefs or religious affiliations or lack thereof.

Once again we see the direct correlatio n between the extent of a religion's orthodoxy and the magnitude of its intoleranc e of those who do not share their tenets, politics, or lifestyle choices.

The problem is that organized religion did not evolve to promote love or "good will toward man"; it evolved to bring a sense of order by controllin g the behavior of the populace. And therein lies the problem.

You cannot legislate morality since one person's virtues are another person's sins. Personally , I am more interested in promoting ethics than any particular religion's morals.

Cherry-pic king biblical scripture to support one's personal bigotry and hatred is as intellectu ally lazy as it is dishonest. If you truly believe that the Bible represents the word of God, then you should follow ALL of its pronouncem ents literally, even those that contradict other passages.

Better start stockpilin g your stones--yo u'll have a whole lot of casting to do...

Yup, a sin. You know, like having red hair, being left handed, or short or tall.
The real sin is that so many use religion to camouflage their bigotry and ignorance.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN!! Period point blank! But so i any form of fornication!! Now that we've cleared that up, CAN WE MOVE ON!! And for those of you who happen to be Homosexual, IT'S A SIN, DEAL WITH IT!! Just like I have to deal will having sex with women with whom I'm NOT married!! Now that we know WE ARE ALL SINNERS, NOW WHAT? I don't think Homosexuals are the lowest sinners in the world, but they're NOT SIN FREE and if they think they are, they have bigger problems than wanting to be married!!

I don't see how anyone is suprised that he or anyone of his ilk would be caught saying something like this in public. For some good counterarguments, see http://www.christianlesbians.com, http://www.cathedralofhope.com, among others.

As for the "sin," as long as I don't hurt anyone or their property, it's my right to miss the mark (al chet in Hebrew, which he translates correctly). If there are those out there who don't accept his message, and there are going to be many, MANY of them, oh well, TFB.

Rongoklunk: Hello again. I supposed I wouldnt be ok with it you are right. However, the critical viewpoint of a religion for the person of faith is the INTERNAL one not the EXTERNAL perspective.
Now, time for your "journey". Sssume you were a Christian who held to the views I do. Would it matter to you what popular opinion stated, when your ultimate allegiance is to God and his word?? If so, your convictions in your faith aren't particularly strong or loyal. Actually the Bible cannot be used to justifiable utilize slavery as it was. There is no race-based slavery in the scriptures. It was based upon military conquest and in Hebrew society, most often related to voluntary "slaves" who entered into such arrangements due to their poverty for their own well-being.So while some perverted the scriptures for racism and egregious slavery, that has no bearing on my convictions. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity. People are free to disagree about it, but it doesnt change the scriptures or people's beliefs or their right to express it.Osteen has every right to say what he said. He believes it as do millions of others. Whether you think its mythical is irrelevant.

Not only a sin, but also unnatural and degenerate.

abu_ibrahim wrote:
{snip}Libertarians, they would let widows, orphans, fend for themselves, maybe go begging with tin cups, depend on charity. This is the sin of neglecting widows and orphans, it is a sin.{snip}
-------
Abu Ibrahim, I am sorry but I just had to respond to this comment even though it has nothing to do with the article. I've read your postings before and know you mean well. True libertarians do not let those who are truly in need sink or swim. That is just cruel. What many of us are against is forced government "charity." Welfare hurts a lot of people and doesn't help very many over the long run. I donate heavily to charity, volunteer with nonprofits, and even worked at nonprofits in the past, because I felt and still feel it was the right thing to do. What the truly liberty-minded would appreciate is the opportunity to use OUR hard-earned money, and OUR time, with the organizations WE feel in our hearts are doing good. I'm sure the regular posters here can think of many examples of organizations they DON'T want their tax dollars going to.

For more insight, may I suggest you check out the classic Harry Browne book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." A war baby himself, Browne was old enough to recall the days when communities, places of worship, and nonprofits helped those in need, with no help from government.

...so is:

-torture
-bashing gays
-racism
-religious intolerance
-pre-emptive war
-capital punishment
-taking money falsely from old people in the name of poor old Jesus
-judging others
-hiding pervert priests
-criminalizing teenagers for smoking a plant
-not taking care of our old, sick and poor
-lying by calling Obama a Muslim
-stealing
-fraud
-accepting bribes from lobbyists

These, however, are not popular to exploit for fame and fortune on the Huckabee Hit Parade of sin bashing so we end up with teabagger-pleasing attacks on gays and on allowing women the right to choose. (the latter of which I think is a sin, too, in many but not all cases)

I used to respect Ostein for not following Dobson and Robertson in judging and spewing hypocritical hatred toward others, but all bigots eventually reveal themselves and he now needs to come out of the closet he was hiding in with Ted Haggard.

Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version, ©2010)
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
Homosexuals are born that way. God made them that way. Is Osteen questioning God?
Posted by: janeway1
=========================================
Even if they are born that way, they are STILL SINNERS!! And us Hetero's are SINNERS TOO, we sleep with each other without the benefit of marriage ALL THE TIME!! Homosexual sex is just as sinful as Heterosexual sex!! They asked the man if it was a sin, he said yes! And it is! But so is any form of fornication!! Now what? The problem is, those of us that throw stones at anyone, but Homosexuals in particular, and NOT vindicatated because they sleep with the opposite sex!! The same hell you are trying to put them in, is the same one you will be sharing accomodations with, cuz you're a sinner too!! There is no big sin and little sin! SIN IS SIN!! So if you belive that the Mo's are going to hell because of their sexuality, then hell is gonna be awfully crowded with ALL OF US!!

«ONE in every TEN is homosexual...whether they contenance/admit/practice it. Them's the statistics.»

Posted by: whistling | January 25, 2011 2:02 PM

O Whistling, those are Alfred Kinsey's statistics, based on Kinsey's biased sample, ever since Christian Year 1948 the Sodomy Lobby has been parroting the «ten percent lie».

Real statistics, Dr. Judith Reisman's real statistics, no more then four percent (4%, one in every TWENTY-FIVE) of men are homosexual, no more than one and one-half percent (1.5%, three in every TWO HUNDRED) of women are homosexual.

The GRID epidemic, «Gay Related Immunodeficiency Disease», when the GRID epidemic hit New York City in the 1980s, health officials were expecting many more GRID cases than they actually saw, this was because the NYC health officials believed the «ten percent lie».

If one believes that God created the heavens and earth and all things therein, and if one believes that God did not create anything in error, then one must believe that God created homosexuals along with everything else. Therefor, how can it be wrong?
With whom did Jesus spend his time on earth? Sinners, Prostitutes, tax collectors, the rejects of the society of the time.

People are going to practice what they want. Regardless if it's homosexuality, adultery, fornication,abortion etc, etc. If you go on what the bible says....all of the things above are wrong and they are sins. Now, bashing people over how they live that's wrong.
Society today has moved away from what is wrong to "you do you" and "what make you happy and complete" and alternative lifestyles. But, Olsen is correct in every word. If you stay by the scriptures, you will see what is wrong. Now, you will have people say "Jesus love everybody" and "come as you are to worship"; but if you read your bible
it tells you practicers of those things will not inherit God's kingdom.
Posted by: peterrabbit1
=========================================
NO sinner is gonna inherit the Kingdom, NOT JUST THE MO'S!! That's the problem, the people bashing the Mo's, are sinners too!! So if, I'm a sinner and you're a sinner, how can I bash you because your sin is different from mine? That makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL!!

He's clearly somewhat conflicted, esp if he honestly believes that homosexuality is sinful. But for televangelists, like politicians, protecting the $$$ stream is always going to be the Number One priority...over God, faith, family, and friends.

Civil law has no place in the church -

Posted by: amelia45

...and the church has no place in civil law...

The Bible calls homosexuality a sin, just like adultery is a sin, stealing is a sin, lying is a sin, etc. Any committed Christian would probably tell you that he fights every day to avoid the sins mentioned in the Bible and is deeply sorrowful when/if he falls short. No committed Christian embraces sin in his life.

I know Christianity and the Bible are not held in reverence like they once were, but one day the Christians who've held on to their faith will be rewarded and those who've chosen other lifestyled will be judged.

I commend Pastor Olsteen for FINALLY standing up and calling sin, sin. Bravo!

Here's a shocker: the less educated you are, the more likely you are to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/27682/onethird-americans-believe-bible-literally-true.aspx

No wonder the GOP does its best to de-fund public education. The more educated people get, the less likely they are to keep swallowing the GOP-Christian orthodoxy.

What a greedy w-h-o-r-e...

By the way, sorry for bringing it up one more time, but everyone here who thinks they know what "The Bible" says about homosexuality (whose Bible? Huh?) should read "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality" Fr. Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D.

Even without it, most educated people understand the sin of the Sodomites was not gay sex, but inhospitality and humilation of strangers; and as for being torn up like a piece of bacon, I'll take my chances. Even Samuel Clemens said, as Kathleen Parker pointed out last week, that he'd prefer Heaven for the climate, and Hell for the company. See you there, cpb1 and reflectionoflyfe.

Osteen is a closet case - guaranteed.

The Spectrum of Sin

There is a spectrum of sin, that is very true. Not all sin is the same. Some kinds of sin corrupt the soul, much more deeply, than others. If you had a sin spectrum from 0 to 100, with 100 being the worst kind of sin, where on this spectrum would homosexuality be placed? Is it at the low end, or is it at the high end?

You can evaluate the position of homosexuality on this scale by the worldly punishment that the Lord God established for this sin, and that would be in the time of Moses.

First you take the story of the City of Sodom in Genesis, Chapter 19. The Lord God destroyed the city because it has become infested with homosexual behavior.

Second, you take Leviticus, Chapter 20, Verse 13. Here we see that the Lord God prescribed the death penalty for homosexuals.

This places the sin of homosexuality at a position of about 90 on the sin scale. Not the worst, but very close to it.

It is that high on the scale, because it represents a level of moral corruption that will cause the Lord God to wipe the civilization off the face of the earth, once it has consumed the minds of the people. And this is because, I believe, that the sin of homosexuality comes with a spirit of defiance against God himself. And once that spirit of defiance is entrenched, nothing you can say to the person will change his mind. And when you have a people who close their ears and minds to God completely, there is no way that their culture can serve his purposes any further, and thus the life of that culture is forfeit. He will cancel it out, and start over. This is the lesson of the City of Sodom.

read Luke 18 : 18.
don't think just read.
the answer is there, all there.

It isn't popular , but it is Jesus's own words.

If you aren't Christian it still applies.
If you are Christian and not abiding by Luke 18 : 18 then you are a glass house dwelling black kettle calling SINNER!

Reminds me of Ted Haggard, who apparently rehabilitated himself to heterosexuality.

Off Ravensfan2008's early comment - perhaps one should also ask whether or not there would even be a clergy without homosexuality.

If heaven is full of folks like Osteen, who would want to be there?

I'll make this simple: for the people that I LOVE with my heart (family and friends), they are worthy of my prayers for the very best that life has for them; for them to KNOW that God loves them for who they are in their hearts (and these are some of the FINEST people I've ever met), and the right to like, love and laugh with the rest of humanity.

Osteen is one of the creepiest looking humans I have ever seen. If I saw this guy walking down my street I'd call the cops.

Too much protest, perhaps?

Joel Osteen isn't bashing anyone, but boy is he taking a beating on this blog! And why, because he called Homosexuality a sin!! IT IS!! But so is two Hetro's having sex without the benefit of marriage!! And some of you are calling him everything but a child of GOD!! Really? And if you are a Homosexual and you are bashing this man, you are NOT BETTER than the people who bash you for who you are!!

Although I hold these megachurch hucksters in very low regard, they are correct in that homosexuality is irreconcilable with Biblical teachings.
That said, consenting adults have a right to conduct their sex lives as they wish and do not deserve the self righteous crap that is spewed from these jerks. Condemnation and judgment of others are also irreconcilable with Biblical teachings. These clowns don't care about that however, they are in it for the money and there is money to be made in organized hatred of others.

It's interesting that so many people are angry about his beliefs. He has the right to believe what he wants.

Joel Osteen never bashed gay people. He simply stated his beliefs. Now, people want to attack him for not going with the flow.

I applaud him for sharing his beliefs. If gay people can be excited about coming out of the closet, then heterosexual people have the right to be excited about their lives.

People want carte blanche to do whatever they want to do, and get mad when others don't agree.

If that's your thing, then do what you want to do. But don't expect everyone to do it with you.

i enjoy mtstewart1's comment and i agree. luke 18:18-29 is very clear. i know osteen is light on scripture, but i'm sure someone he knows owns a bible and can read it to him.

among the seven deadly sins, joel is guilty of four (that we know of). he probably shouldn't be defining what he thinks should be considered "sin" before he rounds out the list.

detroitblkmale30

It may be irrelevant what I think of the bible, but I represent a growing minority who no longer believe ancient myths. The numbers continue to grow, and eventually we will be in the majority in the USA, as we are in some European countries.

Ancient tales just tell us about the ancients and what they thought and did. It's ridiculous to accept as facts the kind of sense they made of the world back then. There was no way they could understand it then - as we understand it now.

The right place for the bible is in the history section of the library, or on the dusty shelves of museums. Faith is just another word for hope. And hope is such a sad emotion.

Frankly Detroit, who needs it?

Again, the haggling about words and OT myth and whatnot is just blather. So is the speculation about J. Osteen's motivations and orientation.

The reports of his good works are pretty impressive. Those posters here should put up their numbers: how many tons of medicine, food and clothing can you send on your signature to people who need it? You can check out the reports from J. Osteen's organizations and I say if you can match what he does to alleviate hunger and disease you have a perspective to criticize one quote from one interview on CNN.

If not, a simple, "well done, good and faithful servant" is in order.

This is what the New Testament says about Homosexuality:

Wanna see it again? Here it is again:

Posted by: syvetteavery:
"It's interesting that so many people are angry about his beliefs. He has the right to believe what he wants."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
True! He has the Right to believe whatever he wish . . . . but THAT doesn't mean that he isn't IGNORANT!

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is a matter of GENOTYPE and HORMONAL events during prenatal and natal periods!

ALSO - further evidence of Osteen's ignorance is that HE believes that He is created in "God's" image but Homosexuals are not.

It's the SAME God if you believe the God that Osteen has made in his image.
Duh!

Both the old and the new testaments say that homosexuality is a sin. Trying to say otherwise is just wishful thinking. However, in the 21st, the Bible says lots of stuff we do is a sin so what's the big deal?! There was some report about more babies being born to unwed mothers than wed in America not too long ago. Guess what, sex outside of marriage is a sin. Wearing blended clothing is a sin, eating pork is a sin, eating shell fish is a sin, shoot Jesus said if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart it's the same as adultry. So why is this being sweated by ANYBODY! Not an Olsteen fan myself, agree with the huckster comments about him really, but he's just stating what the bible says when he was cornered by the interviewer.

I attend and Episcopalian church almost every Sunday, but still, I think religion is often more trouble than it is worth. Homesexuality is not a sin. It is just the way people are, the same way my heterosexuality is the way I am.

Wonder why homos attack those who don't agree, advocate or promote homosexuality, and then accuse those people of being closet homos. Attacks go both ways, no pun intended.

I find it interesting on how many of these superwealthy preachers are given instant credibility. Osteen is just one in a long list of preachers who prey on those desperately seeking some religious path and find it easier to give financially than pursue a true spiritual calling. I'm not surprised that Ms. Quinn has found time/room for him. He's the darling of the celebrity set who clamor to get him on their shows or be by his side. Handsome, well spoken, wealthy, and easy going. Until now. Stupid comment from just another religious snake-oil salesman.
Last time I checked, Jesus didn't preach in stadium sized church... or wore custom tailored suits.

JayS99;

"If heaven is full of folks like Osteen, who would want to be there?"

Good point. My nightmare is dying and going to heaven. All those religious people everywhere, hymn-singing, bible classes, and folks like Osteen, and Jerry Falwell, and Ted Haggard, and that creepy pope with the big hat and frocks.

All the really interesting people will be in Hell, so I want to go there, I can take the heat as long as I'm among friends.

What the New Testament says:

Corinthians 6:9

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals"

Timothy 1:9-10

"realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers"

Romans 1:26-27

"For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error."

Yeah. it might be all wrong.

But then again, it's been around for 2,000 years.

I wonder how long gay marriage and liberalism in general will last.

Homosexuality is a sin. Period. Sorry, it's not politically correct, it's also not homophobic. You either believe in God's laws or you don't. It's really that simple. You can't pull them, stretch them and change them to suit what you want them to mean.

Christianity calls homosexuality a sin. Why is it even remotely surprising that those who formally represent it should think homosexuality is a sin?

I will nod to Osteen for pointing out that many churches tend to focus on something the Bible mostly mentions in passing to the exclusion of much larger social and economic problems.

I would add that the Christian focus on homosexuality - when Jesus never even mentions it - is interesting considering how many thing Jesus expressly forbade that the church ow forgives or allows (divorce/remarriage).

It looks as if the pastor has said something in line with many other conservative priests. Actually here in Sweden, som leading priests, namely in the Church of Sweden, was accused some years ago for the opposite position - they let LGBT-groups into the churches and also sponsered gay art exhibitions, which really made some conservatives furious. One thing is clear, it is not Gods fault that part of the human race feel the itching need to turn on each other based such matters that are associated with Gods given gifts: gender, sexuality, race or something else.

Posted by: mtstewart1 January 25, 2011 3:15 PM
read Luke 18 : 18.
don't think just read.
the answer is there, all there.
It isn't popular , but it is Jesus's own words.
If you aren't Christian it still applies.
If you are Christian and not abiding by Luke 18 : 18 then you are a glass house dwelling black kettle calling SINNER!
------------------------------------------
But the Buddha debunked the need for ascetism 500 years before Christ.

All sex is a sin: Genesis 2:9.

"don't think just read."

---------

That pretty much sums up the problem with most religions...

First, religion is an artificial concept used to control the masses and explain the unexplainable, like weather.

Second, today's most visible and vocal religious leaders are all very rich people who made their money from religion. That ought to tell you what THEY really believe in.

Third, if the "religion" carries a strong message of hate and/or fear shouldn't we label it a cult? It sure as hell isn't christian or any of the other major religions. That makes all fundamentalists cultists and probably brainwashed.

Wow ! Joel, you really outdid yourself. Congrats on standing up for what you believe and actually saying it. Isn't it liberating to speak the truth aloud not fearing what others think ? You're right though, there are plenty of other sins that mankind should be aware of and do their best not to be involved in because God hates all kinds of sin not just the sin of homosexuality.

Joel Osteen's wife apparently doesn't consider it a sin to commit assault and battery on a flight attendant when she isn't coddled like the royalty she believes herself to be.

a mute point, as sin doesn't exist except in the minds of the deluded.

Calling rain a sin won't stop it from raining.

"You either believe in God's laws or you don't. It's really that simple"

-------------------

Yes, so simple that there are hundreds of different denomination of even the Christian god who fight with each other constantly over what god's laws are.

Maybe if people stopped believing in fairy tales we'd all get along much better.

It wasn't news, we know when someone thinks a group is bad it's an excuse to say 'and we are better'. Cheap way to justify one's existence. God created everyone. Why would he create someone so others could hate on them???? It's like a fox hunting. I am very disappointed in the Olsteen's. They have helped me in my time of need but in truth, after hearing this comment I can no longer in good conscience enjoy his sermons any more. What a shame.

JayS99;

"If heaven is full of folks like Osteen, who would want to be there?"

Posted by: Rongoklunk:
"Good point. My nightmare is dying and going to heaven. All those religious people everywhere, hymn-singing, bible classes, and folks like Osteen, and Jerry Falwell, and Ted Haggard, and that creepy pope with the big hat and frocks.

All the really interesting people will be in Hell, so I want to go there, I can take the heat as long as I'm among friends."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Bingo! JayS99 and Rongoklunk...

"Heaven for Climate, and Hell for Company".
-Mark Twain

So while Osteen has ruffled Christian feathers by his unorthodox message,

"Yes, I've always believed Pierce the scriptures show that homosexuality is a sin...", Osteen

Why does that comment ruffle Christian feathers?
I don't know of any Chirstian churches that bash the homosexual today except in movies and that one the leftist media searches diligently for that's not really a Christian church. Any church can claim to be a Christian church.
Sleeping around is a sin too. Unfaithfulness is a sin too. Was a necrophiliac born that way?

Sonny53

"You either believe in God's laws or you don't. It's really that simple."

Which God are you referring to? Would that be Thor? Or Wodan? Or Huitzipoctli? Or Apollo?

Be more specific. There are thousands of Gods.

I hear a lot more Christian bashing than homosexual bashing. Read just the comments here

Joel Osteen is a great example of what Jesus spoke about how Satan would be using God's name. Mrs. Osteen assaulted a airline employee and used religion to make it ok. Sexual sandal in Joel's Lakewood church goes unanswered as he uses religion to justify sin. Like the others before him Joel is using religion to feed off of people and we know where he will go. He's not a person that you would want to shack his hand you never know, we see many who speak with a false about God while collecting money.

"I hear a lot more Christian bashing than homosexual bashing. Read just the comments here"

----------

I see bigotry bashing, and rightly so - just happens that the justification for the bigotry is the bible.

Osteen wasn't bashing gays. He pointed out that the Bible contains lots of sins. If he had said the Bible considers envy a sin, would everyone have been mad at him? Because we all practice that sin.

It is a Christian biblical sin. How is that hard to comprehend? I'm not Christian so I don't care, but this is pretty basic.

Osteen wasn't bashing gays. He pointed out that the Bible contains lots of sins. If he had said the Bible considers envy a sin, would everyone have been mad at him? Because we all practice that sin.

Greed and false preaching/teaching is a sin too. Every TV evangelist is guilty of false preaching and greed.

Greed and false preaching/teaching is a sin too. Every TV evangelist is guilty of false preaching and greed....

Ah c'mon already. This is like blaming the hooker for having sex with the john.

These people not only demand their daily bread, they demand their daily delusion. They come to televangelist uber churches bent over and spread wide, and they are given what they want.

The difficult arises when one considers -- who do you laugh at the most, the sucker or the huckster?

He says he "forms his preaching around a positive "abundant life" approach to Christianity." - That is super church preacher speak for "give me the money." Which is more of a sin than anything. He should give his money to those in need, not build temples glorifying his existence. So far as homosexuality being a sin, his ego is a bigger sin than anything.

As long as millions of Americans look to "entertainers" like Osteen for their spiritual guidance they can shake off those expressed views that they don't share. If he just grins and tells an amusing story or two it counts as church attendance. After-all, who needs doctrines and catechisms and all that. Just put on a good show for the money.

Everyone knows homosexuality is a sin.

This guy doesn't need to restate the obvious.

I hate it when they do that.

Everyone knows homosexuality is a sin.

Tell us more about this "everyone" you're talking about.

"Texas megapastor Joel Osteen has found himself in the headlines this week for telling CNN's Piers Morgan that homosexuality is a sin. "

So is the mixing of the textiles, cutting your hair, and trying to get to an altar of god if you have a flat nose - and they all share with homosexuality the same degree of social harm if broken.

Gays in the U.S. might find conservative Christians annoying.

Throughout the Muslim world gays are tortured, imprisoned and killed.

Be happy with annoyance.

could anyone be more gay than he is, well excepting battlegrounds ?

There might be different kinds of sin, but the bottom line is we're all sinners. Everyone of us. Olsteen would include himself in that.
We all need God's grace and forgiveness, not just gayys.

Osteen disappoints me but he does not surprise me. For him to simply state that the Bible condemns homosexuality indicates that he understands the Bible simplistically. This is the typical practice of biblicists.

Osteen is just another smooth operator filling a niche - a well-schooled useful idiot telling the faithful what they want to hear, and reinforcing what they already 'know to be true' - because the bible tells them so.

The only difference is in their respective incomes. The megapreacher practices a highly lucrative trade. And the whole operation is tax exempt. What a beautiful scam!

Osteen stands on the shoulders of giants.

Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Haggard, Jim Baker, Benny Hinn.....the list goes on and on.

Elmer Gantry, anyone??

I do no think that the Bible says anything In the Bible, clearly about People being Gay. And if it did it is time to do away with the notion that being gay is illegall, immoral and a sin. We no longer stone women for various offenses including adultry and saves no longer have to honor theri masters.

of course homosexuality is a sin. I'm glad Osteen told the truth. and this is what Jesus said about homosexuality " a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife"( Mark 10:7) not cleave unto another man. yes a person may be born with a homosexual spirit in them, so the answer is to cast that spirit out of them. God didn't put that spirit in them, Satan did.

Christ said ZERO about homosexuality yet unequivocally condemned divorce. This pastor's finger pointing at sinners would be more accurately aimed at his numerous divorced fellow Christians rather than homosexuals. The hypocrisy and ignorance of his ilk never ceases to amaze me.

Does anyone really care what Osteen says?

that guy.......... he's such a serious fruit cake, figuratively and I would bet literally. So how much does he charge his "pulpiteers" to hear how
abuntant" God insists he be? And woud he and Ted make an adorable couple?

that guy.......... he's such a serious fruit cake, figuratively and I would bet literally. So how much does he charge his "pulpiteers" to hear how
abuntant" God insists he be? And would't he and Ted make an adorable couple?

13 Hebrew men in their 30's, all unmarried, none of them EVER married, at least one lady of negotiable affection, are running around deserts, going fishing, bothering people, drinking wine.

Would anybody think they're straight?

Of course not.

Joel Osteen's picture would look appropriate on a three-dollar bill--

So...what if IT IS a sin?
Is this sack of charlatan garbage the keeper of the KEYS?
It is time these imbeciles keep their mouths shut tight.

Is Osteen trying to get more money and bequests from homophobes? He never stops emailpanhandling for cash.

Jesus believed in the old testament so he would naturaly believed that homosexuality is a sin.the way people try to make homosexuality and many other sins so acceptable today never ceasese to amaze me.

For all you bible-thumping moralists, who are so very certain that God will bring judgment and condemnation down on homosexuals. Let's go all of the way:

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

"Gays in the U.S. might find conservative Christians annoying.

Throughout the Muslim world gays are tortured, imprisoned and killed.

Be happy with annoyance."

------------------

Would you say the same thing to abused women - "hey, in other countries you might get stoned, so be happy with your abuse."

pathetic.

why are we giving so much attention to someone who is clearly ignorant. He is a embarrassing example of an uneducated, uncultured American who only reinforces the ugly stereotype of southern religious fervor and hate.

Will Osteen be speaking at Westboro Baptist soon?

If I were God, I wouldn't put up with the hatred and bigotry that people dredge out of the Bible. I would have never let slaveholders justify their vile crimes against humanity by claiming that I wanted slavery to exist. I wouldn't have let the Nazis murder millions. I wouldn't have let Jim Crow poison our country or homophobes spew their evil nonsense.

I'm not God, but I am certain that no one, not the traitors Davis and Lee, not Adolph Hitler, not Westboro Baptist, no one speaks for God (particularly since there's no reason to think that God exists). Anyone who claims to be a Christian needs to make sure he knows what Jesus taught. Reactionaries and other right-wingers don't seem to have a clue what Jesus taught. I don't believe any of them when they tell me they are Christian. Their works show otherwise.

.

wjfreeman1 those scriptures you are using were for the Jewish nation only. and besides that the old testament from which they are taken has been replaced by the new testament. the bottom line is this. homosexuality is now a sin, was a sin 10 thousands years ago and will be sin a million years from now. it will forever be a sin. that's from the almighty God not from Olsteen or any human.

"but the bottom line is according to the Bible... God destroyed Sodom and Ghomorra(sp) for this exact same thing...Homosexuality!!

Actually, no.

First, Gomorrah's references never mention gay sex.

Second, Sodom's reference to gay sex is in the context of rape. The men surrounding Lot's house wanted to rape the angels.

So, no, it's not clear that either city was destroyed because of what we now think of consensual adult homosexuality.

In fact, I quote from Ezekiel:

"She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me."

Sounds more like being unkind to the poor was the real issue here.

Unlike homosexuality, Jesus did have something to say about the wealthy and J.O. had better listen to this messiah whom he purports to represent. A rung in hell awaits J.O. since it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. But far be it for J.O. to bother with the bible since on a daily basis he churns out saccharine platitudes without reference to it. Repent, J.O., since a person cannot serve both mammon and God. Of course OF COURSE J.O. does not believe that. He's a huckster and part-time bible student who wouldn't know a camel from his elbow.

"Don't know who this guy is, and don't care what he believes. Homosexuality isn't subject to his approval".

Yes suh!!!!!!! Bottom line. Jaysus himself would pat you on the back fo rhtis comment, brother O mine!

there are two really beautiful themes in the Bible. One of them is compassion, the other is "God is love." These are the two issues that every church i have attended and every religion class i had (in thirteen years of catholic school) seem to ignore.

I see a contradiction with the idea "God is love" and "homosexuality is a sin." In English, we could theoretically replace the word "is" with an equal sign in the first phrase. God=Love. The Catholic Church discusses how the Holy Spirit seems to be a personification and diefication of Love within the trinity. The times in my life when I have felt closest to God were the times when I felt a strong, loving relationship with another person. I feel God in the love i have for the people around me. So, if God is present in the love I have for another man, how that could be a sin consistantly escapes me.

the scripture says a lot of things about homosexuality (specifically the act of sexual relationships between two people of the same sex, not so much the state of being attracted to another person of the same sex). It also says that we should stone people who have sex outside of marriage, reguardless of whether or not they are commiting adultery.

The second thing I mentioned, compassion, is the value that i believe is central to christianity (and judaism and islam and the eastern religions, actually). we don't look at mother theresa as a christian person because she did the right thing all the time, she did the compassionate thing. These intricassies and laws of the early books of the bible, for me, are not as important as this message that seems to prevade the new testament, the life of Christ, and the lives of the saints. there is not greater good then to have so much compassion for another man that you would lay down your life for him. if compassion doesn't drive our morality, then where is the truth in our moral system?

@thejames1225

"I hear a lot more Christian bashing than homosexual bashing. Read just the comments ."

I'm a heterosexual atheist, but I would prefer to share a desert island with a bright homosexual person than I would with a Christian. I find Christians extremely boring and unimaginitive. Most homosexuals that I've known over the years are much more intellectually interesting, and so creative. No contest.

Do you feel ofended because someone says that homosexuality is a sin? Where have you been? God said it and that settles it!!! Believe it or not, it is a sin, and God hates it. There is good news for you: God loves you!

We all sin.

The key is to choose ones like masturbation, instead of murder.

I sin against Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Mithra, Jehova, Yaweh, Jesus, Allah ... I sin against all the gods.

At least that's what all their followers tell me.

So don't get too excited if you think I'm sinning against your god too. And by the way, while you're busy licking his boot, could you tell him I said to shove it?

Thanks, you christians are good people, I was sure you tell him for me.

Christianity creates the word sin and claims that it has the only cure for it. It's like having the guy who stabbed you stitch you up.

Christianity is bronze-age nonsense meant to control mindless sheep. What's with "gods" obsession with foreskin? It's everywhere in the bible. Why in 2011 are we still tethered to these barbaric bigoted fantasies? Time to grow up people.

Sin... so is smoking, drinking and going to the movies, and dancing with people in a "sexy" way. Big deal. Not a reason to outlaw love, and not a reason to send your pastors to Africa/Uganda to agitate them to put us to death. You evangelicals have WAYYY overstepped your "freedom to believe". Leave me alone.

Huckabee defense of their intolerance is to pretend Christianity is the victim in that others would deny them the freedom of speech. This is not the issue at all even though there are those who try to use it as a distraction by parroting the tactics of Rove, Fox News and Limbaugh.

This guy can say anything he wants. No one is denying this. The real threat to free speech are those theocons who say no one can disagree with him or express the opinion he is simply ignorant.

This is not news - the fact that Christianity, as outlined by the Old and New Testaments, considers homosexuality a sin is old news. ALL the world's major religions state the same.

Despite the desperate attempts to re-write the Bible (as expressed above) or bash Christians as hateful, the Bible states clearly that only sex between a husband and wife is acceptable. Anyone who has had sex outside marriage is a sinner - no one worse than another. Sin means "missing the mark of God's will for what is best for us".

Having said all that, the only choice a Minister has today is how to convey this fact - with love and compassion or by bashing someone for something they struggle with. This Minister chooses to focus on God's love and compassion for ALL us sinners (and we ALL are). Attacking this man for simply stating what the Bible has stated is childish.

Times change, the Bible does not. At the end of the day, as a Christian my job is to love God and ALL His kids. A person's sin is between them and God. I love first and judge last, if at all. Do not blame the messenger because the message doesn't fit into America's "it's all good" popular morality. Our view of what is good for us changes with the time, God might know a little bit more than us.

We can focus on an unpopular part of the Bible or Jesus' overarching message of PLEASE LOVE EVERYONE BECAUSE I LOVE YOU ALL SO MUCH - the choice is ours. God is love, and just like our physical fathers He has some rules He wants us to live by to ensure our safety and growth and happiness - there is nothing mean about any of it - whether we agree or not.

An interesting scientific finding sheds light on the origin of morality and therefore sin in religion. The finding is that many of the things that have harmed man in the past have resulted in him becoming disgusted with these things and this disgust has saved his life. In all cultures people look with disgust on things such as eating or handling certain things, skin infections in humans, bodily secretions, etc. The people who restrained themselves to only necessary contact with such things were less likely to die of disease. Homosexuality of course brings a person into contact with fecal matter and perhaps even sexually transmitted diseases to a degree greater than heterosexual sex. The people more disgusted by homosexuality and loose heterosexual practices were more likely to survive and have children and therefore today the disgust of the survivors is transformed into correct moral practice. To this very day contact with disgusting things increases risk of disease. Homosexuality might not be a sin, but it falls into the spectrum of things that have harmed man in the past and therefore disgusts and even harms him (AIDS) to the present day.

May God bless all you evangelical homophobes with a gay child or grandchild to open your closed, cold hearts. It worked for your Lord Cheney so there's hope for you, too.

"Libertarians, they would let widows, orphans, fend for themselves, maybe go begging with tin cups, depend on charity."

Is there something wrong with Charity?

I'm a Libertarian and also a Christian. I believe we have the duty to help our fellow man. I don't believe I have the right to put a gun to someone's head and force them to help as well.

As for putting my money where my mouth is? Well, I gave more money, in absolute terms, to charity than Biden and more, as a percentage of my income, than Obama. And I am chastized for being against government mandated welfare?

I'd love to not pay nearly half of my income to the government. Just think of all the GOOD I could do with that amount.

I find it interesting that Quinn's question was whether Osteen should wade into politics, yet, if I read the article correctly, he answered a direct question. Is Quinn suggesting that he shouldn't have answered the question?

I also find it fascinating that those who espouse tolerance of everyone and everything sure don't seem very tolerant of someone who answers a direct question differently than they would.

Since it has been Statistically and Scientifically Proven (via Psychology) that

IF Being/Feeling "GAY" or having "HOMOSEXUAL" tendencies is a matter of CHOICE THEN

ANY "Faith-Based" CHURCH/Synagogue/Mosque/Temple etc..) who once upon a time Did Not Recognize the "SAME-SEX" thing, but have/has had a change of Heart and does so Embrace them now; [then] that same Church should ALSO Recognize "PRO-CHOICE" Folks or Be So via change of JESUS's Heart of course OR bend the Good Book in order to Allow ABORTION same like Allowing/Recognizing PRO-CHOICE in Homosexuality. Aye?

SEX is NOt LOVE. LIFE IS! Therefore: Sacred "MARRIAGE" is between A [REAL] MAN and and a [Real] WOM!
___________________________________________

THEORY: Mass Homosexual-Tendencies, thoughts or Actions are Not Innate. There are Gays and Homosexuals Because there are Too Many People (in a Village, City etc..) roaming here. You Will Always, In Proportion to Population growth, will always Have that many Extra-Homosexual/Gay persons or Activities.

Note: Homosexuality can be Taught to a Potential Straight but who gets pressured or led astray once into it.

Note: SAME SEX couples who ADOPT kids are most likely also going to influence or become (Unnecessarily) GAY etc..
___________________________________________

Note: "TRANSVESTITY" is something that "NATURE" makes a mistake with. i.e., Implanting a MALE in a Females Body or Female in a Mans Bod; Or Conjoined-Twins, or those with Cleft Lips, extra limbs etc..
But

Natural TRANSVESTITY" {No Choice] is Not same as SELF serving "HOMOSEXUALISM" [By CHOICE]. So again, SAME-SEX marriage is Anti-Humanity, Anti-Family Behavior.

Transvestites is understandable now, but NOt Same-Sex cooocheeo-Pooochyites! WHEREFORE:

SEX IS NOT LOVE! LiFE iS! Soo,

Thank "IT" Did Not Make i[WE] a Transvestite! Note: Some Scripture say, "Thank G-d" did not make me a WOMman. or a MAN?" [Similar] OYE...!

who wrote the bible? men. so they editorialized and put in their own opinions. who knows who said what all those years ago. being homosexual is not a sin.

Mr. Osteen got it wrong if he is quoted correctly in this article. Homosexuality is not a sin in the sense of knowing that one is attracted to someone of the same sex. The practice of engaging in sexual intercourse with someone of the same sex is a sin along with a great number of other sexual sins. I am also a Christian pastor who believes that Mr. Osteen preaches the heresy of the "prosperity gospel" which the book of Job in the Old Testament contradicts. However, I would not refer to the Old Testament as my reference for speaking against the practice of homosexuality. Rather, I would refer to Acts 15:19-21 and Romans 1:18 and following verses where all human beings are called to live a life that is holy; Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) alike. As you read further in Romans, the Apostle Paul describes God's great love for humanity and God's desire for all people to believe that Jesus died for our sins, rose from the dead and will return for the Church at God's appointed time. I would agree with Mr. Osteen that the practice of homosexuality is a sin among many sins. It is also not a sin which harms others to the extent that murder, rape, child molestation, etc. do other than one's partner. I think that the sins of war, allowing hunger to go unabated, failing to care for children who are abused/neglected, loving money more than people are greater sins in that these things harm others.

THINKF1RST wrote:
...Paul's letter to the Romans...A person with same-sex attraction should remain celebate in order to live according to the teachings of the Apostles (and, by extension, Christ), there is no way around that.

Hope this helps.
----------------------------
Actually if you read and understand Paul, you know that Paul has problems with sex period. If you are going to do it anyway, he indicates that you should get married.

So if you think about it, and don't allow your various and sundry phobias to get in the way, Paul would condone same sex marriage.

The Bible clearly denounces homosexuality as a sin. All major religions viewed it as a sin until recently some major religions (Episcopal) stopped being religions and became a politically correct social clubs instead.

The major religions have found the truth. The broad acceptance of homosexuality leads inevitably to the redefinition of marriage into nothingness. And without male-female marriage as the foundation, there goes our civilization Here comes skyrocketing rates of unwed motherhood and nearly 4 in 10 Americans seeing that marriage no longer means anything.

It's there plain in the bible and if he is a real preacher, he must relay what the bible says. I agree Christians tend to focus too much on sins they dont possess or understand and there are plenty of other sins we are all guilty of. Stop bashing the preachers for speaking the biblical truth. But you will never find an instance where Jesus bashed a sinner. He offered them grace over their sins. That's the difference bw God and mankind. We are imperfect mortals incapable of that kind of abiding love.

There are plenty of sins that the Christian right is just fine with (e.g., adultery, greed, abusing the yound by refusing them health care and decent food, covering up child abuse by priests, theft of all forms to include defrauding medicare as done by the new Florida governor, lying as done often by M. Bachman represntative from MN, drug use and adultery and other sex sins as practiced by Christian clergy, and on and on and on.

Joel is telling it correctly. Homosexuality is a sin and that is what is says in the Bible. Nothing more need be said.

The home page headline: Homosexuality 'a sin'?
On Faith | Known for his focus on uplifting messages, megapastor Joel Osteen breaches a controversial topic on CNN.

Did you mean "broach"?

Joel's comments are well taken and well thought out. Homosexuality in the conext of biblical teaching is a very difficult topic to address. Adultery is specifically mentioned in the Ten Commandments. The sin comes in the behavior, not the inclination. If preachers want to help their congregations, they'll stick to sound biblical teachings and leave the judging to God.

The reality of a preponerance of biblical teaching, especially in the New Testament, deals with material issues. Malachi is very pointed in this respect.

People read an anti-capital punishment theme in the Bible. Jesus did not make this an issue with the two thieves on the cross. But Jesus did preach that there were two commandments that derived from the Ten, thus the essence of the Law.

It is the Authority of the Church that attracts people to the Church. The people want answers to questions that otherwise don't have answers. Modern understanding of sexuality doesn't judge homosexuality harshly. Sexuality occurs naturally on a spectrum across which individuals vary in their attraction to either sex. This adds complexity and ambiguity, which people don't like. Better to adopt the Church's view, criticize as sinful those who don't fit the recommended paradigm, and live happily ever after. Just don't covet thy neighbor's donkey.

I've watched a few of Joel's sermons. He has a good, positive attitude. As for what's a "sin" and what isn't? I'm not so sure there's a bright line.

Oh how I despise these charlatans.

You can support homosexuality all you want, and you can assert the ridiculous claim the author states that to voice an opinion against homosexuality is hateful, but there is a standard, not written in a "holy" book that shows us very clearly that homosexuality is wrong: evolution. Also know as natural selection. Oh my god yes. Homosexuality serves no purpose in natural selection or in maintaining the species. It is a dead end. Why do we have marriage and give so many financial benefits to married couples? Because they are raising the next generation of children. Our children are our future. Why should we give that benefit to people who have no desire to continue the process of evolution? Evolution cannot be denied. You can't pass a law, such as marriage for homosexuals, to get around evolution. Evolution is a process such that if you do not adapt you do not survive. A society that wastes what little resources it has on things that do not promote the prolongation of species is doomed. You can't fight Mother nature, aka evolution.

If homosexuals are selected out by natural selection, why do they keep showing up?

Really, you bible kooks should stick to what you know, the horesht masquerading as knowledge in your bible.

Elmer Gantry ring a bell?

Homosexuality is a sin, and so is lust. Osteen says "men are visual", but if I have a lust problem that does not excuse me, all sin is hateful to God.

If you want to see a good example of a Christian pastor, look at Billy Graham. He has the love of Jesus around him more than anyone I've seen in a powerful way. He is not just being a nice open minded guy giving common sense ideas, behind his kind and gentle demeanor, the more I have studied the Bible, I see that this man took his studies very seriously, he was a passionate and fiercely hard working man most of his life, the calm and gentle thing should not be confused, Billy Graham is an awesome witness to the love and power of Jesus. Some of the other mega pastors get into the Bible, but they overintellectualize it, there is no replacement for a close personal and honest relationship with Jesus Christ that you see with Billy Graham, Jesus loves everyone and with Graham you can see it is not just a nice guy act, it is powerful.

Joel Osteen has shown himself to be a fool on a hill. He displays himself to be an enlightened deliverer of the word of God, but has shown himself to be clueless of what I see to be the true spirit and teachings of Christ. I see him now as a mouthpiece of a cult, of which doctrine he speaks. As a child, I was beaten and abused because of the fact that I was born gay. As a teenager, I was brutally attacked and almost murdered because of the fact that my attacker hated the fact that I was born gay. Misguided understanding and teachings by people who have raised themselves up into the public spotlight like Joel Osteen contributes to the suffering of children who are born into the world the way I was. We are not in competition with heterosexual people, we are simply trying to live our lives the way Christ called us to live our lives, fully and abundantly, and the way we were innocently born into this world. While we, like all others, may partake in sinful ways, our sexualtiy is not our sin. Our desire is to live, love, and prosper like anyone else. I consider people like Joel Osteen to be both liars and thieves, who bear false witness against us. It is telling that religious cult leaders, no matter what their ilk, are unwilling to see beyond their religious cult's teachings, and it is innocent people who suffer because of those ignorant and biased teachings. I hope he enjoys his material wealth, because his ignorance has damaged many innocent people. Christ is so much more beautiful and understanding than people like Joel Osteen.

As it looks, it seems like the reason why it is in the forefront isn't because Christians always bring it up but rather the people who ask the questions keep bringing it up.

Christians believe drug addictions is a sin against the body but are they called drugaphobics? Or do people ask them "Is shooting up drugs a sin?"

When was Joel Osteen asked "Is prostitution a sin?" or "I lying on your tax returns a sin?" or "Is disrespecting your parents a sin?"

I think, as I look at all the comments, there is more Christophobia than anything else.

Rongoklunk : Well apparently 2.2 billion people need it world wide compared to 1.1 billion (atheists/secularists). you've got a ways to go my friend to overtake the beleivers. But hey what do numbers mean, Jesus' message was everybit as powerful when he had 12 followers as it is now 2,000 years later with 2.2 billion. I count myself as one of it. You are free to not beleive in everything. you can view it as mythical. I personally know different. This modernist view of the world has no bearing either on the veracity of my faith. Frankly, as we believers see it, thats a trick(apparently its working) of the devil to convince people hey we don't need that ancient religion, it couldnt have grapsed how enlightened we are now.If thats the case why does the Bible, 2,000 years ago specifically warn against thinking one is more enlightened than God(i.e. the same arguments you and others use today? The fundamental nature of mankind has not changed since then. There were those back then who thought they "knew better" and Im sure there will be more in the future. Doesnt mean they are correct. I was only slightly amused by the recent clip from an upcoming exorcist type movie with Anthony Hopkins where he says "the devil's greatest feat was convincing the world he didn't exist." To me the more amazing thing(and I think you would even agree with me in a different way) is that 2,000 years later not only do people still cling to it, the numbers have actually grown exponentially. Duration has had no dimming effect on the message of the Gospel. Jesus walked this earth, few doubt that. Whether you beleive he was the son of God thats another matter. I dont know if I were an outsider such as yourself, I wouldnt be so quick to cast away something as gibberish that continues to grow, has actual historical roots. We're not talking about Zeus who no one ever saw.Once again you do not have to beleive it, but to suggest its foolishness, borders on foolishness itself.

With such an "abundant" life - how much is shared with the poor?

While he may have been trapped into the topic by Mr. Morgan, his response seemed less about being "christian and accepting" and more about ensuring more abundance continues into the coffers.

Love is love - turn the page!

Being in Texas and having that humungous megacongregation, most of whom probably call themselves "compassionate" "conservative" "born-again" "Christians," and many of whom are probably also Republican politicians, Joel Osteen would serve them and America and the world well if he were to point out that in Jesus' own words, they have enthusiastically condemned themselves to the fires of hell everlasting, per Matthew 25:

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Jesus himself never said a word about same-sex relationships. St. Paul, who never knew Jesus during his own life and who couldn't get along with the disciples who actually DID know Jesus, didn't really believe that straight people should have sex either and, very strangely for that time and place, was never able to find a woman, ANY woman, desperate enough to marry him. I have no idea why anybody would consider St. Paul a role model for anything.

One thing in Mr. Osteen's favor is that,as far as I know, unlike the other Elmer Gantries out there, he has not actively preached hate and bias in order to enrich himself and gain more status.

Sigh... Osteen is clearly new to the topic... and should stick to his uplifting vision.

Christian scripture does NOT condemn the condition or the person but the BEHAVIOR ! Not the person but the gay sex acts - (Lev. Romans, I Cor)

This may seem a small distinction but even the Catholic Church ordains openly gay Priests provided they commit to celibacy.

Furthermore, Christian teaching from Jesus to St.Paul offer redemption and forgiveness to ALL who have sinned... yes even gay people ! (see I Cor)

Unfortunately for atheists and liberal Christians such things are beyond comprehension despite being part of Christian, Jewish and Islamic theology for centuries.

A liberal education is such a waste.

The real sin is thinking that you're called upon to explain what some mythical personality does or does not define as sin. Ever heard of hubris? BTW, I like the comment that said he'll be caught with his pants down in a gay affair shortly :-)

By the end of the Civil War, the Protestant churches in the United States had split into Northern and Southern factions over the issue of slavery. Proslavery clergymen could cite biblical references that sanctioned slavery and particularly the enslaving of the black race. The primary citation was Genesis 9:25-27, in which Noah, upset over an indiscretion of his son Ham, who was supposed to be black, cursed all the descendants of Ham's son Canaan. They were to be slaves for eternity and were to serve the other six-sevenths of the population.

Mr. Osteen's thoughts on homosexuality will look as absurd as the above thoughts on slavery do today. I pity him.

"Prosperity gospel"? Osteen's definitely big league when it comes to making himself prosperous, but his message is delivered in a fashion that's a bit too bland and evasive for my taste. If you want some unvarnished, shameless, old-time prosperity gospel, you need to go back to Reverend Ike. If you prayed to God (and donated some cash to the Rev) then God would deliver on the Rev's promise that you could "be what you want to be, do what you want to do, have what you want to have". The Rev would probably scare off Osteen's flock, but he was a lot more up-front about his message.

So when did Osteen become a Homosexual..?

Must be having a hard time coming to terms with it..!

Maybe he is afraid to get burned at the stake by his own people.

Doomsday is coming. In the aftermath, you can check which places were destroyed.

Being an ignorant prick is a sin. So is fleecing your followers for money. Joel Osteen knows nothing of God.

Australia elected an ATHEIST Prime Minister. I think it will be a downward spiral for them for months to come. More flooding perhaps?

It has been over 60 years since science showed that the results of personality tests administered to gay men were indistinguishable from those administered to straight males. Gays-- especially out gays-- are perfectly functional in society. Addicts, criminals and mentally disordered people are not.

Old-time religions despised homosexuality for the same reason they despised wasting semen: it was daunting enough to build human population, without having reproductive capacity wasted. Today, this is no longer a concern. Quite the opposite!

According to the Bible, the number of words that Jesus spoke against homosexuality is less than the number of people shot by Dick Cheney.

edallan: You might want to start with "Judge not lest ye be judged", which is what you are doing of Osteen even though he in his own words is not judging.Matt 7:1. What does your long diatribe about feeding the hungry have to do with anything? His church members spend time and money dollars on feeding programs and clothing programs and missions programs for the poor. Look it up, its there.OOPS

"Jesus himself never said a word about same-sex relationships. St. Paul, who never knew Jesus during his own life and who couldn't get along with the disciples who actually DID know Jesus, didn't really believe that straight people should have sex either and, very strangely for that time and place, was never able to find a woman, ANY woman, desperate enough to marry him. I have no idea why anybody would consider St. Paul a role model for anything."

First Jesus didnt have to say anything about homosexuality it was already written, it was clear to the people of the time. He said "Do not think I have come to abolish the laws of Moses(homosexuality included) I have come to fulfill them." Matt 5:17 He was in support of them. Paul chose intentionally to live a single life so that he could spend more time preaching the Gospel(he traveled the region, frequently imprisoned, persecuted) he argued that was no life for a family man. Paul simply supported the written laws of Moses and the others who came before him.

You know that the Democrat Party is on its way to extinction by its full support to homosexuality.

After Doomsday, I doubt if one can hear from it again.

Yet another parasite (the priest & preacher class) has shown his true colors. he is another bigoted huckster.

EEZMAMATA stated: "If homosexuals are selected out by natural selection, why do they keep showing up?"

The answer is simple. Why does cancer show up? Why do genetic variations that are not conducive to a productive life show up? Because evolution is constantly trying things. It is all random. If left to its own, and not interfered with, the these traits will die out. But if we interfere, and use our valuable resources to support them, then that effects the others who could and should use those resources. That is my point. Defending a trait that doesn't serve to prolongate the species is folly.

EEZMAMATA also stated: "Really, you bible kooks should stick to what you know, the horesht masquerading as knowledge in your bible." That comment can only be described as offensive. Please EEZMAMATA, show me where it talks about evolution in the bible. Please, share your vast knowledge with us on that.

The idiotic president told congress that for America to be constantly firST is to out-educate, outbuild other cuontries.

WRONG IDIOT.

Being Godly is the key. God is the one who decides who is to rule the world.

China can very easily out-educate and outbuild America but it is not destined to rule the world because they don't know God.

If they seem to be on the top now, it's because despite their atheistic image, they live more Godly than most liberal Democrats in America.

They don't legalize stupidity like homosexuality unlike in America.

Dear detroitblkmale30,

I was not judging Joel Osteen; indeed, I said that as far as I know he has not been as scummy as most televangelists.

However, it IS true that I was presenting my opinion on what I believe to be his characteristic audience member, and that opinion is that based on their actions, Jesus proclaimed them self-damned to hell forever. (I'm not sure that that is a nice thing for a purportedly loving God to do, but Jesus is supposed to be his son and presumably has inside information.)

I think that somehow you seem to have missed the assaults on America's safety net perpetrated over the past decade, on the federal and state level, by the members of the Republican Party, with the funds taken from the sick, the cold, the hungry, the aged being diverted instead to further enrich the super-rich and the attacks by the GOP on the rights of workers.

I assume that you also object to the "abominations" of bacon cheeseburgers, clam chowder (whether New England style or Manhattan style), permanent press clothing, and intercropping. And I presume you also believe that childless widows of any troops killed in combat should be expected to marry a brother-in-law, and that said brother-in-law should certainly be expected to marry his brother's widow.

With respect to St. Paul, presumably you are saying that he hadn't gotten married before his conversion on the way to Damascus because he was concentrating on persecuting proto-Christians. Be that as it may, even casual reading of his letters makes it clear that he didn't really approve of heterosexual marriage either.

Fair enough, my apologies for the judging comment. I am also with you on the eroding of the safety net. Im very aware of that and concerned about it being someone who has benefitted from past safety nets. Im not opposed to the redeemer the brother thing in law thing, although its not really practical in today's world. With regards to the food restrictions those were Jewish dietary customs that are not required of us Gentiles, so we're all safe on that food, good thing because I love clam chowder and bacon. Moral laws however such as the ten commandments and similar codes of conduct apply to everyone in the Biblical view. Paul approved of marriage for others. He does say he thinks it would be more productive for the ministry of the Kingdom, if they were not to marry, but says basically if you must marry then go ahead. That's different than saying "don't get married."

Why are you Huckabees so concerned about what other people do? Did your small and shallow god deputize you to prosecute, judge and condemn others? May we see your badges, please?

If you think homosexuality is a sin, don't do it. But don't think the Bible trumps the Constitution (yet) and stop trying to jam your own cherry-picked "morals" down the rest of our throats. Go primp, pose, pretend, pray and pimp poor old Jesus with your own on Sunday (it's your Constitutional right) but leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Although I'm not religious, I deeply respect the position of liberal and moderate Christians who point out that the Bible is not about sex but about possessions and how one treats people less fortunate than one's self.

I would like to see Tenety and the other panelists tackle this question - why are so many of the megapastors and televangelists who preach the "prosperity gospel" the same ones who condemn homosexuality?

"I've always believed Pierce the scriptures show that homosexuality is a sin. But I'm not one of those who is out there to bash homosexuals and tell them that they're terrible people and all of that."

That is either disingenuousness or blindness on Osteen's part. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is nowhere in scripture. When a public figure proclaims homosexuality to be sinful, no matter what caveats he or she tries to throw in, the logical conclusion is that gays are sinners and therefore bad people. Osteen's statement is not as bad as some of the hateful demagoguery practiced by colleagues like James Dobson, who claims that young boys showering with their dads will keep them from turning gay. Still, what Osteen is doing is inciting people and then pretending that his words don't have consequences.

"For you atheists out there, if I'm wrong about Jesus and heaven, no problem. If your wrong and die then..oh boy!"

Yes, believe in my God, because he'll torture you forever if you don't! If you're a decent, kind, loving person, but don't have the right thoughts, or if you're raised in the "wrong" faith and never go against what your parents and teachers told you was true when you were little, or if you fall in love with someone with the "wrong" genitals and want to build a committed, monogamous life and a loving family with them, then beware, because God will burn you alive forever and ever in horrible, unimaginable pain, and I'll cheer him on, fawn on him, and flatter him while he tortures you!

Yes, that so speaks to me of the morality of Christianity and the compassionate love of your God. Now remind me again why I should worship the guy who burns my friends forever and ever even though they tried as best they could to live a moral life by the rules they were given?

Is it OK for humans to torture someone because they guessed wrong about which religious beliefs were correct? Then why is it OK for God, who is supposed to follow a higher moral standard than we are?

As for homosexuality, any God who deems love a sin because the person you fall in love with has the wrong dangly bits makes no logical or moral sense to me.

And I resent being labeled as "immoral" or "lacking in moral standards" by people who deny their duty as intelligent beings to sensibly and rationally develop and evaluate their moral code, instead of just lazily assuming that everything preached in the particular set of holy books they were raised in or converted to is true. I resent being lectured on morality by people who believe that humans' only moral task is to find the "right" set of words to recite and the "right" god to believe in, and that any hurt they inflict on their fellow beings is either justified by their holy book or will be forgiven them at the end of time because they recited the right words and believed the right things about God.

"If they seem to be on the top now, it's because despite their atheistic image, they live more Godly than most liberal Democrats in America."

Yep, it's Godly to torture people and imprison them for having a picture of the Dalai Lama, or daring to criticize their government. It's MORAL to force women to have abortions against their will. It's PURE RELIGIOUS LOVE to keep someone in prison for "crimes" which the rest of the world deems worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.

But of course, that's characteristic of Spidermean's vicious god. You just sit there and enjoy yourself anticipating how happy and self-righteous you will feel, watching the vast majority of the human population being tortured in unimaginable agony in Hell. The rest of us see quite clearly where your sort of morality leads, and what sort of demonic "god" would preach it.

"Why does cancer show up? Why do genetic variations that are not conducive to a productive life show up? Because evolution is constantly trying things. It is all random. If left to its own, and not interfered with, the these traits will die out. But if we interfere, and use our valuable resources to support them, then that effects the others who could and should use those resources. That is my point. Defending a trait that doesn't serve to prolongate the species is folly."

Cancer very frequently shows up after a person's reproductive life is complete, and has little effect on their reproductive fitness. Besides which, cancer is also affected by the modern diet and modern chemical pollution, which have not been around long enough to have much evolutionary effect.

Other genetic variations that go against natural selection tend to show up in the population at only very small rates, about the mutation rate or not much higher. There are more gay people in the population - and always have been - than would be explainable by mere mutation rates. Thus, having genes for homosexual behavior at a substantial minority level in the population must have either a positive or neutral effect on the fitness of those who have them.

It might, for example, be that gay folks help their straight kin raise children, passing on their genes that way. In a species with so much investment needed for child-rearing, that can be a real benefit and can really contribute to kin-group survival.

It might also be a side effect of selection for bisexuality, which allows group members to form stronger bonds with other group members of both sexes. One of our two closest relatives, the bonobo, takes this rather to extremes - they're 100% bisexual, and regularly use sex to smooth group relations, avoid conflict, and build affectionate communities. (Their communities are far less violent and their individual members thus far less prone to injury than the other chimp species, which does not use bisexuality in the same way.)

Anyway, we humans have no trouble propagating our species. As a group, we're probably more threatened by overpopulation than underpopulation, and for our own survival, should probably be using conscious reason as only humans can, to counter our naturally-selected urge to favor reproduction as much as possible. Natural selection is neither perfect nor inevitably moral - it sometimes leaves creatures stranded in unsurvivable circumstances when their environment changes (as ours has, now that most of our kids reach adulthood). We are one of the few species intelligent enough to be able to counter this, and adjust ourselves to our new situation for the good of the species as opposed to the individual. Let's hope we can do that.

"The answer is simple. Why does cancer show up? Why do genetic variations that are not conducive to a productive life show up?"

NewsJunkie, that's not quite the answer. There are theories that homosexuality is an adaptation to deal with population stress, activated at an early age whenever the hormonal influences from other members of the species are great enough, although this is obviously not conclusive.

"But if we interfere, and use our valuable resources to support them, then that effects the others who could and should use those resources. That is my point. Defending a trait that doesn't serve to prolongate the species is folly."

"But if we interfere, and use our valuable resources to support them, then that effects the others who could and should use those resources. That is my point. Defending a trait that doesn't serve to prolongate the species is folly."

Only if one assumes that procreation is the highest good regardless of the circumstances. (I'm not arguing that procreation is bad, but simply questioning the assumption.) The procreation argument is faulty because it doesn't distinguish between homosexuality and straight infertility, or even between that and a simple lack of desire to procreate. In fact, a few decades ago a woman who didn't want children was deemed to be mentally ill.

I hope the "valuable resources" comment isn't intended to suggest that gays should be exiled on islands to fend for themselves.

Does anyone actually take what Joel Osteen says seriously? The man comes across as almost as trustworthy as a patent medicine salesman.

"It's MORAL to force women to have abortions against their will."
_______________________________________

Despite being a Christian, I would agree that criminalizing abortion is probably not the best course of action for us to take. We need to attack the issue from a public service/educational perspective. Speak to the hearts and minds of those that might be faced with such a dilemma before a decision has to be made.

But is it MORAL to teach young people that accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions is not necessary when the consequences are undesirable?

"Defending a trait that doesn't serve to prolongate the species is folly."

I suppose newsjunkie feels we should prevent people with known genetic defects from procreating.

Finally, we can get rid of the problem of treating all those people with sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Huntington's chorea, and other such genetic diseases that don't kill people off before they live long enough to procreate.

Why do you think people might respond in an offensive manner when you say such an offensive thing?

" assume that you also object to the "abominations" of bacon cheeseburgers, clam chowder (whether New England style or Manhattan style), permanent press clothing, and intercropping. And I presume you also believe that childless widows of any troops killed in combat should be expected to marry a brother-in-law, and that said brother-in-law should certainly be expected to marry his brother's widow"
__________________________________________

And I would assume that you were unaware, under Christian doctrine, that the "rules" stated in Leviticus were for a specific time and place? That the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ served as a bridge from the Old (Leviticus) to the New?

Don't move until you see it.

Tell us GLOBALONE, which Old Testament Rules were superseded by Jesus rules?

Tell us also how so many of you christians don't seem to be able to agree on which rules were and which were not.

Considering so many of you don't agree, why should the rest of us who aren't christian not consider the worst case, I mean the old testament is FULL of evil things done to people who weren't 'chosen' ... why should we expect there aren't among your kind the same kind of evil people that did these things?

UNCREVJ,

Based strictly on your post, I find it difficult to believe that you are a Christian pastor. In fact, I don't believe it at all.

First, "ranking" sins is completely arbitrary and counter to anything Biblical on the subject. Honestly, this is a typical comment from someone who is not of the faith.

Second, segregating homosexuality into thought vs. physical is an absurd notion. The entire Biblical story, specifically in Genesis, falls flat with an acceptance of homosexuality. The story simply ceases to exist. (Unless, of course, you don't believe in Adam and/or Eve).

The heart of ALL religion is a matter of faith, not provable fact. (Find an astrophysicist that has published peer-reviewed evidence supporting the opening lines of Genesis which state the earth was here before the sun). Considering the lack of proof that all religions navigate, you would think religious folk would come to the table with a lot more humility than what is normally extended when it comes to viewing social issues through the lens of religion. Homosexuality being a "sin" is right up there with the earth being the center of the universe and the sun revolving our planet.

So it's christian policy that homosexuality is a sin, among other things people do.

Fine, you're allowed to believe whatever ridiculous things your religion tells you to believe, in fact the first amendment guarantees you the right to believe ridiculous things.

So for the most part the rest of us don't really care what you believe, it is after all your business to choose such things.

Where we disagree is your habitual never ending demand on everybody, including all of us who don't believe what you believe, that your christian policy be made public policy.

You only vote for politicians who pander to your beliefs, so we end up having to resist your attempts to oppress everybody else with your christian policy.

In fact, it becomes a habit.

So give it a shot once. You can promote your ridiculous beliefs all you like, take out ads in the paper and on billboards, stand on the corner with your 'the world is ending' cardboard sign ... whatever. Stop trying to force the rest of us to live the life you force on yourself ... you'd be surprised at how quickly we ignore you, how little attention we pay to what you believe.

So far, you can't seem to do that. So we argue with what you believe as a means to KEEP YOUR STINKING nose out of our business!

Vesmir,

Sad reflection of life when one only views it from a "provable" lens. Not much room for "love" in that space.

Agreed with respect to humility. It is something that all mankind needs more of.

"You only vote for politicians who pander to your beliefs"
__________________________________________

LOL. Didn't realize that this was strictly the domain of Christians. I assumed that most people voted for the person/party that might benefit them the most or are more aligned with their beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. Go figure.

"You only vote for politicians who pander to your beliefs"
__________________________________________

LOL. Didn't realize that this was strictly the domain of Christians. I assumed that most people voted for the person/party that might benefit them the most or are more aligned with their beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. Go figure.

"Tell us GLOBALONE, which Old Testament Rules were superseded by Jesus rules?"
__________________________________________

Given time/space constraints, I will sum it up with one well known verse from Scripture (caps for effect):

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVE in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

"But is it MORAL to teach young people that accepting responsibility or accountability for their actions is not necessary when the consequences are undesirable?"

I was referring to Spidermean's statement that China, which forces abortions on women, is more moral than we are. I presume you do not agree with forcing women to have abortions?

You may argue all you please that nine months of being inhabited by and owned by another person, with permanent mental, emotional and physical consequences (including some that are possibly quite dire indeed, such as permanent mutilation or death), is appropriate punishment for a woman not being a virgin, however she may have lost that virginity. (Though never for men - somehow men may be as promiscuous as they like and no one suggests that their wishing nonetheless to retain ultimate ownership of their own bodies is irresponsible or selfish.)

But surely we can agree that forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is in fact not moral?

"LOL. Didn't realize that this was strictly the domain of Christians. I assumed that most people voted for the person/party that might benefit them the most or are more aligned with their beliefs, spiritual or otherwise. Go figure."

There are no out in the open atheist politicians (Bernie Sanders is questionable) because you christians won't vote for atheists.

Yet we vote for christians all the time. You're a bunch of bigots. Go ahead and LOL you like, but you types want politicians to enact laws that implement your christian policy on everybody, including people who don't want it.

That is as fundamentally against the constitution as anything anybody ever does. It's treachery, but since there's more of you than not of you you're getting away with it.

Given time/space constraints, I will sum it up with one well known verse from Scripture (caps for effect):

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever BELIEVE in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

POSTED BY: GLOBALONE | JANUARY 26

You have said absolutely nothing, other than your standard christian non-answer crap.

It's nice to know that not only do you christians worship a god that practices child sacrifice, but you also worship the corpse resulting from that sacrifice.

If you weren't so virulently infected with this religious nonsense you would be appalled at the truths of your religious beliefs.

And what about it, are you one of those people who eat the flesh and drink the blood of that corpse too?

You people are truly sick.

"The entire Biblical story, specifically in Genesis, falls flat with an acceptance of homosexuality. The story simply ceases to exist. (Unless, of course, you don't believe in Adam and/or Eve)."

So the scientific evidence that homosexuality is normal, natural, hurts no one, and leaves gay people happy, well adjusted, and able to function in society quite well, is less important to you than the fact that you'd have to give up your prize myth.

When facts and observed evidence contradict your story, why do you cling to your story and assume it must be your eyes and ears and understanding that are wrong?

(Assuming, of course, that the existence of homosexuality invalidates the Genesis story, and I don't quite see how that works. Of course, the multiple methods we have of dating the earth and the stars and the universe, the fossil record and the genetic evidence of relationship-ties between species, etc., etc., do quite well at invalidating Genesis's creation story/ies anyway.)

Joel is a Pastor so I expect him to stand with the word of God and not his personal opinion.

Pastor Osteen: Don't be afraid to talk about homosexuality as sin-because that's what it is. God created a man and a woman-had He wanted it any other way, He would not have created Eve. He would have created another man instead. Many just don't understand that God asks us to be true to our identity as a male or female. That's the way He created us in the womb. Is it possible that for some, identifying themselves as male or female is difficult? Yes, I believe that it's hard for some to associate themselves with their body parts, when they might be feeling something totally different. However, that's where prayer and counseling come in. In my Diocese, there is a group of homosexuals who support one another, but they have to promise to remain celebate (no perverse relations). We need to honor and respect what God has given us, giving Him the best version of ourselves that we possibly can. Amen!

One does not need gaydar to wonder if Osteen doth protest too much.

How entertaining the intolerant lemmings of Abrahamic religions use their cherry-picked scriptures to make their arguments as if they delusionally believe these have any credibility with or authority over the rest of us. It's like tea......., uh, tea party bigots referencing Fox News, the Rasmussen Report or Limbaugh to make their points with others who aren't "true believers" of this hateful, right-wing propaganda.

AREYOUSAYING... it seems like your statements are hateful, left wing propaganda.

Can you make more reasonable points that are empirical and verifiable?

The real sin is Osteen living large on the backs of the gullible.

"Assuming, of course, that the existence of homosexuality invalidates the Genesis story, and I don't quite see how that works"
_________________________________________

Eve was formed from Adam. And despite what most Bibles mistranslate, she was not formed from his "rib", but rather was created as the complement (I would argue the "perfect" complement) to Adam.

God's perfect and unique qualities were split among Adam and Eve, male & female.

"Man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become one." (Genesis 2:24)

They become "one" because of Adam & Eve.

"but you also worship the corpse resulting from that sacrifice."
__________________________________________

First, to address an earlier point, Christ sacrificed himself so that every man, woman, and child could live. Throughout history, men and women have sacrificed themselves willingly for the sake of children, family, friends, and/or comrades. Christ did it for every human inhabiting the planet.

Also, as an FYI: Christ rose from the dead. There is no corpse. He defeated death. He is the only person to do so. One. I am.

GLOBALONE,

It is utterly bizarre that you would make "provable fact" diametrically opposed with "love."

Those of us capable of acknowledging our commonly shared reality understand that "love" is a universal emotion which has no religious or non-religious barrier.

GLOBALONE, biblical scholars mostly agree that the authors of the new testament never personally witnessed Christ's ministry of his crucifixion. In addition, there is no Roman record of his crucifixion. In short, everything we know about Christ and his life is based on hearsay after the fact. We couldn't convict a shoplifter in court with that standard of evidence; but if you chose to categorize your beliefs as some perceived level of "reality," go right ahead; just do so with the amount of humility that should accompany conviction that is (as with any religion) only based of faith, not fact.

Also, as an FYI: Christ rose from the dead. There is no corpse. He defeated death. He is the only person to do so. One. I am.

POSTED BY: GLOBALONE | JANUARY 26, 2011 9:51 PM

Every cross I've ever seen has a corpse hanging from it, with all you christians worshipping it an praying to it.

That's a corpse on that cross, a bleeding corpse, tortured to death.

You are sick.

Throughout history, men and women have sacrificed themselves willingly for the sake of children, family, friends, and/or comrades

That's right, a mother who loses her only son to war, fighting for his country, for your country, is giving up FAR MORE than some imaginary omnipotent god who could beget 1,000 sons per minute has sacrificed.

Your god in your myths practices child sacrifice. You can't get around that, no matter how many word-dances you do.

You worship a god that killed his son. You worship the corpse on that execution device when you pray to a cross.

It doesn't matter how much crap you spew from your bible, that is what you are doing.

You. Are. Sick.

"The real sin is Osteen living large on the backs of the gullible."

That is usually the charge that people give... as if those who gave had no brains or thinking capacity.

Why do people get upset with what other people do with their money?

I agree with pbhouse, if the morons want to give their money away to a huckster like osteen, who's to say this is wrong?

Yeah, sure, the Osteen is taking advantage of the gullible morons who believe this crap, but that's what they're paying him to do?

I still say, it's like blaming the hooker for having sex with the john. It's the same thing. Leave the morons and the moron-parasites alone.

GLOBALONE, biblical scholars mostly agree that the authors of the new testament never personally witnessed Christ's ministry of his crucifixion. In addition, there is no Roman record of his crucifixion. In short, everything we know about Christ and his life is based on hearsay after the fact. We couldn't convict a shoplifter in court with that standard of evidence; but if you chose to categorize your beliefs as some perceived level of "reality," go right ahead; just do so with the amount of humility that should accompany conviction that is (as with any religion) only based of faith, not fact.

_______________________________________________________________

Not sure where you get your info from. John was present at the cross. Peter saw the beating. Matthew, Mark and Peter were all at the tomb.

There were other eye witnesses. It would stand in the court of law.

And then there were 500 who declared that he lived again which, by simple deduction, means that they knew he had died.

I think your position is more of a personal "I don't believe" statement than you providing any facts.

Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel.

Cain killed Abel.

I've heard that, I've been told that, so tell me, where did the women Cain had sex with come from?

Where?

This is a Big Hole in your remarkably retarded superstition, yet none of you EVER deals with it.

Either Cain had sex with Eve, or Adam or Cain beat off the entire homonid species ...

you people are more stupid than even you know. Why don't you ever ask questions about this crap, how can you believe such utter nonsense?

And then there were 500 who declared that he lived again which, by simple deduction, means that they knew he had died.

And you believe these primitive, barbaric people when they said they saw something?

Remember, they believed the sun and stars and planets revolved around the earth, they believed spirits and demons caused sicknesses and illnesses, they didn't know about bacteria and viruses. They believed in Giants and fairies and talking snakes and talking burning bushes. These same people believed it was ok to stone to death people who didn't believe the same BS you believe.

The people who invented your religion had every reason to lie about what happened, in order to get you fools to believe it.

And so you fools believe it.

Sure, you don't want to admit it, you don't want to look at yourself as being the same kind of fool who believes in Allah, or Mithra, or any of the other gods humanity has believe in -- but you are the same kind of fool.

I agree with pbhouse... morons .... huckster ... gullible... morons ...crap... hooker ....sex with the john.... morons ... moron-parasites

POSTED BY: EEZMAMATA

_____________________________________________

It's great to have people who really dig deep into constructive criticism.

Thanks for the complement PBHOUSE.

:) My pleasure.

PBHOUSE, check your sources. Biblical scholars generally acknowledge the authors of the bible wrote those stories about the participants, but the actual writers/authors never witnessed the events themselves. It's a commonly accepted point of fact by scholars (religious and non-religious alike) that the gospels were not written (or directed) by any of the original disciples they are named after. Paul never met Christ, the man. His claim to fame was a divine apparition of Christ.

Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel.

Cain killed Abel.

I've heard that, I've been told that, so tell me, where did the women Cain had sex with come from?

Where?

_________________________________________________________

Have you ever studied the Torah and Talmud?

catken1,

I don't think anybody (Christian or atheist) loves the idea that hell exist. I also believe that God doesn't want anybody to go to hell.

But the fact is that hell exist and there are rules how not to get there.

When the time comes that you yourself can make a brain from chemicals, maybe that's the time you will have the right to question the rules. In the meantime, be smart and just follow the rules.

Remember, hell is populated by fools.

well said, Spidermean2

I am a Christian & I want to say this: Though Pastor Osteen has gotten closer to admitting what is sin & what is not, he is still not coming out clean with it in what he said here. Homosexuality is a sin & against God: period. Homosexuality offends God: period. He is right in saying that all sins are equal to God; God doesn't judge one sin differently than the next like we do as humans. However, I believe Pastor Osteen is afraid of losing a congregation so that is why he is being extra careful at his words. American preachers need to get up & say the TRUTH about sin, otherwise the American church will continue to sink under. Now is the time, & we are in the last days. We need to choose to follow God's Word completely, if we are truly His ("If you love Me, obey My commands." - Jesus in John 14). We always need to check our pastors or church leaders' words back with the Word of God & if it doesn't match up, we should choose God's Word over what they say. God is separating the sheep from the goats right now (Matthew 25;31-46).

The real "sinners" are the people who use their religion to attempt to camouflage their hate, bigotry and ignorance.

We might not be having these debates if Christian denominations treated homosexuality like the Catholic prohibition on eating meat on Fridays, as something that Catholics practice but don't begrudge others. I've never heard of Catholics demanding that everyone follow the Friday rule. Nor have I heard of non-Catholics waving steaks in Catholics' faces to force them to go against their beliefs.

Using a sectarian scripture to insist that homosexuality is wrong for everyone in the world is almost tantamount to insisting that everyone should convert to that religion. If someone like Osteen expects, say, Hindus or Shintos to agree with him about homosexuality, at a minimum he should offer secular arguments against it, arguments that don't depend on agreeing or disagreeing with any particular religion's teachings.

We've been in the last days for 2000 years, what makes these 'last days' any more special than any other?

Do you fools know who the Millerites were?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millerism

Do you know what the Black Death was, the plague?

What a bunch of fools.

If I was a homosexual I'd be bothered by religious people claiming that my condition is a sin. If I believed that religious folk were right - and I was young and vulnerable, I might even take my own life. It happens.

Homosexuals are not responsible for their condition, and all educated people know this - in these enlightened times.

That religious leaders don't know this, suggests that they are not well schooled, ignorant in fact. It also says that condemning others is common amongst the religiious, even though their old book says it's a no-no.

One day in the future we'll look back at these stupid times when so many bought into the ancient superstition of god-worship - based on primitive mythology. It's a insult to the brain of all thinking people.

The only way to keep this god-worship going is to continue indoctrinating our children to believe that it all makes good sense, when in reality it is absurd and dishonest.

The context in which Verses 26 & 27 appear:
It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above:

Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behavior was both widespread and acceptable by society.

Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior.

Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics:

Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples.

Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.

Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.

Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women.

Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error.

Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.

What I find most offensive is how Piers Morgan wouldn't let Joel Osteen or his wife get a word in whatsoever. Before he could fully explain his thoughts, Piers was jumping on him with not only another question, but also his opinion. HE is the one who is pompous and opinionated. I don't hate homosexuals at all, but it is my right to disagree with their lifestyle. No one can take that right away from me. Just because your opinion is different from mine doesn't make me wrong. My opinion isn't hurting anyone. I don't have to justify anything to anyone. I say I disagree with two men or two women marrying then that is my right. Will I hate them or in any way try to punish or judge them? No. Because the same God who will judge my sins will also judge theirs. For those of you calling Joel Osteen all kinds of ugly names, etc., you are the absolute worst. He never called any of you names; he never said anything insulting about you; he said according to the Bible he reads and preaches from -- and tries to live by -- homosexuality is a sin. So, in turn, many of you hurl insulting names in your comments. THAT is just wrong. I am NOT a Joel Osteen groupie, but I believe the same Bible he believes in and I serve the same God he serves. If you don't like that, then, that is totally your opinion. But that does NOT make me wrong ... no matter what you think!

To my knowledge, Lakewood doesn't have Christmas services. At least one year recently, Joel and Victoria were headed to Colorado for a ski trip at Christmas. Also, after Hurricane Katrina, when about a quarter of a million people from Louisiana fled to Houston, churches all over town were opening their buildings to house, feed, and clothe the refugees. Lakewood did nothing: closed, dark, silent. Some "church."

You are right, GITOUTTAHERE, we ARE all entitled to our opinions.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't need to pick and chose which parts of the bible to adhere to and which to conveniently ignore.

IMO, the bible is wrong to condemn homosexuality, just as it is wrong to promote slavery (it contains more verses promoting slavery than condemning gays). Just as it is also wrong from a scientific basis to say the earth was here before the sun, or that a GLOBAL flood occurred for which is there is zero geologic evidence. Or that bogus rib story that science disproves.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

"I'm not a Christian, so I don't need to pick and chose which parts of the bible to adhere to and which to conveniently ignore"
___________________________________________

Which parts are you referring to? I'd be interested to hear what is adhered to and what is "conveniently" ignored.

"just as it is wrong to promote slavery"
_________________________________________

You do realize that the Bible wasn't written in English and it's over a thousand years old? So couple multiple language translations with the propensity for words to change meaning over time, and you end up applying today's language to yesterday's word.

Think the word "gay" means the same now as it did 50 years ago? That same logic especially applies, in a biblical context, to the words "slavery" and "judge".

"Or that bogus rib story"
_________________________________________

Again, Eve wasn't made from Adam's rib. That is a mistranslation.

That is either disingenuousness or carstonio:
blindness on Osteen's part. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is nowhere in scripture.

-----------------
It actually is in the Bible its a perfectly Christian thing to do as Jesus himself did it with the adulterous woman. John 8: 2-11. He showed her love and compassion, but clearly showed disapproval of her acts saying "go and sin no more"

Detroit, that story is actually a later addition to John. My point was that the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is not in scripture in anything like a literal form. Yes, that story could be interpreted that way, but it's not the only interpretation. The larger point is that people like Osteen are most definitely NOT "loving the sinner" when they keep calling gays sinners. That's because "sinner" ultimately means "evil person" no matter what apologia Christians try to use with the term. He sounds less like someone who wants gays to stop being gay and more like someone who wants to publicly shame and humiliate them, hardly a loving act.

CARSTONIO,

Detroit, that story is actually a later addition to John.

I am unaware of any scholarship which contends that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was “a later addition.” Could you supply your source?

My point was that the phrase "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is not in scripture in anything like a literal form.

Are you denying that this principle is latent in scripture?

Yes, that story could be interpreted that way, but it's not the only interpretation.

What other interpretation might one conclude of this passage?

The larger point is that people like Osteen are most definitely NOT "loving the sinner" when they keep calling gays sinners. That's because "sinner" ultimately means "evil person" no matter what apologia Christians try to use with the term.

Scripture is quite clear that all without exception have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (see Romans 1:18-3:20). That would make us all “sinners,” including myself. Where do you draw the line when it comes to calling sin sinful? Are pedophiles not sinners? Are polygamists not sinners? Rapists? Thieves? Murderers?

He sounds less like someone who wants gays to stop being gay and more like someone who wants to publicly shame and humiliate them, hardly a loving act.

I am no fan of Osteen, but are you not judging motive here? Do you know what his motive was/is?

I too contend that homosexuality is a sin. It is a lifestyle that robs people of their dignity, respect, family, health, life, etc. I have personally ministered to several homosexuals who, by the grace of God, were able to renounce their sinful lifestyle and go on to lead normal, productive christian lives.

Would you contend that I was being “unloving” when I told them in frank terms that their choice of lifestyle was both sinful and destructive? If so, am I being unloving when I tell an alcoholic or a drug addict or a prostitute or a that their lifestyle is sinful and destructive and then point them the means of deliverance that is found only in Jesus Christ?

Peace, brother.

GLOBALONE, you continue to have amusing perspective. Now you argue bad translation when it suits a defense of the "good book." How can inerrancy of the bible exist if bad translation becomes a defending posture?

A quick search for biblical phrases clearly shows that slavery (meaning owning people - not simply indentured servitude) was condoned numerous times in the bible. It's even specified in the detailed versions of the ten commandments that were not watered down to be more appealing to the modern day masses. Don't forget, Paul also had a run away slave return to his "master." Not much else gets closer to condoning that horrible practice.

Scarybiblequotes is also a source of legitimate excerpts of mostly ignored passages.

For those with truly objective viewpoints, it's obvious the bible is wrong on slavery, just as it is wrong on homosexuality; not to mention being scientifically proven wrong on creation, wrong on the flood, wrong on the rib story (oh, that's right - BAD translation - which only serves to diminish any perceived authority of the "good book"). We can include the Tower of Babel as well - where's the peer-reviewed evidence from a linguistic anthropologist to support this? In fact, all anthropological evidence points against the Tower fable.

Adding to the problem, as stated previously, biblical scholars mostly agree that everything we know of Christ and his life is based on hearsay after the fact. Plus, no extant proof exists of Christ's life or his crucifixion. Add the problem of "bad translation" to the hearsay concern, you aren't left with much strength of argument for validity.

As I said - faith, not fact.

"I am unaware of any scholarship which contends that the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 was “a later addition.” Could you supply your source?"

The Wikipedia page on the Pericope Adulterae refers to scholarly sources for the passage not being part of the original text.

"Are you denying that this principle is latent in scripture?"

My point is about the wording of the phrase. The passage in question doesn't show Jesus calling the woman a sinner. In fact, he refuses to condemn her, which is more than one can say for the James Dobsons of our time.

"What other interpretation might one conclude of this passage?"

Again, Jesus didn't condemn the woman as a sinner. "Love the sinner" still condemns the person.

"Scripture is quite clear that all without exception have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (see Romans 1:18-3:20). That would make us all “sinners,” including myself."

No, it's still wrong to call anyone but yourself a "sinner." Using that word for youself doesn't justify using it for other people.

"Where do you draw the line when it comes to calling sin sinful? Are pedophiles not sinners? Are polygamists not sinners?"

The point is that labeling people as good or evil amounts to a judgment of their worth, like determining who deserves to live or die. People aren't wholly good or wholly evil. I can strongly condemn pedophilia without calling the pedophile a worthless person.

"I am no fan of Osteen, but are you not judging motive here? Do you know what his motive was/is?"

My judgment was not about Osteen's motive but what he *sounds* like. In this case, intent is less important than the harm his words may cause.

"It is a lifestyle that robs people of their dignity, respect, family, health, life, etc."

How so? It only robs them of their families if their families are intolerant. If parents kick a gay son or lesbian daughter out of their house (and I've heard of cases where that's happened), that's not the fault of the child.

"Would you contend that I was being 'unloving' when I told them in frank terms that their choice of lifestyle was both sinful and destructive? If so, am I being unloving when I tell an alcoholic or a drug addict or a prostitute or a that their lifestyle is sinful and destructive and then point them the means of deliverance that is found only in Jesus Christ?"

The unloving part is you're claiming to know what is best for other people as individuals. The idea that homosexuality is "destructive" is simply your opinion. Your mention of prostitution is offensive since almost all prostitution in the world amounts to exploitation of women, and it sounds like you're blaming the women for being exploited. The other problem is you appear to want them to change their religion.

"The idea that homosexuality is "destructive" is simply your opinion."

Yes, and it's an opinion that comes into direct conflict and is at odds with the opinions and research results of the Am. Psychological Assoc., Am. Psychiatric Assoc, Am. Anthropological Assoc, Am. Medical Assoc., and Am. Academy of Pediatrics.

We're back to balancing an archaic cultural conditioning component of faith versus actual fact.

CARSTONIO,

Part 2 of 2

The unloving part is you're claiming to know what is best for other people as individuals.

Surely you are not contending that we can't know that alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, etc. are not what is “best” for anyone.

The idea that homosexuality is "destructive" is simply your opinion.

I beg to differ. Mere observation and being simply being aware of the statistics related to homosexuality are more than adequate evidence to know that it is a destructive lifestyle. The mask that the media and “Hollywood” put on homosexuality is no more than that—just a mask. What lies behind it is truly horrifying.

Your mention of prostitution is offensive since almost all prostitution in the world amounts to exploitation of women, and it sounds like you're blaming the women for being exploited.

How so? I would consider those who exploit women to be even more in error and sin than those women whom they exploit. You seem to be reacting to something I have not said, much the way you are reacting to something that Osteen did not say. Neither of us would deem homosexuals “worthless” individuals anymore than I would view “johns” or prostitutes “worthless” individuals.

The other problem is you appear to want them to change their religion.

??? Maybe you could expand on that a bit?

Peace, brother.

CARSTONIO,

Part 1 of 2

The Wikipedia page on the Pericope Adulterae refers to scholarly sources for the passage not being part of the original text.

I misspoke when I said I was unaware of “any” scholarship on this issue. After reading the wiki link I recall having run across this before. That being said, wiki is not the best source for “biblical scholarship.” Interestingly, the only “scholarly sources” they offer come from those who are distinctly anti-inspiration when it comes to the bible. Their declaration that “most scholarship” rejects the authenticity of this passage is misleading at best.

No, it's still wrong to call anyone but yourself a "sinner." Using that word for youself doesn't justify using it for other people....The point is that labeling people as good or evil amounts to a judgment of their worth, like determining who deserves to live or die. People aren't wholly good or wholly evil. I can strongly condemn pedophilia without calling the pedophile a worthless person.

My (or Osteen's) simply pointing out that a particular behavior is sinful and therefore harmful is not tantamount to “labeling a person evil” and “determining who deserves...to die.” My saying that pedophilia is sinful is no more an act of labeling a person “worthless” than is your “strongly condemn[ing]” a pedophile. I get the sense that your problem lies with the term “sin.” Am I correct?

My judgment was not about Osteen's motive but what he *sounds* like. In this case, intent is less important than the harm his words may cause.

Would you have been equally offended if Osteen had stated that he believed rape is a sin? Would you have been concerned for the “harm” his words would have caused rapists?

How so? It only robs them of their families if their families are intolerant. If parents kick a gay son or lesbian daughter out of their house (and I've heard of cases where that's happened), that's not the fault of the child.

You haven't seen the effects of the homosexual lifestyle first-hand, have you? Surely, though, you are not unaware of the AIDS epidemic among homosexuals, and the violence and promiscuity that characterize this lifestyle, are you?

RCOFIELD states: "What lies behind it is truly horrifying."

The really horrifying issue is the tremendous oppression that so many gays encounter that results in an erosion of their sense of self-esteem, much of which people like you are responsible for; and that damage is a large contributing factor to the destructive behavior gays might exhibit. You could just as easily say that ALL straights should mostly be compared to the johns and hookers of society because what they do is so "destructive."

Regardless, it's your layman's opinion competing against the findings and statements of the major healthcare associations of our country. Obvious choice as to which opinion carries more merit - yours or theirs.

VESMIR,

A quick search for biblical phrases clearly shows that slavery (meaning owning people - not simply indentured servitude) was condoned numerous times in the bible.

The bible is quite clear in its repudiation of forcing individuals into slavery against their will, both in the Old and New Testaments:

Exodus 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

You also stated:

Don't forget, Paul also had a run away slave return to his "master." Not much else gets closer to condoning that horrible practice.

This is simply not the case, as is evident when one but reads the text:

Philemon 1:15 For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

I especially found this amusing:

Scarybiblequotes is also a source of legitimate excerpts of mostly ignored passages.

Sounds like a good place to go if one is predisposed to the rejection of scripture. ;-)

Peace, brother.

RCofield, what is an "anti-inspiration" viewpoint when it comes to scripture?

"a particular behavior is sinful and therefore harmful is not tantamount to 'labeling a person evil” and “determining who deserves...to die.'"

You may not intend that meaning, but "sinner" still means "evil person" in common nontheological discourse.

"I get the sense that your problem lies with the term 'sin.'"

Yes and no. It means one thing in sectarian theology and another outside of theology.

"Would you have been equally offended if Osteen had stated that he believed rape is a sin? Would you have been concerned for the 'harm' his words would have caused rapists?"

Are you really comparing homosexuality to a violent crime against another person? That's appalling.

"Surely, though, you are not unaware of the AIDS epidemic among homosexuals, and the violence and promiscuity that characterize this lifestyle, are you? "

It must be stressed that the AIDS issue is really one of promiscuity in general, not about sexual orientation. (In D.C., the disease is spread mostly by straight sex, with the majority of cases among African-American straights.) Being gay doesn't automatically make a person promiscuous, any more than being straight does.

"Surely you are not contending that we can't know that alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, etc. are not what is 'best' for anyone."

I'm talking about judging what is best for an individual person as opposed to people in general, where one treats the former as if he isn't competent to run his own life. A huge reason to care about chemical dependencies such as alcohol or drugs is that they affect not only the individual but also others. Anyone who has dealt with relatives with such dependencies knows that ultimately the only person who can end the dependency is the addict himself - trying to intervene as though he was a child does little good and much harm. Homosexuality simply cannot be compared to a chemical dependency. Doing otherwise implies that homosexuality is an addiction of some sort, as if people tried it and became hooked. That concept sounds like a rejected SNL skit.

"I would consider those who exploit women to be even more in error and sin than those women whom they exploit. You seem to be reacting to something I have not said"

Your previous post talked about telling prostitutes that their lifestyles are sinful, and it didn't include the pimps or the johns. One can argue that a prostitute is part of the problem in spreading disease, but the greater guilt lies with the people who exploit her. Instead of talking about "sin," it would be more productive to judge people's actions based on the harm they cause others. Promiscuity is promiscuity, and is harmful regardless of the genders of the people involved.

"Maybe you could expand on that a bit?"

Your post talked about leading people to live Christian lives, as if part of the problem was that they belonged to religions other than Christianity.

As I said, choosing which passages to adhere to, and which to ignore. (We can throw in a fair amount of "interpretation" into the mix as well.)

By the way..."stealing" means just that...stealing a slave from someone else - it's in the ten commandments as I pointed out. All of which makes more sense in relationship to the other passages on slavery, a couple of which are listed in scarybiblequotes. Owning people is owning people and the bible never outright condemns slavery as many of these quotes from religious folks reflects: religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

Again, on interpretation, Martin Luther (a MUCH more acknowledged biblical scholar than you) believed "the letter upheld the social status quo: Paul did nothing to change Onesimus's legal position as a slave—and he complied with the law in returning him." source: wikipedia (see references).

BTW, there can be no "peace" as long those like you blatantly promote oppression and wrongly resist nature's tendency toward complexity and diversity. That process is what America was founded upon and an ideology the continues to grow, despite efforts to inhibit it based on an unprovable faith. Keep in mind, only one God is ever mentioned in any of our Charters of Freedom, the Nature's God of which Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration of Independence, a decidedly non-Christian deity.

VESMIR,

Yes, and it's an opinion that comes into direct conflict and is at odds with the opinions and research results of the Am. Psychological Assoc., Am. Psychiatric Assoc, Am. Anthropological Assoc, Am. Medical Assoc., and Am. Academy of Pediatrics.

Yes, and we know that these organizations have never produced "research" and "results" that have later been found to be profoundly wrong, don't we? Ever heard of malpractice insurance?

The really horrifying issue is the tremendous oppression that so many gays encounter that results in an erosion of their sense of self-esteem, much of which people like you are responsible for; and that damage is a large contributing factor to the destructive behavior gays might exhibit. You could just as easily say that ALL straights should mostly be compared to the johns and hookers of society because what they do is so "destructive."

The statistics on the debilitating effects of the homosexual lifestyle are available to all who will bother to inform themselves. That you seem unaware of them is the only plausible explanation of your above statement.

Regardless, it's your layman's opinion competing against the findings and statements of the major healthcare associations of our country.

Again, the "major healthcare associations" to which you refer have had their fair share of misdiagnosis. And I am hardly a "layman" on this matter.

Peace, brother.

Really, RC? Decades of research(over of 40 years)from these organizations all compiling in favor of accepting homosexuality yet you still feel you know better? Plus, I have yet to hear any of the actual organizations being sued for malpractice. Your point jumps the rails and fails to even remain cogent.

And again, those negative "effects" are coming out of a promiscuous/risky behavior that aren't any more exclusively linked to being gay than hookers and their lifestyle are tied to being straight.

It's a well documented dynamic that those with low self-esteem have greater tendency toward risky behavior and that the faith-based and cultural oppression against gays has led to much more prevalent self-esteem issues within the gay community. In essence, your faith paradigm is partly responsible for promoting the oppression and resulting self-esteem issues that more readily lead gays to risky behavior. Time to wake up "brother" your religion is just plain wrong on this issue and actually causes harm.

VESMIR,

Part 1 of 2

Owning people is owning people and the bible never outright condemns slavery as many of these quotes from religious folks reflects: religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl.htm

You seem to be falling into the trap that many who hold your positions (at least the one's you have stated thus-far) fall into. You are reading what someone else has said about the bible instead of reading the bible itself. I'll post the scripture again, and just let the scripture speak for itself:

Exodus 21:16 "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.”

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

These passages are unambiguous to the point that a child can understand what they are saying. All the passages from “scarybiblequotes” are being wrongly interpreted by people with an obvious agenda. Any and all of them can be easily understood when compared to the broader context of the entire bible. That is, after all, the context from which they are being lifted and maligned.

Again, on interpretation, Martin Luther (a MUCH more acknowledged biblical scholar than you) believed "the letter upheld the social status quo: Paul did nothing to change Onesimus's legal position as a slave—and he complied with the law in returning him." source: wikipedia (see references).

You certainly do not hold Martin Luther in higher regard than I do, but he was a mere man, and as such he was subject to being wrong due to the external influences of his time and culture. Again, Paul plainly told Philemon to consider Onesimus, upon his return, ”no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother.” Do you find this difficult to understand? This is what the text says, regardless of anyone's opinion about what Paul meant. Further, the same Apostle Paul who wrote the letter to Philemon also wrote in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 that the law of God condemns those who ”enslave” others. That hardly seems the position of a man who was “upholding the social status quo.”

VESMIR,

Part 2 of 2

In light of the above, one simply cannot with integrity make the case that the bible condones forcing individuals into slavery against their will.

BTW, there can be no "peace" as long those like you blatantly promote oppression and wrongly resist nature's tendency toward complexity and diversity.

So...after two short exchanges over the course of an hour and a half, you have concluded that 1) I blatantly promote the oppression of homosexuals, and 2) I am therefore your enemy, and there can be no “peace” between us?

Don't you think that may be a little over the top?

As you seem offended by “peace, brother,” I conclude thus:

Keep your powder dry.

You simply make my point, RC. It's all about "interpretation." N

You differ with Martin Luther on "interpretation." Just as the Catholic church, after centuries of going back and forth on this issue (popes had even accepted slaves as gifts/property), finally and officially renounced slavery; but it was not done until the year 1899 - decades after the American civil war ended. And approx. 50 years later, they felt compelled to issue a further clarification of the 1899 declaration.

Interpretation translates to having no divine absolutes whatsoever. Toggles back to an unprovable faith since God never bothered to clarify over the centuries, regarding either slavery or the reformation. We had to figure it out on our own.

History proves that Christians had to renegotiate (read: re-interpret)their positions on slavery, so once again, here Xians are revisiting "interpretation" with homosexuality. Look at what changes have already come out of various Xian sects, including Episcopalian and Lutheran denominations.

I've already provided a link to what others, including religious leaders, have said about slavery and the bible. The aren't wrong in the literal sense.

The fact that you still "interpret" the bible more strictly regarding homosexuality (just as earlier Christians did regarding slavery) only means that you have yet to be enlightened enough on accepting homosexuality as a natural variation in sexual expression. Nothing more, nothing less. Science gets it. The medical professions get it. Maybe you will one day too. You are on the wrong side with this one and just don't know it yet.

As far as peace goes, I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes:

“Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Like I said, no peace as long as there is oppression.

CARSTONIO,

Yes and no. It (sin) means one thing in sectarian theology and another outside of theology.

What does “sin” mean “outside of theology”?

It must be stressed that the AIDS issue is really one of promiscuity in general, not about sexual orientation. (In D.C., the disease is spread mostly by straight sex, with the majority of cases among African-American straights.) Being gay doesn't automatically make a person promiscuous, any more than being straight does.

I'm sorry, but your contention simply does not square with the national statistics. You can see the latest report on this issue from the Center For Disease Control and Prevention here:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

I'm talking about judging what is best for an individual person as opposed to people in general, where one treats the former as if he isn't competent to run his own life.....--trying to intervene as though he was a child does little good and much harm.

I have nowhere advocated such an approach. You are here offering a “rebuttal” of a position that I do not hold.

A huge reason to care about chemical dependencies such as alcohol or drugs is that they affect not only the individual but also others.... Instead of talking about "sin," it would be more productive to judge people's actions based on the harm they cause others.

In every example of “sin” that I have offered (other than homosexuality), you trend toward it being “wrong” because the individuals involved are “harming others.” While I know that this is the standard position of secularists, I find it disturbing. The concern for the individual trapped in a sinful pattern seems to be all but absent—or at the very least it takes a back-seat to concern for the “harm to others.” My concern as a Christian starts at the root—concern for the individual. If the individual can be helped, the “others” will no longer be harmed. Yet I am the one characterized as...well...”appalling.” Why do you think that is?

Homosexuality simply cannot be compared to a chemical dependency. Doing otherwise implies that homosexuality is an addiction of some sort, as if people tried it and became hooked. That concept sounds like a rejected SNL skit.

A SNL skit? Then maybe you can explain to me why every single individual that I have counseled on the issue of homosexuality—without exception—readily and freely admits that homosexual encounters have become an addiction for them?

Peace, brother.

RC, I don't see what "debilitating" effects my lifestyle has had on me or my other half. We've been in a loving, loyal and monogamous same sex relationship for nearly 17 years. Neither of us has an STD or concern with HIV. We count ourselves lucky to have escaped the self-esteem problems and dangers and have been fortunate to embrace a very healthy living environment.

And other than encountering much too frequent archaic attitudes of those like your, we don't have any "debilitating" worries.

But, you know what they say...the best revenge is living well!

VESMIR,

And again, those negative "effects" are coming out of a promiscuous/risky behavior that aren't any more exclusively linked to being gay than hookers and their lifestyle are tied to being straight.

And again you seem completely unaware of the many devastating statistics associated with the effects of the homosexual lifestyle. Do some research. You could start here, as this report from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention completely contradicts your above statement:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/FastFacts-MSM-FINAL508COMP.pdf

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

You simply make my point, RC. It's all about "interpretation."

Could you point out to me the "interpretive difficulties" in the passages I have offered?

You seem to be equating confusion/disagreement about interpretation with the text simply being invalid. You are aware that there have been more than a few instances of disagreement concerning the interpretation of our own Constitution, aren't you? Are you ready to throw that document out along with the bible?

Simply put, your appeal to interpretive differences/disagreements to discredit the bible is not credible. There are any number of documents of consequence with which there can be found differing interpretations. Every argument you offer here can be used to argue with equal (in)effectiveness that the Constitution should be ridiculed, ignored, and discarded.

That being said, you seem to be avoiding addressing directly the passages I offered. Are they confusing to you, or do you avoid them because they contradict what you want to believe about what the bible says?

Like I said, no peace as long as there is oppression.

As you seem insistent that there can be no peace between you and I--and that apparently on the ground that you think I am oppressing homosexuals--may I ask you how I am oppressing homosexuals?

Keep your powder dry...brother ;-)

VESMIR,

RC, I don't see what "debilitating" effects my lifestyle has had on me or my other half. We've been in a loving, loyal and monogamous same sex relationship for nearly 17 years. Neither of us has an STD or concern with HIV. We count ourselves lucky to have escaped the self-esteem problems and dangers and have been fortunate to embrace a very healthy living environment.

May I ask if you are of the "fairer sex"?

RC, These "effects" are directly tied to risky behavior linked to self-esteem issues, much of it intricately tied to the oppression you and those like you bring into the dynamic. Same reason the suicide rate for gays in Mormon families is so high. That point has been made abundantly clear. You can't embrace it, although science and the medical community does. That's good enough for me and any other open minded individual that doesn't need to skew facts to fit a perspective.

BTW, you bible passages don't jive with other translations. Menstealers translates to kidnappers, not enslavers. King James, New King James and couple others have the word "enslavers" conspicuousy absent from that Timothy verse you offered. Also, nothing that Paul wrote condemns slavery, his is only a request for the better treatment of a current slave, and much debate has raged over what his real meaning should be considered to be. Fact is, he did return a slave to his owner, and never hinted that slavery was bad and should end. You know it. I know it.

Newsflash: Voicing that someone is wrong by virtue of who they are in being gay is, by nature, an oppressive expression. This point is elementary on the most basic level.

Just checked the powder. It's nice n dry.

"Fairer sex?"

I'm a VERY fair person, but I'm wholly male.
Not that that should relevant on any level to the points you've been making (unless, of course, you are reminding people that nothing in the bible addresses lesbianism).

"Fairer sex?"

I'm a VERY fair person, but I'm wholly male.
Not that that should be relevant on any level to the points you've been making (unless, of course, you are reminding people that nothing in the bible addresses lesbianism).

"Could you point out to me the "interpretive difficulties" in the passages I have offered?"

There are obvious difficulties as you differ with Martin Luther himself in your opinion of a verse. Obvious difficulties exist if your version of Timothy doesn't exactly jive with other widely accepted versions that don't even mention slavery (interpretations/translations). It's all very obvious. Where have I been vague?

RC, "Interpretive difficulties" were also apparent in society's fight over slavery. Ask yourself this, would America have required a civil war to end slavery; would slavery have ever put such a stranglehold on this nation, had the bible outright condemned slavery instead of offering so many verses that supported it? Would the Vatican itself have taken nearly 1800 years to officially and finally denounce slavery if "interpretation difficulties" didn't exist?

Very easy answers, these.

To sum up: The bible has been scientifically proven wrong about creation; wrong about the flood, wrong about the rib (sorry - chalk that up to bad translation - so much for inerrancy); wrong about Babel; and we now know the bible is wrong about slavery (only took the Vatican 1800 years to figure it out!). Now we're on our way (scientifically and socially - according to nature's tendency toward complexity/diversity) to understanding that the "good book" is also wrong about gays. Or to avoid embarrassment, we'll just say people are "re-interpreting" scripture (just like they have with slavery). Now THAT's "Good News!"

SLAVERY IN THE BIBLE

The bible has so many contradictions that you can prove either point depending of the verses you choose. Here citations that give approval to buy and own slaves:

Leviticus 25: 44-46 NIV “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you **may buy slaves**. You may also **buy** some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly. ”

Another translation of same verses, just in case you didn't like NIV:

Leviticus 25: 44-46 (http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/05/slavery.html ) “Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye **buy** bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession."

MY INTERPRETATION (I haven't read all the bible, so I may be wrong):

As here and in other parts of the bible is mandated, you may not “enslave” your own people nor steal slaves that belong to masters in your neighbors countries (Canada?).

But you may buy and import slaves from other countries, no problem, they will be your property. Also you can buy salves in your own country from among temporary residents (Illegal immigrants?).

Carstonio: I would venture to say that is the correct way to interpret that story and have heard it countless times in Christendom around the world. Sinner does not mean "evil person", it means rebellious against God's will, or wrongdoers. Jesus doesnt view this woman or Mary Magdalene for that matter as evil even though he viewed them as sinners when he met them.

"The larger point is that people like Osteen are most definitely NOT "loving the sinner" when they keep calling gays sinners. That's because "sinner" ultimately means "evil person" no matter what apologia Christians try to use with the term. He sounds less like someone who wants gays to stop being gay and more like someone who wants to publicly shame and humiliate them, hardly a loving act."

I disagree. Calling it what it is does not equate to humiliating someone. If I said I beleived prostitition is a sin when I was asked, would I be humiliating prostitutes? Hardly. You suggest Osteen isn't doing them any favors by using the term sinner. Assumre for moment, that the current majority Christian view on this is actually correct and homosexuality is a sin along with all the other types of sin.(as I believe it is)Would he be doing gays any spiritual favors by altering the "truth" so their feelings weren't hurt. No he wouldn't. So it depends on where you stand on the issue obviously. If you dont believe its a sin you beleive this language is hurtful and uncessary. If you beleive it is a sin, you beleive this language is truthful according to your faith regardless of shifting. societal "norms."

I've read the back and forth comparisons and discussions regarding slavery and homosexuality. With the underlying assumption being by those either anti-faith or simply pro-homosexuality that since the Bible was at best ambivalent on slavery and at worst condoned it under certain conditions(still not equal to those of modern slavery) that it most also be wrong on this issue.

A few thoughts on this issue. As Christian and a descendant of slaves, Ive researched, studied and wrestled with this issue as much as one can. I've come to the conclusion that that issues such as slavery and homosexuality and as well as others such as poverty etc are not comparative. The OT provides for slavery(with laws protecting certain rights of slaves). The most egregious being slaves from other nations. One such reason why has been stated that God allowed this as a punishment to the Pagan nations. I personally never see slavery as acceptable.

The OT also gives us the story of freeing the Hebrews FROM slavery. The new testament talks of Paul returning a slave to his master(probably Philemon)even though this was against the Mosaic laws(runaway slaves were not to be returned in the OT unlike the NT and even the Old South.)Paul of course is credited with the one of the passages about slaves obeying their masters however if you look closely at this and other similar scriptures you the focus is on the well-being of the slave from a spiritual perspective and not the well-being of the master or the institution itself.

"Exhort bondservants to be obedient to their own masters, to be well pleasing in all things, not answering back, 10 not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in all things."

"Slaves, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God. 23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ."

These passages are intended to address the spirituality nature of those in bondage, rather than serve as a bold endorsement of the institution of slavery. There very few times when the masters are actually instructed, Paul's letter being one of them.

Jesus and the gospels seem to always be concerned with the downtrodden from a spiritual standpoint. He(and it served in large part to be his undoing) did not target social upheaval. He did not free the Jews from Roman control. He did not seek political power, his followers did not address economic systems or social orders. Jesus knew that short of angelic and forceful intervention the Romans could not be removed by his hand nor slavery eliminated in his day. Perhaps that is why the focus was on the salvation of one's soul instead of increasing their station in society.God allows us free will to improve erase these conditions as abolitionists eventuallydid

@DETROITBLKMALE30,

You said: “...the Bible was at best ambivalent on slavery and at worst condoned it under certain conditions(still not equal to those of modern slavery).”

I have to cordially but strongly disagree with you on this. You are giving a pass to the authors of the bible because of some bland verses on slavery, but you don't put those verses in a broader perspective.

Take for example thee two verses bellow, cited from two translations just in case you see a problem with one of them:

Exodus 20: 20-21 (NIV) “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

Exodus 20: 20-21 (RSV) "When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is his money."

The first verse is kind of ambivalent respect the second, but the second is a terrible thing to say about humans beings with what today we know about human rights. How come Jesus, who is claimed to have been not only the son of God but god himself at the same time, could not know better. He was a prophet that could anticipate the future and he was god himself. He could have said something like “I came not to abolish the laws in the sacred books, but I have to clarify that no human being can be considered property (or money)".

Here's what the Bible says:

"Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2 Peter 1:21)

"Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)

"God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with their bodies... That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex with each other. And the men, instead of havine normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds..." (Romams 1:24-28)

For me--I belive what the Bible says.
I feel sad and sorry for homosexuals.

We can "believe" things about people based on an unprovable religion, or we can go where the science and research takes us. Here is the Am. Psychological Association's position:

apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

justacomment:
I'm familiar with all of those scriptures. I know them well. I understand Bible in certain passages allows for slavery in certain forms. Those are the well known verses and almost "virally" circulated via the web. I would challenge you to delve deeper into the scriptures. It also calls for setting slaves free, the Hebrew slaves were freed from Egytian bondage. Others versus take the opposite approach. For example:

"Is this not the fast that I have chosen:
To loose the bonds of wickedness,
To undo the heavy burdens,
To let the oppressed go free,
And that you break every yoke" Is58:6

The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed Luke 4:18

Hence the definition of ambivalent: contradictory attitudes towards the same subject.

"How come Jesus, who is claimed to have been not only the son of God but god himself at the same time, could not know better. He was a prophet that could anticipate the future and he was god himself. He could have said something like “I came not to abolish the laws in the sacred books, but I have to clarify that no human being can be considered property (or money)"."

He did actually through the spirit of his teachings, which aboilitonists used to end slavery as we knew it in the 17th-19th centuries.He knew that the institution would not be changed in that day anymore than the Roman empire could be overthrown at that time. God allows for free will, for better or for worse. Sometimes we as human beings get it wrong(slavery) sometimes we get it right(abolition). It is however for us to determine our socio-economic systems. The Bible encourages us to provide for the poor, it doesnt instruct on what type of society to create.

DETROIT...
So, you're saying the bible explicitly "instructs" us on not coveting thy neighbor's slave or wife, or stealing thy neighbors slaves or goods; but the "good book" didn't view slavery (owning people)as a big enough evil to outright condemn the practice and put it into law? That perspective escapes ALL logic. What do you personally think is a worse "evil" - Owning people or coveting? Pick one.

Also, DETROIT,

I think you need to understand our history on slavery a little better.

See this link with quotes from the civil war era and the history of slavery and Christianity. Note Paul Campos remarks as well (the process is very analogous to the changes now occurring within Christianity regarding gays).

religioustolerance.org/chr_slav.htm

Why do you think it took the Catholic church so long to finally and officially condemn slavery (that was 1899); not to mention popes accepting slaves as gifts in the past - it's because the bible supports slavery and never outright condemns the practice.

As I noted before, history shows that Christianity needed to renegotiate (re-interpret) scripture in order to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. Christianity has begun to do the same with homosexuality.

On The Issue of Slavery

VESMIR writes:

So, you're saying the bible explicitly "instructs" us on not coveting thy neighbor's slave or wife, or stealing thy neighbors slaves or goods; but the "good book" didn't view slavery (owning people)as a big enough evil to outright condemn the practice and put it into law? That perspective escapes ALL logic. What do you personally think is a worse "evil" - Owning people or coveting? Pick one.

Consider:

1 Timothy 1:9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11 in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

The term in the above passage translated variously “enslavers,” “menstealers,” and “kidnappers” is from the Greek word andrapodistes. In classical Greek usage this term was used of one who unjustly reduces free men to slavery.

Clearly the Apostle Paul is here contending that the Old Testament Law condemned unjustly reducing free men to slavery. Paul was from the strictest sect of Judaism, the sect of the Pharisees. He studied at the feet of Rabbin Gamaliel the Elder, one of the most renowned teachers of the Old Testament Law in all of history. Paul also wrote the majority of the New Testament. So Paul was not talking out of the top of his hat when he penned the above passage.

Simple question: Who is more qualified to state what the Old Testament teaches about slavery? The Apostle Paul, or atheists spouting verses of scripture from “scarybiblequotes.com”?

The bottom line in all of the squawking going on here is that most of you neither understand scripture NOR the cultural nuances of bond-servant slavery that existed during biblical times.

If you are an atheist, when you “read” the bible you are reading someone else’s mail. When you “read” passages lifted from their biblical context by “scarybiblequotes.com” and “Atheists-R-Us” websites you are “interpreting” scripture through your own godless biases.

Your confusion is understandable.

So RC, you're saying the other King James versions are wrong in referencing kidnappers instead of "enslavers?"

IF you are correct, and it really is SOOOO clear, why does history disprove your interpretation?

Why'd it take SOOOOO long to abolish slavery if it was condemned outright? Why did popes and protestants and baptists alike promote slavery? Why'd it take a civil war to end it in America?

Why isn't it condemned outright in the ten commandments? That's right...it was a "social institution" of the time.

Well, let's see if YOU can pick which is there greater evil - Owning people or coveting? Go ahead..PICK ONE!

BTW, I'm not an atheist at all, I just don't subscribe to YOUR version of "god."

You are ALSO splitting hairs and choosing sides that goes contrary to historical translation of the Greek word "andrapodistes"

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=405

In proper historical context, definition B is the more logical and cogent application of the greek word than is yours.

And,RC, even using your definition, it doesn't escape the purpose of the wording in restricting the term to "unjustly reduces free men" What about the women and children of slaves or those captured in neighboring countries...according to the bible that type of slavery is all "justly" prescribed according to other biblical passages. Still no reference to it being EVIL to outright OWN people under any circumstance. Take those blinders off, RC. History and the bible prove you're missing the mark.

And....still waiting for you to PICK!

VESMIR,

I'm a VERY fair person, but I'm wholly male.
Not that that should be relevant on any level to the points you've been making (unless, of course, you are reminding people that nothing in the bible addresses lesbianism).

You are not very familiar with the "good book" you seem so bent on castigating, are you?

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

That "contrary to nature" thing must come as a real shock to you.

"contrary to nature" versus "passion for one another."

I don't think you are much more clear on this than the "enslavers" issue.

Still waiting for you to PICK!!!

"Creator" is this the same one who made the earth before the sun? Where's the proof!

Again...faith, not fact.

VESMIR,

IF you are correct, and it really is SOOOO clear, why does history disprove your interpretation?...Why'd it take SOOOOO long to abolish slavery if it was condemned outright? Why did popes and protestants and baptists alike promote slavery? Why'd it take a civil war to end it in America?...Why isn't it condemned outright in the ten commandments? That's right...it was a "social institution" of the time.....Well, let's see if YOU can pick which is there greater evil - Owning people or coveting? Go ahead..PICK ONE!...BTW, I'm not an atheist at all, I just don't subscribe to YOUR version of "god."

You may be hyperventilating. Try breathing into a paper bag.

I am in no way obligated to "explain" why others have ignored the clear teaching of scripture. Any number of biblical texts necessarily preclude the forcing of individuals into slavery.

So, history proves you are simply WRONG in your interpretation. "Justly" is explained in the bible, whether you want to accept that or not. It's reflected in the verses already offered.

The reason you refuse to pick is because you know I'm right.

Vesmir,
"DETROIT...
So, you're saying the bible explicitly "instructs" us on not coveting thy neighbor's slave or wife, or stealing thy neighbors slaves or goods; but the "good book" didn't view slavery (owning people)as a big enough evil to outright condemn the practice and put it into law? That perspective escapes ALL logic. What do you personally think is a worse "evil" - Owning people or coveting? Pick one."

There is no such thing as a "worse" evil. Evil is evil, sin is sin.Period.

However, you are looking at these issues as some sort of logical scientific experiment. That is NOT how faith or for that matter God has worked throughout human history. There are plenty of illogical things and even contradictions in the Bible. Is it logical for God to outlaw certain things but not others, no. Is it logical to have moral codes and laws even though he has the foresight to know that many will choose not to follow them anyway?

No. The Bible is full of things that are illogical to us and things we dont agree with. That doesnt mean they aren't to be followed. You can't treat a religion and a supernatural God as a scientifc theorum, "if this is true, than that must be false." Would it have been easier and more clear to verbally "banish" slavery? Sure. Would it have prevented African slavery? Of course not. There were many other justifications for slavery outside of religion, the biggest being that my ancestors were not "quite human". With that justification its irrelevant if Jesus says do not enslave your fellow human beings.

Additionally you and so many other posters quote scientific studies and research to justify anti-faith or sexual "orientation" arguments. Is this the same field of science that gave us studies about how Africans have smaller brains, are less intelligent, incapable of the same type of intelligence as Europeans? The same science that "demonstrated" Africans were not fully human?? Sorry, you will have to excuse me if my "faith" in science in being the definitive word is not very high, particularly where it impacts on questions of morality. As a researcher myself I understand that(especially in this city) data and numbers can be shown to make whatever particular argument one desires. The point on this issues is not that Jesus did not see it as something to correct, indeed the scriptures I quoted suggest he indeed did.

The point is that just like with the oppression of the Jews by the Romans, he did NOT come to overturn worldly systems social or political as much as he came to set free and deliver people of ALL castes spiritually both in this world and the next. If people live by his words even as they are left to us, slavery would ceast to exist, as it did.

"There is no such thing as a "worse" evil. Evil is evil, sin is sin.Period."

Really? So stealing or covetingis as bad as murder?

I suppose that's why murderers can get the death sentence but shop lifters can get probation.

You also can't pick because you know I'm right...the EVIL of slavery (owning people under any circumstance) was never outright condemned in the bible.

VESMIR,

You are ALSO splitting hairs and choosing sides that goes contrary to historical translation of the Greek word "andrapodistes"

Not at all. Do you even know what a "bondservant" was in biblical times? Are you even aware that many intentionally sold themselves into slavery?

And, judging by your current level of hysteria, I'll just presume that you missed the fact that you were completely wrong about the scripture saying nothing about lesbianism.

When you are wrong on such an obvious issue it becomes even more clear that your understanding of scripture is derived largely from "Atheists-R-Us" websites.

My history of slavery is just fine vesimir. I've already been through that site you linked. To answer your question.For comparisons to civil war era slavery and Hebrew slavery were never appropriate. Race-based slavery did not exist in the Bible for one. There was no construct in the Bible for journeying to distant lands for the intent purpose of enslaving other races. It based on the result or regional military conquests, not subjugating "inhuman" species for economic gain. Homosexuality and gay movement are not analogous to slavery and civil rights movement sorry, you will never convince me of that. There are too many theological, social and physical factors which are dis-similar.

I can't speak for the Catholic church as a Protestant I disagree with many of their current teachings much less their past acceptance or eventually prohibitions against slavery.Some of the atrocities committed under the crusades also came under the watch of that church during the earlier centuries so I can't speak to how or why they view things.

"As I noted before, history shows that Christianity needed to renegotiate (re-interpret) scripture in order to come to the conclusion that slavery was wrong. Christianity has begun to do the same with homosexuality."

This viewpoint suggest that the Bible explicitly endorsed slavery in the forms, context and rationale for which it was used in the rest of the world and of course most notably in the United States. As a result Christianity had to revise how it viewed this issue. This was not the case. Christianity, in some sectors on this issue wrongfully applied an inapplicable principle to its current context through both the support of slavery for a very narrow and specific purpose as well as the absence of a theological prohibition against it in the new testament.

What history and Biblical study shows is that the "modern" application of slavery was incorrect. The "re-negotiation" then that actually took place was to "undo" the utilization of slavery in a context for which it was never divinely intended.

God outlawed slavery within the Hebrew people while allowing it for those who were conquered.It is widely believed that God allowed this as a punishment to the enemies of the Hebrews at that specific point in time rather than an eternal endorsement of this practice for all nations.British and American enslavers praticed a egregious and out of context version of slavery.

No what is happening with in a minority sector of Christianity, is a journey into moral relativism and utilizing issues such as slavery and shellfish to legitimize their approach.

Scripture says God cannot lie. So he calls homosexuality(men laying with men) an abomination and a sin against God in his Holy Word in both testaments, yet some would have us believe that he is calling for Christians to now accept it? Now that is theologically ILLOGICAL.

"Are you even aware that many intentionally sold themselves into slavery?"

Yep, and are you aware that that was not the exclusive or even primary instance of slavery permitted by the bible? Or are those passages contradicting your point something you need to conveniently ignore? Whether an atheist points those verses out or not, they are still there in black and white (and sometimes red).

I'd like for you to point out where the bible states slaves were not or should not be considered "property" under any circumstance. What passages fully contradict the previously provided passages stating that slaves are, in fact property to be bought and sold - including the women and children of slaves and men of conquered neighboring nations. Where does it condemn the practice in it's entirety? Certainly not in the ten commandments where "coveting" of a slave was explicitly considered a sin.

Odd that something so EVIL as owning people wasn't outright condemned, don't you think? On the other hand, you were forbidden to "covet" thy neighbors slave - or steal one.

No, I'm not completely wrong about lesbianism...just being contrary with "interpreting" as you have in going against historical context of biblical support of slavery.

Also consider, if your God (of the earth being made before the sun) saw fit to give Moses the commandments..yet never saw fit over all those centuries to set his followers on the right path regarding slavery, instead allowing them to believe the bible promoted slavery (as the bible does), why didn't he correct the bad assumption llloooonnngg ago?

Maybe slavery just wasn't considered evil enough to be clearly denounced to prevent any misunderstanding early on? Where was "God" during all those centuries of oppression and humans owning other people. Or should we think he did care, just not enough to outright condemn the practice from the outset. Maybe he cared enough about what people "coveted" more than he cared about the practice of owning people? Makes sense - at least from a biblical perspective. Seems right to me....that's where the evidence leads. That's what history shows.

Or is that too hysterical for you? HA!

DETROIT. History shows that Christianity renegotiated with itself. Otherwise, owning people would have been forbidden from on beginning...and the passages in the bible on how slavery (owning people) was or wasn't acceptable would have never been written.

Whatever you want to believe or not believe, history says you're wrong.

"My history of slavery is just fine vesimir. I've already been through that site you linked. To answer your question.For comparisons to civil war era slavery and Hebrew slavery were never appropriate."

Then you missed the links at the bottom of the page that goes into great detail of Christianity did or didn't say over the centuries about slavery. Renegotiating with itself was the only way Christianity came around to FINALLY denouncing slavery so many centuries after the "good book" was written.

vesimir:
You cannot apply your human and secular belief system to a religious belief structure. This is a religious debate, not a secular class in moral theory. We are debating on Christian ground here as that is the context of the issues. Secular moral belief and Christian theological beliefs based upon God's word are oil and water, they do not mix. As a simple exercise I understand your point. In fifth grade civics class the correct answer would be murder. Alas, this isnt a civics class, this is as I mentioned discussion of God's view on sin. In God's view of sin, the correct answer they are equal. All sin is sin.

I have to give a argumentive kudos on this to Rcofield because your "hysteria" over believing you have caught me in a bind is appearing rather unsophisticated. You are actually doing EXACTLY what the pharisees did in the Bible with Jesus. Picking laws and scriptures out of the blue and trying to entrap me in a bind.

The pharisees did the same with Jesus and the adulterous woman who deserved by the law to be stoned. He of course spared her life knowing that he was the New Covenant of forgiveness for such sins, but also told her "to go and sin no more." Dissaprove of the sin, love the sinner. Its good enough for Jesus, its good enough for me.

"History shows that Christianity renegotiated with itself. Otherwise, owning people would have been forbidden from on beginning...and the passages in the bible on how slavery (owning people) was or wasn't acceptable would have never been written.
Whatever you want to believe or not believe, history says you're wrong."

No history actually shows what I already stated. It rengotiated interpretations of slavery and "course-corrected for what was taken out of context. This however is NOT applicable in this case as I already mentioned slavery was allowed in a narrow context for specific purpose within that timeframe.

Christianity did not renegotiate to say that it was always wrong, it said the application of it in modern times was wrong, subtle yet significant difference my friend.

I saw the link been there quite a few times. Thanks though. No you are actually missing the point.

"We are debating on Christian ground here as that is the context of the issues."

No, we are debating on ultimate grounds of right and wrong. The bible is wrong about slavery - historical Christianity evidences that. Just as it is scientifically wrong about creation, the flood, etc. Ultimate/universal concepts of right and wrong superseded religious doctrine which led to re-interpretation and re-negotiating of religious perspective. That is what forced those changes and edicts to occur internally within the Xian religion. The history of Christianity proves that point. You can't escape it.

No hysteria here. Just simple logic and reference of actual history (and biblical passages tied to that history) that you are forced to ignore to promote an internal reality that moves contrary to facts.

Again, you can't pick, because you know I'm right. Or do you think coveting (or even stealing) is just as bad a "sin" as murder? hhhmmmm.....

"Christianity did not renegotiate to say that it was always wrong, it said the application of it in modern times was wrong, subtle yet significant difference my friend."

I see, so slavery (owning people) wasn't bad initially, but it became a bad thing later on. "subtle" difference there...gotcha.

"No, we are debating on ultimate grounds of right and wrong. "

No we are discussing the fact that a Christian pastor states that homosexuality is a sin based upon what the Bible says about it. There is no disputing that. That places this entire discussion on Christian grounds. The issue on this thread has never been is homosexuality moral on secular grounds in an pluralistic society as you and many others seem to be suggesting. That is not the issue here. It is either a sin Biblically speaking or it is not. I agree as the majority of Christians do with Osteen. You are free to disagree and say its not a sin.

If you want to dicuss what right and wrong should be in general, secular moral way we can move off of the OnFAITH site and to a neutral non Christian site. Repeating the question doesnt make it any more complicated or the premise more true. I've already answered it. I'm not picking between the two because I know I am right actually, which is to say, in the context of the actual issue on this board, all sin is sin, no such thing as a worse sin. Like I said faith and logic are not often compatible. You are trying attempting something akin to interpreting Chinese by using Spanish.

"I see, so slavery (owning people) wasn't bad initially, but it became a bad thing later on. "subtle" difference there...gotcha."

You oversimplify and lack understanding of spiritual and historical context, but yes you are on the right track. Its clearly not what you suggest the church has done in "re-negotiating."

DETROIT: "No we are discussing the fact that a Christian pastor states that homosexuality is a sin based upon what the Bible says about it. There is no disputing that."

And we then circle right back to the issues of ultimate right and wrong and religion needing to renegotiate with itself just as it has in the past.

The bible has been shown to be wrong on slavery, creation, the flood, etc. The process required Xians to reinterpret scripture in a way that caught up with reality..whether in scientific terms or in terms of societal fairness and equality..this change in interpretation is what you take exception to, although owning people has ALWAYS been wrong regardless of biblical passages in support of it and Xian history shown to be embracing that evil for so many centuries.

My point also is simply that the process is happening yet again with homosexuality - Lutheran, Episcopalians and many others are shifting their interpretation to accommodate a more just and fair reality toward gays; in no longer seeing homosexuality as a sin or "abomination" - which is also what you take exception to.

Like it or not, I'm undoubtedly correct on both points.

The bible has been shown to be wrong before, with this issue (homosexuality) being just one more issue that will illustrate society's evolution away from archaic practices and assumptions of right and wrong based on exclusionary ideology. "Witness" history and learn.

DETROIT: "Like I said faith and logic are not often compatible."

You said it, bub. Faith isn't fact. That's what I started out saying. That's been my main point all along.

"You oversimplify "

Really? How so? How was it that NOT renegotiating? Does not the bible tells us who we can and can't OWN. Does it ever say NOT to own people under any circumstance? What is Xian history regarding slavery? It's plain as day on all points. It IS simple.

Owning people then versus owning people in the 1800's. Your "subtle" point, not mine. you made the distinction. If there wasn't a renegotiation with scripture, then why the change after all those centuries? Owning people IS owning people, no matter how you sugar coat it.

Sorry..NOW I get it. Took me a few minutes.

You are only saying that if, for instance, we invade Mexico and conquer that country/nation, then we have a right to own those conquered as slaves. We have a right to buy and sell them, and a right to their children as our property. Or maybe just a smaller island nation somewhere that isn't informed of Christianity? Is that closer to the mark?

Yes, I think I now see the "subtle" difference you mention.

Have to keep in all in "historical context"..

yeah?

vesmir : You keep missing the point. The mere point is we are talking about what is sin WITHIN CHRISTIANITY. This doesnt even include whether one agrees with it, whether it is correct. IT is simply what does Christianity say about homosexuality being a sin. Everyone else is adding in multi-layers of other issues, while related are still off of the point. Thats it thats all. Not universal truth. Not secular morality. Everything else is tangential. Make sense?

vesmir: The Bible has not shown to be incorrect on creation. There but even if you beleive it has you are not undoubtedly correct because you are arguing on a different plane, than the one this conversation is actualy taking place on. That doesn't make you correct.It makes you offbase.

"Sorry..NOW I get it. Took me a few minutes.
You are only saying that if, for instance, we invade Mexico and conquer that country/nation, then we have a right to own those conquered as slaves. We have a right to buy and sell them, and a right to their children as our property. Or maybe just a smaller island nation somewhere that isn't informed of Christianity? Is that closer to the mark?
Yes, I think I now see the "subtle" difference you mention."

Nope I think your cynicism and attempted sarcasm is blocking your comprehension. Your attempts to mock my positon are almost comical in and of themselves. My point is exactly the OPPOSITE of your above hypothethical. This also gets at your "yeah" response to historical context. The point is within the context of first Hebrew society and the historical time period that was an acceptable practice for reasons I have already stated. It would be no more permissible today than it was in the the last few centuries.

Ok, DETROIT, so educate me. What's the precise difference in historical context between owning people in the early days versus owning people in the 1800's? What made it OK in the beginning? What's the precise and subtle point you are attempting to convey?

DETROIT: "The Bible has not shown to be incorrect on creation."

In our commonly shared reality, of course it has. Unless, of course, you have peer-reviewed material from an astrophysicist as evidence that the earth was in fact created before the sun? If not, then LOGICALLY you have no facts to counter the scientific data or and are left only with faith absent any supportive facts. Which IS my point.

DETROIT: "The point is within the context of first Hebrew society and the historical time period that was an acceptable practice for reasons I have already stated. It would be no more permissible today than it was in the the last few centuries."

Are you saying that (in retrospect) owning people WASN'T a bad or evil thing to do back then? That others' right to freedom wasn't as fundamentally a God-given right as it is now? Slavery/owning people was really not evil then, but evil now?

What changed, other than possibly the conditions under which one was entitle to own another human being?

Which begs the underlying question to be answered: should the conditions EVER have mattered?

I know...my points might be too "logical" for the discourse regarding "faith"

"Not secular morality. Everything else is tangential. Make sense?"

Yep, of course it does. And my point all along is that faith merely needs to catch up with fact based reality and an evolving/understand society, just as it has done in the past with slavery. It's called renegotiating doctrine and (as I pointed out) it's already happening.

In a hundred years or less, most people (including Christians)will mostly look back at the religious based resistance to homosexuality as archaic nonsense, just as most do now regarding slavery and the abhorrent biblical passages that helped promote it for so many centuries.

The "sin" of homosexuality will be viewed right alongside the "sin" of eating the wrong food. Ridiculous in any evolved human ideology.

vesimir:Are you saying that (in retrospect) owning people WASN'T a bad or evil thing to do back then? That others' right to freedom wasn't as fundamentally a God-given right as it is now? Slavery/owning people was really not evil then, but evil now?
What changed, other than possibly the conditions under which one was entitle to own another human being?"

You seem to either to not be able to grasp theological concepts or are intentionally not following what I have already stated. I personally never think slavery was something that should have be been allowed. Howver as I have already stated within the context of the scriptures and Hebrew society God specifically allowed the Hebrews to take slaves following military conquests, this is commonly believed to be as a desired punishment. This was for THEM AT THAT TIME. Not for perpetual generations to come. Of course slavery existed outside of Hebrew society so to think that the Bible(even wrongly so) was the sole motivation for "modern" slavery is naive.The Bible is clear often about what is to be applied for Gentiles, non-Hebrews and those to come. There is no such commandment or allowance for slavery extended to anyone but the Hebrews at that time. A God who allows such evil to punish another group that was in conflict with his chosen people may not be morally acceptable to society today, but its divine providence and thats simply the way it was. That didn't however extend to later centuries of Europeans who were happy to mistakenly assume it did for their own economic gain. There was no such thing as race-based slavery in the Bible. Comprende??

"If not, then LOGICALLY you have no facts to counter the scientific data or and are left only with faith absent any supportive facts. Which IS my point."

I never said I did have facts.Even the grandest explanation (evolution, Big Bang etc.) are simply theories accepted by a majority of I wasn't aware however that a democratic or American Idol version of whichever theory gets the most scientific votes represented definitive truth. Faith is not based on facts..I have been saying you are trying to PROVE faith which is misses the purpose of faith in the first place.

Yep, of course it does. And my point all along is that faith merely needs to catch up with fact based reality and an evolving/understand society, just as it has done in the past with slavery. It's called renegotiating doctrine and (as I pointed out) it's already happening.
In a hundred years or less, most people (including Christians)will mostly look back at the religious based resistance to homosexuality as archaic nonsense, just as most do now regarding slavery and the abhorrent biblical passages that helped promote it for so many centuries.
The "sin" of homosexuality will be viewed right alongside the "sin" of eating the wrong food. Ridiculous in any evolved human ideology.

Of course I disagree, the purpose of faith or religion or at least Christianity is NOT to keep pace with societal norms..thats actually OPPOSITE of what Christ says. God's word is eternal. Man thinks that he can become so wise and enlightened that he knows better than God. I'm sure he laughs on that one.

Man can become better educated and skilled, but the fundamental nature of man, his tendencies, his sinful nature, his capacity for good and for evil have not changed since the beginning. My point is the church didn't renenogiate its view well a large part of it anyway, it corrected those who inappropriately applied ancient scriptures on slavery to their current contexts for personal economic gain. This is exactly why this is NOT analogous to homosexuality which has always been universally been viewed as wrong without regardless of context. Therefore no need for Christianity to "catch up" to the "Great Age of Logic." For most of us Christians who see things as I do "catching up" is synonymous with moral relativism.

DETROIT, let's get this straight...per your post: "it corrected those who inappropriately applied ancient scriptures on slavery to their current contexts for personal economic gain."

So, whether or not owning people is actually evil hinges on whether economic gain is involved? Your words, not mine. One group's moral relativism is another's need to stop injustice. In this case, it ended up coming from the same group. Talk about moral relativism.

What's wrong with saying owning people is bad and always has been? Your perspective is akin to saying at one time it was okay to beat your wife, but now it isn't, just because times have changed. The evolved perspective would be that is has ALWAYS been bad to beat one's wife. Same goes for slavery - it's ALWAYS been evil, regardless of the specific circumstances in which the bible condones owning people, or in what time era it was permitted.

"I never said I did have facts.Even the grandest explanation (evolution, Big Bang etc.) are simply theories.."

Facts aren't theories. It takes a bit of education to understand the difference in meaning between the layman's understanding of the word theory opposed to the word as it applies to scientific investigation.

You seem to think there was a time and situation when owning people was appropriate, because the bible says so.It's on you to explain the "relativism" of your "theory" for an acceptable criteria for owning people in the past.

Amusingly, this brings us right back to the issue of universal right and wrong, with religion needing to play catch up.

Good luck with that "theory" and explanation. You're gonna need it!

considering that infidelity between spouses is estimated to be between 30-60%, there's a lot more to be worried about marriage in general. Too bad that homosexuality has become the "problem" for many people.

I think it's sort of a Jerry Springer-type thing, as it's somewhat comforting to look at someone else as being "worse".

I have no problems with homosexuality if the commitment is there.

vesmir " No you dont have it straight. Yes my words, your misunderstanding. The phrase economic gain was simply a descriptive one differentiating between the motives of "modern day" slave traders and those in the past.The allowance of slavery by God in the past had nothing to do with economic gain as I have stated repeatedly it had to due with divine judgement, not human intent.

"One group's moral relativism is another's need to stop injustice." That may be the case, but if one groups highest obligation is to its divine authority then the other group's concerns are secondary. In this case well homosexuality anyway, I'm called to be loving to everyone, but that does not mean that theologically I must agree with prevailing external belief structures my be floating about in the name of pluralism. That is moral relativism and it is incompatible with Christianity's principles.

"What's wrong with saying owning people is bad and always has been?"

I suggest you scroll back through my comments. I HAVE said I do not agree with slavery in any form at any time. However, God at that time at that place for that people allowed it. I personally would not have. I am not God. I wouldn't allow cancer either but hey..you get the picture.

"The evolved perspective would be that is has ALWAYS been bad to beat one's wife. Same goes for slavery - it's ALWAYS been evil."

Perhaps this will help you understand your ALWAYS wrong statements. I've stated that it was allowed as punitive measure against the peoples who were enemies of the Hebrews. Now, is killing always wrong? Always? What about sentencing a murderer to death? Many, Christians included would say that is permissible. Thus killing is not ALWAYS wrong, if it is conducted as punishment. I personally believe it is always wrong, just as I believe slavery is wrong. However the examples are akin to each other. Not the same as yours. The issue here is God for whatever specific reason allowed it at that time under those conditions. I even as a Christian do not always understand or even like or agree with what God allows, but I am in no position to call him or what he allows to be wrong.

"Facts aren't theories. It takes a bit of education to understand the difference in meaning between the layman's understanding of the word theory opposed to the word as it applies to scientific investigation."

Semantics my friend,Speaking of education, a little bit of education would demonstrate that your mere use of the word investigation underlines my point. Man is still trying determine scientifically how things came to be. You don't investigate something you know to be the case. A theory is a best approximation of how a certain process or phenonmenon occurs based upon available evidence or data. That still means in the end, we don't definitvely know. Christianity is clear on universal right and wrong, its needs not catching up. The world blows back and forth in the wind with its own understanding of morality.

"However, God at that time at that place for that people allowed it."

I rest my case - God/the bible were WRONG!!!!

"A theory is a best approximation of how a certain process or phenonmenon occurs based upon available evidence or data."

Yes, whether that's the big bang or the earth rotating around the sun. Based on facts. And like you said...you have none to bring to the table.

"Thus killing is not ALWAYS wrong, if it is conducted as punishment."

Yep. And you're still attempting to defend the owning, buying and selling of people. It's crystal clear in black and white biblical verse. Where in those biblical passages was economic gain from slavery NOT allowed? Nothing in the bible outright condemns the wholesale practice of owning people, or buying and selling them.

Nothing new for almost 2000 years was issued from God. What changed in the 1800's? Anything new written in the bible? Nothing new at all...just a religion renegotiating with itself to catch up to reality and general concepts of fairness. God/the bible were wrong...simple.

"Christianity is clear on universal right and wrong, its needs not catching up."

Except when it comes to slavery (how many centuries did it take?); or hanging and burning witches (how many thousands tortured and killed?); or fighting one another during the reformation (how many tens of thousands died as a result?) Nope, no "catching up" done there at all. Ridiculous that you can't see the hypocrisy in your own statement when history proves how wrong you are.

"The world blows back and forth in the wind with its own understanding of morality."

No, the world continues to embrace diversity and fairness, and further reject isolationism/exclusionary paradigms which your religion requires. The world continues to acknowledge a commonly shared existence based on fact and science - all concepts Christianity has historically been resistant toward. It's an archaic belief system that continues to change for the better only because of the secular and natural, evolutionary influences that pressure society to do so.

And thank you for acknowledging that owning people was promoted. At least you're starting to see the reality of history.

vesimir
I rest my case - God/the bible were WRONG!!!!
You are smashing a fly with a sledgehammer with your oversimplified arguments. The shoe doesn't fit the foot you are trying to cram into my arguments. No the God/Bible was NOT wrong. You seem to have no comprehension of context, purpose, and divine providence. I guess you can keep putting your case forward as I see you have with the two more posts above.

vesimir:
"Yes, whether that's the big bang or the earth rotating around the sun. Based on facts. And like you said...you have none to bring to the table."

Great at least now we agree science and faith are in the same boat on the origin of the universe. Neither are conclusive yet from a proof or fact standpoint. I'll take faith thanks. The difference is I never implied faith had facts, thats why its called faith as I've said over and over.

You still miss the point vesimir. Im glad you do see and agree that killing can be justified as punitive measure(even though I don't) So let me ask you now, if mankind can take the life(death penalty) of someone today who murdered someone else, what is "wrong" with a God who created everyone allowing his chosen people enslave others after military conquest for the purpose of punishing their enemies? If those enemies had killed and enslaved Hebrews, would they not deserve it?? I am not arguing for slavery. I am opposed to it in anyform. I however am not God and am simply suggesting to you that an omniscient God's motives for allowing it in context to a certain group of people cannot be universally deemed as WRONG. The difference between THEN and Modern slavery is what I just said. God didnt tell British slave traders(many of whom weren't even Christians) These two situations were NOT analogous. Those who utilized slavery in these latter days implemented a form of slavery that was far more brutal than that of the Bible. So alot changed actually to answer your questions. My ancestors were not even considered human. Anything could be done to them without reproach. There were not limits on their servitude, etc etc etc. So

And thank you for acknowledging that owning people was promoted. At least you're starting to see the reality of history.

No, I said it was permitted. It was not however permitted or intended to be permitted for "modern day" slavery. That is what the people used for their own gain, utilizing these scriptures through either ignorance or deceit to further their own gain economically. Get it?

"No, the world continues to embrace diversity and fairness, and further reject isolationism/exclusionary paradigms which your religion requires."

Yep thats moral relativism. You can call it fairness and equality which exist in my faith. Some principles are true today as they were thousands of years ago. A religion isnt required to be inclusive at the cost of it own principles. Thats folly.Should abortion clinics be forced to hire pro-lifers in order to be inclusive? LOL Of course not

"Except when it comes to slavery (how many centuries did it take?); or hanging and burning witches (how many thousands tortured and killed?); or fighting one another during the reformation (how many tens of thousands died as a result?) Nope, no "catching up" done there at all. Ridiculous that you can't see the hypocrisy in your own statement when history proves how wrong you are."
Once again on the issue of slavery, that was all of mankind not the just the Church and if you want to be historical about it, it was people of faith who helped lead abolition. It's not analogous as slavery was not a command that needed to be reversed in the Bible as you are suggesting that should happen with homosexuality. It allowed something in context that was wrongly extrapolated out to all sectors of the globe by misguided Christians, not by the Word itself.Nope no catching up glad you agree. So you suggest that because people of faith behaved humanly it was the church's fault? Mankind is mankind and those kinds of conflicts were occurring all the time ethnically and geographically. So if you mean by catching up the church caught up to this great moral secular society that gave us everything from the nazis to ethnic cleansing then yes some sectors in Christianity "caught up" over the centuries and were in sadly in keeping with with all the other non-christian travesties.

"It's an archaic belief system that continues to change for the better only because of the secular and natural, evolutionary influences that pressure society to do so"

Right, because the world has figured out world peace, humane treatment of fellow man, and end to global conflicts discrimination. These are ALL Christian concepts, they dont exist outside of Christianity.(Yes I am being sarcastic for clarity's sake. )Please go sell that "Great Age of Secular moral Enlightenment" to someone in New York, they're also looking to buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

Jesus taught us we ALL sin, no one is perfect nor is one sin greater than another. If you commit the slightest sin then you are guilty by God's law. I cannot judge anyone because I am as guilty as everyone. I don't agree that if we prosper in wealth, we must be in God's favor. I think it is a way for them to justify the money they receive. We need to understand that teaching God's law is not Christianity but being redeemed. I feel I need to love EVERYONE and just follow where the Holy Spirit guides me. No Judgement, just treat everyone as I want to be treated.

The Old Testament was God's Law and nobody met that standard. Not David, not Moses, nobody. Everyone is guilty by those rules. We try and judge people by their 'sins'. Hey no one is better than anyone else. Christianity is the belief that Christ was perfect so He himself would not suffer the wrath (hell) for himself but did anyway to pay for all the sins of mankind. We accept that and we become reborn. Simple. We cannot judge people, think 'good works' gets us off the hook, we just have to accept. No more. We are very imperfect and sin all the time. No sin is greater than anyone else's nor do we have the right to tell people we are better. Osteen seems like he is trying to rank sin and say He is in God's favor because he is wealthy. Seem to recall that Jesus said that rich people have a harder time getting to Kingdom. Let the Holy Spirit guide you and your life becomes what God's wants it to become. No judging other. Just love them and treat them like you want to be treated.

"what is "wrong" with a God who created everyone allowing his chosen people enslave others after military conquest for the purpose of punishing their enemies"

Exactly..what IS wrong with OWNING people that were our enemies?

Why shouldn't a conquering nation promote that option today?

The answer's simple: because owning people, then or now, to keep or buy or sell, is WRONG! Go ahead, tell me I'm incorrect.

"It's not analogous as slavery was not a command that needed to be reversed in the Bible as you are suggesting that should happen with homosexuality."

Really? How's this: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Sounds like a commandment for Xian slaves to bow down to their owners and give them a Christ-level of "respect." Sounds like a commandment endorsing slavery to me!

Of course it's analogous - people reinterpret the bible constantly, have been for centuries. That's why Christians can't unilaterally agree on scripture across the board. But you are correct on one point, the promotion of slavery never was corrected in the bible, people merely changed their opinion of participating in something the bible opendly condoned and encouraged).

And here's what a more recent and well-respected man of God has offered:
“By abolishing slavery and ordaining women, millions of Protestants have gone far beyond biblical literalism. It's time we did the same for homophobia." - Rev. William Sloane Coffin

The Reverend is right - all that renegotiation.

"It allowed something in context that was wrongly extrapolated out to all sectors of the globe by misguided Christians, not by the Word itself."

Really? Exodus 21:2-6 NLT: If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT: However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

What is out of context on the above? Owning people is owning people. Where does it say in the bible slaves are NOT to be considered property?

How were they misguided? And for all those centuries? The answer is right there in the bible. Where does it say owning people is not allowed to contrast all the passages condoning/promoting it? Seems like moral relitivism actually worked in favor of the greater good in Christians turning their back on the passages promoting the institution.

"Right, because the world has figured out world peace, humane treatment of fellow man, and end to global conflicts discrimination. "

No, the world hasn't figured it out, and Christianity is just as guilty for that fact as anyone else. Crusades, reformation, witch hangings and burnings, oppression of gays. Whether coming from the Nazis or the religious, we end up with two sides of the same coin. Christians can't even agree among themselves on what is or isn't right across the board..and they've even killed each other over those disagreements. Where was the consistent Christian morality throughout the centuries when considering all of that? And since you brought it up, keep in mind that religion has one thing explicitly in common with Nazi thinking, it's all about a core belief in an exclusive club and ideology, and a sense of superiority or righteousness against other human beings who might not count as part of the club.

"Great at least now we agree science and faith are in the same boat on the origin of the universe."

It's funny to me that all religious people "believe" they are on the same footing as science.

Science is NOT a "belief" system.

FROM: Evo Edu Outreach (2008) 1:46–52
DOI 10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z
"In daily conversation, “theory” often implicitly indicates a lack of supporting data. Indeed, introducing a statement with “My theory is...” is usually akin to saying “I guess that...”, “I would speculate that...”, or “I believe but have not attempted to demonstrate that...”. By contrast, a theory in science, again following the definition given by the NAS, is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

"Science not only generates facts but seeks to explain them,and the interlocking and well-supported explanations for those facts are known as theories. Theories allow aspects of the natural world not only to be described, but to be understood. Far from being unsubstantiated speculations, theories are the ultimate goal of science."

And that leaves us with religion just where it's always been - "unsubstantiated speculations."

On facts: "a scientific fact is “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed, and for all practical purposes, is accepted as ‘true’.”

Like you said, DETROIT, - you come to the table without facts.

And as I said, religion is matter of faith, not fact (or scientific theory). If any religion could pass scientific muster, we'd all most likely be on the same page with believing the same thing. But it can't, and we aren't.

"Great at least now we agree science and faith are in the same boat on the origin of the universe."
It's funny to me that all religious people "believe" they are on the same footing as science.

that's fine. I understand what the purpose of science. However, what we have already both agreed is the commonality between the two in that neither one is definitive. That's all I need to "substantiate" on this issue.

"If any religion could pass scientific muster, we'd all most likely be on the same page with believing the same thing. But it can't, and we aren't."

For the reason above it doesn't need to. That "muster" has yet to, and maybe never will as you have just pointed out is not its purpose, arrive at definitive conclusions on the origins of the universe. Why would I trade a belief system of great value, especially on planes which science cannot compete, for one of Even some of the greatest scientists man has ever known were believers in the existence of God(Newton, Einstein, Boyle, Kelvin) You posit all of this great logic and evidence as an antithesis of the possibility of believing in God and faith, yet many of the very theories you would hang your hat on that use all of the wonderful practices and principles were postulated by these who believed in something that couldn't be proven by facts.Hmmmmmmm

vesimir: Great you agree with me. My point was not that Christianity has been an oasis, however you said that it was secular society that pushed Christianity to improve as if secular society was so moral. It clearly isnt. And you can easily see throughout history where Christians and religious leaders actually pushed secular society to change for the better, Civil Rights movement, abolitionism, anti-poverty movements.

"And since you brought it up, keep in mind that religion has one thing explicitly in common with Nazi thinking, it's all about a core belief in an exclusive club and ideology, and a sense of superiority or righteousness against other human beings who might not count as part of the club."

Sorry Nazism was its own creature and not in common with Christianity. Nazism actually saw organized religion as a threat. It was actually as the church overall was one of the longest holdouts against the rise of Nazi Germany. Nice try though. Additionally you have suggested a sense of superior righteousness over others, as a Christian that is NOT Biblical, it is not how I or most Christians feel are beleieve. So that falls flat as well. We are all humans and some will feel superior to others however that is not unique to Christianity nor is it a principle of it. Quite the opposite actually when you read Jesus' words. I really don't think you understand Christianity. It is NOT an exclusive club. One of its main principles is to invite as many people into its fold as possible, not exclude people. People can choose to join or not, that hardly makes it exclusive.

"Why shouldn't a conquering nation promote that option today?
The answer's simple: because owning people, then or now, to keep or buy or sell, is WRONG! Go ahead, tell me I'm incorrect."

Ok since you asked, yes you are WRONG, partially anyway from the perpsective you are coming from. It is wrong today we agree on that. However the other readon why a conquering nation shouldnt use it today is God never intended for people to be owned as slaves today. Period, thats it. Its that simple.

vesimir: Yep I know all those scriptures.

What is out of context on the above? Owning people is owning people. Where does it say in the bible slaves are NOT to be considered property?
How were they misguided? And for all those centuries? The answer is right there in the bible. Where does it say owning people is not allowed to contrast all the passages condoning/promoting it? Seems like moral relitivism actually worked in favor of the greater good in Christians turning their back on the passages promoting the institution."

One question for you. Where in those scriptures does it say that slavery is to be applied to non-Hebrews? That it was acceptable for all time in any context? Let me help you. NOWHERE. That is exactly how it was misguided and taken out of context. Its simple really. We arent arguing with slaves were property, of course they were. The issue is whether or God allowed it to extend to non-Hebrews. He didnt. That was applied to Hebrew people during that time period, in relation to their enemies at that time, not British and European slave traders centuries later.

vesimir
Sounds like a commandment for Xian slaves to bow down to their owners and give them a Christ-level of "respect." Sounds like a commandment endorsing slavery to me!

First of all, lets look CLOSELY at that one and this one:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. 6 Try to please them all the time, not just when they are watching you. As slaves of Christ, do the will of God with all your heart. 7 Work with enthusiasm, as though you were working for the Lord rather than for people. 8 Remember that the Lord will reward each one of us for the good we do, whether we are slaves or free.
9 Masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Don’t threaten them; remember, you both have the same Master in heaven, and he has no favorites

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Lev. 18:22

The first passage is clearly not a commandment it is a suggestion for how both slaves and masters should live. The first is more focused on the slave and his well-being if a slave was not obedient, obviously it could lead to injury. It also speaks to eternity for the slave. Remember slavery was not just a Hebrew reality, this was not something that Paul short of angels from heaven was going to overturn in his time considering he spent his life being persecuted.

The second is clearly a command from God himself directly. That command and all the others in the same chapter is preceded by "Then the LORD spoke to Moses.." Verse 4: "You shall observe My judgments. So yes what I said was correct.

The reverend(whoever he is) is wrong. Those issues are apples and oranges with different origins and moral implications within Christianity. There are contexts for the other issues, even within the Bible. God can also be shown to be anti-slavery. He freed the Hebrew slaves from bondage in Egypt, in both testaments and scriptures speak to "setting the captives free" and women were active in the church even in Jesus' and Paul's day from the two Marys to Phoebe, and Deborah.

So there was accepted precedence for each of these "changes". There is NO precedence for God reversing one of his commands, save for sending Jesus to save the world from his sins and as everyone agrees, Jesus at this great moment of change during his life, said NOTHING about legitimizing homosexuality. He did not reverse this commandment. Instead he said, "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets(Mosaic commandments included) I came not to destroy, but to fulfil" Matt 5:17

So I can't blame him though. If I were trying to promote the issue I would try to lump it in with all of these other issues too and hope no one called me on it, since its clear to everyone that the Bible offers no justification for homosexuality.

Unfortunately for him, those Christians, and thats the majority of us, who study God's word closely know better than to fall for the banana in the tailpipe.

DETROIT: "since its clear to everyone that the Bible offers no justification for homosexuality."

I never commented that it did. I said the bible is wrong for what it says about homosexuality, just as it is wrong for promoting slavery. I like that word "justification." Exactly my point on slavery - the bible offers "justification" for such an evil as owning people - my point all along.

"One question for you. Where in those scriptures does it say that slavery is to be applied to non-Hebrews? That it was acceptable for all time in any context? Let me help you. NOWHERE."

Really? So, neighboring nations and all that don't count? Wouldn't Canaan, Philistia, Phoenicia, Aram, etc. all qualify as a neighboring nations? They weren't Jews were they? Plus we have Leviticus 20:44 - "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." At the time, that would have applied to all gentiles!

You're just talking yourself in circles now.

"There is NO precedence for God reversing one of his commands"

You forgot all the "put to death" commandments...where'd they all go? I curious, is it STILL a sin to be within a certain distance of woman in her menstrual cycle? That was a "sin," but slavery wasn't? Yep.

AND you don't account for the centuries of varying INTERPRETATIONS that led to so much attrocity done in God's name. The reformation is one of the best examples...Xians killing each other because each side thought they knew best what god wanted. Which COMMANDMENT had each side been attempting to follow? hhmmmmm? It's all so clear on what god wants - yet all that bloodshed? Like I said - interpretation.
And how many Xian sects are there today?
No renegotiation/reinterpretation my as$.

"However, what we have already both agreed is the commonality between the two in that neither one is definitive."

Please, DETROIT, this statement of yours is beyond infantile. What analogy can there be between scientific process and theory versus having no facts at all? They aren't even in the same ballpark (I believe you mentioned once before - you must be talking in circles again).

Science takes the stand that nothing can be considered absolute fact, leaving the opening that new evidence may change the way natural processes are viewed. However, as Jay Gould noted: “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

In science, facts and evidence support a given theory, yet even the idea of the earth revolving around the sun isn't considered absolute in science. Does Gould's point hold up? Undoubtedly. Religion has no such evidence to pass the same level of scientific scrutiny.

That's why religion, unlike the big bang theory, remains in the realm of "unsubstantiated speculation."

"You posit all of this great logic and evidence as an antithesis of the possibility of believing in God and faith"

No, not an antithesis of faith. Only making the point that science is reality-based, subject to supportive evidence (which faith lacks by your own admission). You can't have it both ways, DETROIT, you can't say that faith has no facts and then say science is the same thing when the entire foundation of science is based on facts and evidence (talking in circles again?).

Funny you should mention Newton. He was one of the main contributors to the "age of enlightenment" and ran into trouble with the church for his scientific understanding of the solar system as well - because it went against biblical doctrine.

From the Galileo Project at Rice University: Isaac Newton: "Affiliation: Anglican, Heterodox; Newton was born into the Anglican church and publicly conformed to it." At about age 30 he came to believe "that Trinitarianism was a fraud and that Arianism was the true form of primitive Christianity. Newton held these views, very privately, until the end of his life. On his death bed he refused to receive the sacrament of the Anglican church."

Newton would be the first to be on board with solid, evidence-based scientific theories, whether they run counter to religious thought or not; as most likely would any of the scientists you mention, including Kelvin who helped spearhead the old earth theory (much to the chagrin of then established religious though)and laid the foundational platform in physics for current observation that shows the sun was here before the earth.

Let's add one more to the roster: Encyclopedia Britannica on Einstein: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." Kinda makes my point, eh?

Be careful of whom you bring forth in an attempt to add ethos to your argument.

Be careful of whom you bring out in an attempt to add ethos to your arguement.

"Additionally you have suggested a sense of superior righteousness over others, as a Christian that is NOT Biblical, it is not how I or most Christians feel are beleieve."

Uh....you better go talk your posting buddy, RCO then. I'd say his posturing of righteousness against homosexuality is more than evident.

You might want to take a look at the history books also, especially the era of the the crusades. Charlemagne is a good read too. Inquisition going into the late 1600's and Salem, MA - fascinating. Do I NEED to mention the reformation again?!? Wow...you are dedicated to your denial, aren't you?

VESMIR,

Uh....you better go talk your posting buddy, RCO then. I'd say his posturing of righteousness against homosexuality is more than evident.

Do tell. Where, precisely, have I been "posturing righteously" against homosexuality?

Please provide examples with post dates and time.

Where? Seriously, RCO. Go look back at your own posts. That's like asking where in the bible slavery is "justified" and promoted.

Those posts of yours are there for everyone to see regarding your posturing on the sin of being gay...how many times did you post links in an attempt to show why being gay isn't good? (Although those links actually refer to my point about self esteem). Not to mention you've been arguing against a cultural condition among the community, embossing a stereotype that has no impact on whether one is gay or not. You might as well be saying all Jews are cheap, or all blacks like watermelon.

Holy man, you're a bigot that can't face the ugliness of his own character.

To rehash my points one final time:

1. Faith isn't fact. It can't withstand scientific scrutiny (although theories such as the big bang; evolution - now considered both fact and theory; and relativity can and do hold up under the same scrutiny).

2. No religion has historically remained absolute in its doctrine. Religious/doctrinal reinterpretation and renegotiation has occurred and continues to occur, it's happening again with homosexuality.

3. Noting this renegotiation and reinterpretation is part and parcel of the character and history of religion, societal issues should be approached with a lot more humility than what is normally extended when viewing those issues through the lens of religion.

vesimir: word "justification." Exactly my point on slavery - the bible offers "justification" for such an evil as owning people - my point all along. I never said it didnt did I? I said it was allowed. God allowed as a punitive measure. See below or above or any other post I've written.

"One question for you. Where in those scriptures does it say that slavery is to be applied to non-Hebrews? That it was acceptable for all time in any context? Let me help you. NOWHERE."
Really? So, neighboring nations and all that don't count? Wouldn't Canaan, Philistia, Phoenicia, Aram, etc. all qualify as a neighboring nations? They weren't Jews were they? Plus we have Leviticus 20:44 - "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids." At the time, that would have applied to all gentiles!
You're just talking yourself in circles now

No you are talking in circles. By applied to Hebrews you know and I know as I have multiple times before referred to the slaveowners. I said it was allowable to I'm gald you could find that scripture. It proves my point about God allowing it to be used against non-Hebrews. Where in that scripture does it allow non-Hebrews to take slaves?? HMMMMM? Please do tell. Find me that scripture. That was the original question anyway. Either you intentional are being obtuse or you are not following this thread very closeful. I suggest you go back and read my posts, SLOWLY. I said that it was FOR the neigboring nations to become Hebrew slaves. Right. so the Hebrews made slaves of their enemies from surrounding nations in apunitive measure. Why you just went off and proved my point. Im not sure but thank you. That does not apply to the entire world for centuries later. Talk about infantile.

vesimir: No you can't have it both ways.
"You posit all of this great logic and evidence as an antithesis of the possibility of believing in God and faith"

You can't say that science is so factual. Then back pedal faster than Deion Sanders when pressed on the issue of facts in relation to theories, particulary with regards to the Big Bang. Either that concept is "Fact-based" even in the largest sense or it is not. Earlier you said it wasn't Hence, that places it in the same boat as faith. A best guess. Which is it??? So now you say that nothing is absolute, its simply based on the best existing evidence. So it makes you feel more secure to base your beliefs on theories that can be proven every bit as wrong 1,000 years from now as the flat earth? I get it makes sense for some I guess. To me that is every bit as I however have never argued faith on the basis of facts, that would be like arguing for peace with the premise of war.

Nice attempt to un-faith the scientists. I notice however you didnt say anything about the other ones I mentioned. COuldnt poke holes in their faith? Aw well. I suggest you look at these quotations..

On Newton:

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance. The motions of the planets require a Divine arm to impress them." Sir Isaac Newton, Inventor, Scientist and teacher Isaac Newton, John Hudson Tiner, page 21 Mott Media, 1975

You conveniently left out that while Newton rejected the Anglican church, he did not reject his faith which he spent all of his life writing about and supporting. There is no doubt that he believed in God. The God of miracles, the God who created the universe. That's akin to leaving a denomination. That does not make you an atheist. Nice try though. Regardless of his specific view on God the POINT is he personally beleived in GOd

Oh yeah and Einstein?

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University

"I'm absolutely not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds." G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great

Einstein did not believe in a personal God of salvation but there he DID believe in a God that created the universe.

Awk--waard.back to the atheists-are-us quote board for you. Next time don't be so quick to disprove something that is factual just because it doesn't line up with your scientific view. Its ok it happens to the best of us.

I almost feel sorry for you, DETROIT:

From the Einstein and Religion site:

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."

It might help you to take a look at Spinoza's thought on religion. They're closer to mine than yours.

LOL...DETROIT, this was your best post yet!

First, you attempt a defense by saying slavery was a common practice, not just with Hebrews. A socio-economic reality that God wouldn't really get involved with (although we have all these passages indicating it DID matter enough to justify the practice with all those passages).

Then, you attempt to argue that only Hebrews were permitted to own slaves? What? So now only Jews and Israelites have a sole claim to owning people these days? No wonder the middle east is so against them! Funny!!!

That's not only arguing in circles, that's circling the logic drain.

Why didn't Xians understand that they weren't supposed to own people for 1800+ years? Could it be...INTERPRETATION? Took you guys long enough, and only proves my point - no religion has remained absolute in it's doctrine. Talk about a religion renegotiating with itself...jeez.

Besides, why would God talk about other religions one way or another when he was only addressing (Commanding) his people? He did think less of those heathens enough to say they could be enslaved, yeah? Sounds evil no matter how you slice it (even goes against the core principles that birthed our country - freedom of religion and all that). Like I said, the bible was wrong on slavery.

Plus, where does it say in the bible that heathens CAN'T have slaves?

Go ahead, circle around the issue again.....not much water left in that bowl before your argument finally flushes down the drain.

"There is NO precedence for God reversing one of his commands"
You forgot all the "put to death" commandments...where'd they all go? I curious, is it STILL a sin to be within a certain distance of woman in her menstrual cycle? That was a "sin," but slavery wasn't? Yep.

You mix cultural purification rites here. No it no longer applies. Neither does eating pork, another common anti-faith trick.I've explained slavery ad nauseum now. Not rehashing it again here.

examples...Xians killing each other because each side thought they knew best what god wanted. Which COMMANDMENT had each side been attempting to follow? hhmmmmm? It's all so clear on what god wants - yet all that bloodshed? Like I said - interpretation.

Why dont you go back in time and ask them.? I dont quite understand your point about intrepretaton. But let me help you out here. You are attempting to blame Christianity for interpretation. That doesnt work. What should be focused on is God's intent from his scriptures, not how man twisted it.
And how many Xian sects are there today?
No renegotiation/reinterpretation my as$."

YOu sure take a very narrow view of things vesimir for someone who claims to be so openminded. Apparently you are only openminded when it comes to science and anything anti-faith. You intellect appairs to voluntarily shut down when it comes to issues of faith. God didn't reverse the COMMANDS, he altered the PUNISHMENT. He offered Jesus as the New Covenant. The commands are still in effect. Sorry no go on that point for you.

"AND you don't account for the centuries of varying INTERPRETATIONS that led to so much attrocity done in God's name."

I have accounted for them but let me do it one more time for you. ANYONE Christian or not, can pick up a Bible, read something and run out and do something crazy. Is God to blame for that? Jesus? any other Christian believer? No of course not. that is mankind being man-like, which is sinful by nature and often violent and cruel to his fellow man. Were the 9/11 terrorists "True Muslims" simply because they said they believed in Allah? No of course not. Your attempts to pin everything every committed in the name of God or Christianity on its true intent is rather juvenile. Its a common anti-faith schtick and it falls flat every time. If man goes and blows up a church full of people yelling out "science not faith!" right before he does it, can I then blame science for that act? Answering that question seems pointless. The answer is obvious.No yet that is what you are suggesting. In the end every person is responsible for his and her actions alone.One person, one church one denomination do NOT an entire religion make.

Faith isn't fact. It can't withstand scientific scrutiny (although theories such as the big bang; evolution - now considered both fact and theory; and relativity can and do hold up under the same scrutiny).

It doesn't have to. We are in agreement on this. I never said it was..That simply doesn't mean it isnt viable. Not yet, doesn't mean never.

2. No religion has historically remained absolute in its doctrine. Religious/doctrinal reinterpretation and renegotiation has occurred and continues to occur, it's happening again with homosexuality.

Wrong religions do remain absolute in their doctrines particularly their MORAL codes that is what distinguishes them from societal relativity. You confuse this with the utilization of misinterpretations of religion vs the relions themselves.

3. Noting this renegotiation and reinterpretation is part and parcel of the character and history of religion, societal issues should be approached with a lot more humility than what is normally extended when viewing those issues through the lens of religion.

I disagree. Religion, is not the study of society,its main focus is God, not man. Otherwise we might as well make man the object of religion. That is in essence what secular humanists do. This is incompatible with religon, especially Christianity.

"Either that concept is "Fact-based" even in the largest sense or it is not."

More circles now?

Why don't you do yourself a favor and actually find out HOW the big bang theory is supported.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."
It might help you to take a look at Spinoza's thought on religion. They're closer to mine than yours.

I am actually am beginning to worry for you. You seem not to read particularly well. I've already posted that Einstein didnt beleive in a personal God so, no real value added by this post. However, it all still does support my main point being that brilliant scientific minds also can believe in the existence of something so unscientific as God. Let me simplify it for you. Did Einstein believe in the existence of a God(of any type) Yes? or No?(Hint: The answer starts with a Y)

"That simply doesn't mean it isnt viable."

Science and nature are saying it isn't viable - no evidence equals no viability.

Maybe you think that at some point all the facts that line up to support a 13 + billion year old universe will simply fall away? Don't be so naive. If anything, the data continually compiles in support of the big bang theory, not against it, while your camp has....what exactly?

"However, it all still does support my main point being that brilliant scientific minds also can believe in the existence of something so unscientific as God."

Uh huh...like I said...those views of God are closer to mine, than yours. Spinoza wasn't even considered an upstanding Jew, let alone a Christian.

What's your point about "God" anyway? You think every time that word is used you have an exclusive claim to it?

First, you attempt a defense by saying slavery was a common practice, not just with Hebrews.

Yes that is a fact.

A socio-economic reality that God wouldn't really get involved with (although we have all these passages indicating it DID matter enough to justify the practice with all those passages).
Then, you attempt to argue that only Hebrews were permitted to own slaves? What? So now only Jews and Israelites have a sole claim to owning people these days?"

You confuse apples and oranges so often vesimir you should open your own fruit juice stand. YOu seem unable to distinguish between internal Christian principles and external realities both of which can be true and in effect at the same time. No for the 1,000th time. That was for that period of time, not centuries later, not today.

"Besides, why would God talk about other religions one way or another when he was only addressing (Commanding) his people? He did think less of those heathens enough to say they could be enslaved, yeah?"

NOw you are getting it. Finally.

Wel im not really interested in YOUR take on morality. I'm not going to balance what it sounds like to you versus what God who created you thinks. Which is why as I said earlier, dont question his motives even if they dont seem right to me.

"(even goes against the core principles that birthed our country - freedom of religion and all that). Like I said, the bible was wrong on slavery."

Oh so now this is about our country? Plese stick to the points of the debate here. Are we going to sing the Star bangled banner next? lol Nope just wrong in your eyes. Thats fine you are welcome to your opinion.

"Plus, where does it say in the bible that heathens CAN'T have slaves?
Go ahead, circle around the issue again.....not much water left in that bowl before your argument finally flushes down the drain."

It doesnt have to say Heathens CANT have slaves. These texts were not directed to HEATHENS. Thats like arguing that a college should have rules stating children cannot enroll in courses, even though they aren't even eligible to apply to college in the first place. LOL hows the water in that bowl? Tasty?

Uh huh...like I said...those views of God are closer to mine, than yours. Spinoza wasn't even considered an upstanding Jew, let alone a Christian.
What's your point about "God" anyway? You think every time that word is used you have an exclusive claim to it?

Wow so when you lose a point, you simply forget what the point was in the first place? LOL You suggested God it was silly to suggest God exists. That people of science and logic cant seriously consider the existence of God. NO i never said he was a Christian. I said he believed in God(you know that non-factual being that has no scientific theories to rely on)

"Science and nature are saying it isn't viable - no evidence equals no viability.
Maybe you think that at some point all the facts that line up to support a 13 + billion year old universe will simply fall away? Don't be so naive. If anything, the data continually compiles in support of the big bang theory, not against it, while your camp has....what exactly?"

This gets exactly back to my last point so wait Einstein and Newton BOTH stated in their OWN words that science is limited(scroll up) in its ability to explain how and even why we are here and this believed in a God that put the universe into motion and you are suggesting that me believing in God is folly? I really am laughing now. You cant have it both ways. You cant claim such devout devotion to science, and call faith such folly and ignore dozens of pre-eminent scientists who even had to admit the creation of a universe by God. How is that corner you are backed into looking?

"It doesnt have to say Heathens CANT have slaves. These texts were not directed to HEATHENS."

WOW!!!! KNOCK KNOCK...Anybody home!?! That's my point exactly. So funny!!!

The bible condoned slavery. And on one post, you are saying that's OK because God said so. Then you attempt to push the fact that the bible didn't say anyone other than Jews could own slaves; then you say it wouldn't say otherwise because the bible wasn't for Jews....bizarre. Do you even HAVE a reason for pushing the point about Jews being told they could own slaves and that the bible never tells non-Hebrews?

IS there a point in there you are willing to stand behind instead of jumping from failed logic or excuse to the next? Keep it up, you're gonna clog that drain.

Hilarious.

What you fail to understand, DETROIT, is that those scientists rejected your TYPE of belief in God in favor of science, believing God is revealed through the natural world. The more we discover about our commonly shared reality, the close we come to knowing "God's mind."

This isn't your God these people are talking about. Go read up on Spinoza...you might get a clue.

You might want to also view the youtube video by Michio Kaku. They actually believe they have a possible candidate for the "Mind of God" that Einstein wrote about for 30 years.
Funny thing...it involves the big bang.

VESMIR,

Holy man, you're a bigot that can't face the ugliness of his own character.

Who, exactly, is "posturing righteously" here?

I have expressed nothing but genuine concern for those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle, and I more than back that up with personal ministry to such.

Hardly the position of a "bigot."

Your evident hatred of christians, which literally drips from the words of your posts, comes much nearer the definition of bigotry.

Matthew 15:18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person.

"I have expressed nothing but genuine concern for those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle,"

Thank you for making it exceedingly more clear! "TRAPPED in a lifestyle." That is the greatest insult and show of ignorance of possible - bigotry disguised in caring. Treating a gay person as if they were diseased or afflicted. You are arguing your perceived cultural stereotypes versus the reality of people being gay. Like I said - you're a bigot who can't face the ugliness of his own character.

"WOW!!!! KNOCK KNOCK...Anybody home!?! That's my point exactly. So funny!!!"

Thats is exactly what I was wondering about you. None of my points have been inconsistent. You seem to be an extremely "either/or" kind of person. Your failed attempts to "catch" me in one of those conundrums is getting tiresome. Let me show you exactly how each of the below statements you attribute to me ALL consistently support my overall point.

1.' "The bible condoned slavery. And on one post, you are saying that's OK because God said so."

Yes that is correct. In a monothesitic religion that requires obedience to one's creator, where God is the ultimate moral authority. YESSSSS it is OK. Even if I don't personally agree with it. I am not one to Consistent point no.1.

2. "Then you attempt to push the fact that the bible didn't say anyone other than Jews could own slaves"

Thats right it was speaking right to Jews. Im not attempting to say that thats what it said. Your use of the word "Then" here seems to suggest that this is a departure in logic or consistency from the previous point. It is not however as this God first manifested himself to the Jews and then the Gentiles(rest of the world) So for him to putforth laws only concerning Jewish people AT THAT TIME is perfectily consistent.

3. "then you say it wouldn't say otherwise because the bible wasn't for Jews....bizarre."

No, I said those scriptures which as I said above were for Jews wouldn't say non-Hebrews cannot own slaves, because at the time they were written there was no such thing as a non-Hebrew member of the faith. Now that would have been bizarre.

See the above point. However for deeper clarification realize that these same Old Testament scriptures make up the foundation for the Jewish religion. It was then with advent of Jesus extended to the whole world.At this time in the New Testament you do not see any scriptures addressed to gentiles about "taking slaves".

4. "Do you even HAVE a reason for pushing the point about Jews being told they could own slaves and that the bible never tells non-Hebrews?"

Yes and I have made this point over and over and over. How you have missed it I have no idea. The point is simple. If only Jews were supposed to be allowed to own slaves, then conversely Europeans were NOT. God then would have not intended for there to be African slaves in the Americas.
Period.

"IS there a point in there you are willing to stand behind instead of jumping from failed logic or excuse to the next? Keep it up, you're gonna clog that drain."

As you will see above, you have failed at attempting to suggest that the points above stand in contrast to each other. They actually SUPPORT each other. I stand on ALL THREE. The only failed logic here was your weak attempt to confuse these issues with brash hyperbole.Apparently the only thing clogged is your comprehension. Hopefully THAT is a point you can understand

Joel Osteen is a superstitious moron.

What you fail to understand, DETROIT, is that those scientists rejected your TYPE of belief in God in favor of science, believing God is revealed through the natural world.

Not true, Even the Bible believes that GOd can be obeserved in nature. "The whole earth is full of His Glory." " The Heavens declare the Glory of God."(That is what Newton said in his quote above)

The more we discover about our commonly shared reality, the close we come to knowing "God's mind." This isn't your God these people are talking about. Go read up on Spinoza...you might get a clue.

I never claimed these scientists believed the same thing I do. I'm not anglican nor do I ascribe to spinoza(don't need to read him, already have, thanks anyway)

What you fail to understand Vesimir you cannot claim that to believe in God Christian God or any god is folly because its not scientific and then give Einstein and others a pass for doing so by claiming they didnt believe in my EXACT God. You never made that distinction. I have successfully shifted you to the God side of the argument.

The previous premise: Belief in God is folly because its unscientific and unsubstantiated.

The current premise:Belief in God can be accepted as it was by Eintein and others, particularly if it ascribes to Spinoza(in your "recent" statement)

Of course you are offbase on that as well. Spinoza claims God has no personality or thoughts or intentional actions, God in essence is nature..is the system for how things exist. Einstein didn't see it that way. See below

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details."

If we are going to go down the whole "closer to my view route as you are suggesting, that particular one view is closer to MINE.

I have a clue enough not to fall for your shape-shifting on this issue. Either you reject that God can exist IN ANY FORM regardless of scientific evidence to support it or you allow for the possibility that he God can exist in one form or another. You until I started pointing out these God-believing well-known scientists took the former approach. Before you start saying no I didnt in all caps, see below:

"Faith isn't fact. It can't withstand scientific scrutiny"

Now you are taking the latter and claiming I am the one who needs a clue. No you need to be intellectually honest about your position and stop changing it simply so you can "appear" to be correct.

"The point is simple. If only Jews were supposed to be allowed to own slaves, then conversely Europeans were NOT."

Really? Where does it say that? Your OWN point was that the bible was addressed to Jews and NOT non-Hebrews, which fully negates this latest. If your god didn't address anything about slavery outside of Hebrews, how do you know what he did or didn't want. He NEVER outright condemns the evil of owning people, he only JUSTIFIES such evil. And as I said, he was wrong for doing so.

And down the drain you go!

"If we are going to go down the whole "closer to my view route as you are suggesting, that particular one view is closer to MINE"

No, it isn't. Pay attention (I know - too late for you and your bizarre logic of using points that counter each other...but anyway): I wholly believe in a creative intent and in "Nature's God" and that whatever creative intent exits specifically expresses itself through nature...just as Spinoza, Einstein and Newton have claimed.

I never said it was "folly" to believe, only that it was foolish to have the self-righteous perspective to assert ANY societal authority based on doctrine that has caused so much miserably in the past (reformation / slavery / Inquisition) and has ZERO provable basis in fact. Your stuck in a paradigm that creative intent automatically translates to your doctrine, which it doesn't. You can't prove YOUR God deserves credit anymore than people can prove Zeus is the creator.

Even so, everyone is entitled to believe, but should do it with a HELL of a lot more humility than what is normally extended, especially considering that every time religion is foolhardy enough to go up against science, it ends up on the losing end.

I know, that's too evolved a perspective for you to grasp (no surprise, since you actually argued against your own points), but there it is.

And, DETROIT, you can't, by default, subscribe to Einstein's version of God as expressed in nature and supported by science if you have trouble with a scientifically valid concept like the big bang. It's either your god OR his.

Pick. (This should be fun)

The obvious pomposity of your positioning is your thinking that, because science doesn't have ALL the answers, then it has NONE. That IS your failsafe perspective, which is, even you have agreed, the ONLY basis of argument available for your position - NO facts and NO proof.

Fortunately for the rest of us, science deals in a commonly shared reality, which includes and DEMANDS supportive evidence. I guess that's the UNfortunate reality for you.

I know, again, it's just too evolved a concept for you.

Oh well. Life goes on, and REALITY continues to gain ground, and your side continues to loose it (notice what one of the Bush twins has just publicly endorsed?). And, that's a GOOD thing, considering the utter lack of humility your side has shown on so many important issues throughout history, not to mention your complete inability to rest firmly and consistently on VERY important aspects within your own doctrine. OBVIOUSLY, it's been a guessing game for you guys from the start. That's what happens when you have NO proof.

Vesimir: Actually its throughout the scriptures which were addressed to JEWS. Which is the same reason Christians today eat pork and dont keep up with other Jewish-focused . Its clear that some Christians took these scriptures out of context(which wasn't for them) and used it to enslave a race of people. This was not intended. The only thing currently applied from those texts to all gentiles are the moral commandments, like the ten commandments and others.

"If your god didn't address anything about slavery outside of Hebrews, how do you know what he did or didn't want. He NEVER outright condemns the evil of owning people, he only JUSTIFIES such evil. And as I said, he was wrong for doing so"

Nope he wasn't he had a purpose for that time to do so. He wasnt wrong. He wouldn't have addressed it because those texts were only addressed to Hebrews. However look at the non-Hebrew Egyptians who owned slaves, they clearly were NOT permitted to have slaves. So thats a clear Biblical example of his opposition to non-Hebrews owning slaves. The people who extended it for generations to come out of context were wrong. This is where we disagree and appararently will always disagree.

Only drain that is clogged is yours.

"No, it isn't. Pay attention (I know - too late for you and your bizarre logic of using points that counter each other...but anyway): I wholly believe in a creative intent and in "Nature's God" and that whatever creative intent exits specifically expresses itself through nature...just as Spinoza, Einstein and Newton have claimed."

My points dont counter each other as I have already debunked your silly claims that they do. Now you are the one who is contradicting himself.

"I never said it was "folly" to believe, only that it was foolish to have the self-righteous perspective to assert ANY societal authority based on doctrine that has caused so much miserably in the past (reformation / slavery / Inquisition) and has ZERO provable basis in fact.

So wait, let me get this straight its not folly to believe in God, its just folly to believe in a God that could lay down moral principles, even if those principles were corrupted by mankind(as is man's nature). So then you find fault with God instead of man? In essence you blame a perfect God, for man's imperfections? This is what you truly have issue with it seems. You look at an imperfect world and say well basically this "type" of God can't exist. That's your right, that doesn't make it the case though.

"Your stuck in a paradigm that creative intent automatically translates to your doctrine, which it doesn't."

You are stuck in an even more ridiculous paradigm that creative intent is somehow beyond the reaches of science but cannnot possibly include my kind of GodWhat is it then aliens? No until you PROVE me wrong, ill take my beliefs. No need for more "humility" since im not prideful, simply confident in my beliefs.

Vesimir: Here you go with the not so multiple choice questions again.Unfortunately for you once again you have my point of view wrong. I never said I personally believe in Einstein's God. I believe and agree with Einstein in "a" God and fall on the side of all of those who are smart enough to realize that we did not create ourselves nor did the universe create itself.God did. I however, as I have said all along believe in a personal God, Einsteain did not. That has been my entire point on that Big Bang issue. Most of those who argue for it, argue there is NO God, that science is so overwhelming and faith is so underwhelming. Einstein, Newton spinoza and now apparently even yourself disagree with that notion.(that there is no God anyway) This should clear it up for you, I know it can be a little complex. In the universe of people there are those who believe in God and those who do not. I am on the side with Einstein of those who believe in the existence of God. Now within the group of God-believers I am with those who believe in a personal God who created all we see. That puts me at odds with Einstein on God's purposes, but not his existence. Comprende?

"The obvious pomposity of your positioning is your thinking that, because science doesn't have ALL the answers, then it has NONE. That IS your failsafe perspective, which is, even you have agreed, the ONLY basis of argument available for your position - NO facts and NO proof."

Perhaps you should scan the web for science vs faith arguments. The POMPOUS ones are the scientists and those who suggest what I believe is folly. I am pompous for holding to my beliefs in the face of those who call me silly and primitive?? Hardly. Kind of hard to be pompous when the majority view is not your own. You confuse strong defense of my belief structure with being pompous. Sorry, not the same thing.

I never said science has no answers, but if so many are going to postulate their positions against mine and call mine ridiculous then yes, I will point out the big holes in their theories and question them, just as you or anyone else would do(you actually are doing the exact same thing on the issue of slavery) People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones.I am not anti-science. I did not say science has no answers. It does not as all agree, have all of the answers. So wrong again on your take on my perspective. Should I turn my back on my faith(something I can personal feel and experience and know to be true for myself) for something that has some of the answers and is constantly "evolving"?? NO.

Fortunately for the rest of us, science deals in a commonly shared reality, which includes and DEMANDS supportive evidence. I guess that's the UNfortunate reality for you.

No, I dont base my faith our my salvation for that matter, on which theory gets the most "supportive" votes.

I know, again, it's just too principled a concept for you.

Vesimir: Alas you insist on viewing things through "sides" and winning and losing and further base those on one particular person on political parties without looking at nuances.

Oh well. Life goes on, and REALITY continues to gain ground, and your side continues to loose it (notice what one of the Bush twins has just publicly endorsed?).

Yep I saw that. Did you know Cheney's daugher is a lesbian? The notion that all people on right are straight or all people on left are secular or anti-faith is naive. There are gay republicans. Jena's position really doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things. I'm a Democrat. Yep surprise. See the point. There are pro-life pro-Bible democrats. There are pro-choice and gay republicans. That needle moves in both directions my friend. Highliting Jena as a sign that my position is disingenuous.

And, that's a GOOD thing, considering the utter lack of humility your side has shown on so many important issues throughout history, not to mention your complete inability to rest firmly and consistently on VERY important aspects within your own doctrine.

You haevn't been reading much of my position I guess. I rest strongly and firmly on mine. Which is why we are having this long "debate" in the first place. Otherwise I would have said, "oh you are right, that seems to make sense, adn well if enough other people believe it I should too."

"OBVIOUSLY, it's been a guessing game for you guys from the start. That's what happens when you have NO proof."

Nope no guessing game. no renegotiation, simply imperfect man getting it wrong. Mis-applying texts for their own gain militarily(crusades) or economically(slavery) that does not mean a fault with Christianity itself and certainly not God.You keep coming back to lack of facts like that is some sort of insult. It isn't. To bring this full circle. For both Newton and Einstein, they didnt have facts to support a belief in ANY kind of God. Yet they did. no they had faith, as do I. Not the same kind of faith, but a certain amount. So please spare me the non-fact argument.

Its amazing to me someone who is so focused on the complex processes of science has NO ability(or at least no desire-and thats not suprising) to account for complex processes within faith and humanity and the juxtaposition of the two. Sorry, I guess its not that obvious after all my friend.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,....24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

"I believe and agree with Einstein in "a" God and fall on the side of all of those who are smart enough to realize that we did not create ourselves nor did the universe create itself.God did."
- And you again had wrong assumptions about my position.

DETROIT: "Alas you insist on viewing things through "sides" and winning and losing and further base those on one particular person on political parties without looking at nuances."
- Another false assumption on your part. Just as you failed in an assumption that I felt a belief in a god or deity was folly.

"Its clear that some Christians took these scriptures out of context(which wasn't for them) and used it to enslave a race of people."
- Really? How is it "clear?" What changed SPECIFICALLY with doctrine? The answer - nothing changed. Yet it took, what, 1800 years to fix the problem? Like I said..reinterpretation (without god ever directly intervening) demonstrating the clear inability for the religious to rest firmly and concisely on its own doctrine. Same with the reformation. It amounts to guessing games with people's lives and freedom in the balance. Nothing changed with scripture regarding the reformation - only interpretation; same with the inquisition; same with the crusades.

DETROIT (referring to God and slavery): "Nope he wasn't he had a purpose for that time to do so. He wasn't wrong. He wouldn't have addressed it because those texts were only addressed to Hebrews. However look at the non-Hebrew Egyptians who owned slaves, they clearly were NOT permitted to have slaves."
- Where does it say Egyptians weren't allowed to own slaves? BTW, God obviously thought Jews could own each other, noting the women and children and property "justification" in the bible. Which, by any standard, other than the bible's, is a universally WRONG concept! Ancients just didn't get it back then, they weren't evolved enough. Maybe God is also evolving more now to better understand the nature of homosexuality? If he didn't get the nature of slavery itself was wrong, there's no reason to believe he couldn't get it wrong about gays. Maybe he'll change his mind..or more aptly, maybe his followers will change theirs, as nothing new came out of scripture regarding slavery in 1800 years - only re-interpretation / renegotiation.

"The people who extended it for generations to come out of context were wrong."
- Wrong according to god? How do you know? He never came back to clarify scripture for 1800 years or so. People just reinterpreted / renegotiated the "word" differently. Just like the sin of being in proximity of a woman on her period. Is that STILL a sin? Same difference.

DETROIT: "So wait, let me get this straight its not folly to believe in God, its just folly to believe in a God that could lay down moral principles."
- Pay attention one more time...it's folly to assert moral authority upon society based on an unprovable religion. Whatever created the universe has decided to remain vague and unproven; and the only common reality we share through creation is expressed via nature, as explored through science (Einstein's point, Spinoza's point, Newton's point, and MY point). To prove YOUR god is "perfect," you must first prove YOUR god exists and deserves credit for creation. Once you have proof, then you might have legitimate moral authority. Without that, you have only self-righteous posturing. No proof = no legitimate moral authority. Hence the need for humility (which could have avoided so much of the prior atrocity done in ANY religion's name). That leaves us only with nature and science (which demands evidence). Go look at biology's first law (ZFEL) pertaining to diversity and complexity, and you'll start to appreciate my underlying argument a little more on changing social mores, even within religion (and right or left wing politics -right wing in my prior example). History demonstrates the dynamic of ZFEL in social systems, which is why gays are becoming more accepted by society (even in religious circles). It's a matter of no proof (religion) vs. supportive evidence (science). That's why science eventually holds sway over countering religious doctrine - and it even elicits change from within. What this also points to is the possibility/probability that those original authors of the bible were also INTERPRETING god's wishes based on their perceptions of the time. Why else would it be showing incorrect material regarding a global flood, or the earth being here before the sun, on a heliocentric solar system...etc.? Answer: INTERPRETATION of the world around them. Science promotes an improved understanding of reality, which often negates ancient perspective.

DETROIT: "What is it then aliens"
- Based on eye witness accounts/photos/video, there is actually as much if not more "evidence" to support that idea as there is to support your religion. We can postulate aliens had populated the earth with life just as easily as we can postulate it's your god that put life on this planet. Careful where you go with that.

"Perhaps you should scan the web for science vs faith arguments."
- Science monitors itself and cleans its own house. What you need to do is provide peer reviewed evidence AGAINST these theories. You'll find it is severely lacking and all but absent. Meanwhile, NO specific faith is providing any supportive proof of it's authority. None whatsoever (even by your admission).

"Most of those who argue for it (big bang), argue there is NO God, that science is so overwhelming and faith is so underwhelming."
- Not true...many, if not most theoretical physicists ARE very spiritual. Just not necessarily YOUR flavor of spiritual. Check out Kenneth Miller's "Finding Darwin's God." He happens to be a practicing Catholic who wholly understands the idea of evolution. Of course, that takes some renegotiation of doctrine, but that happens constantly, as I've pointed out. You might want to look at Fr. Wiseman's "Theology and modern science." A great read. The Vatican itself continues to further understand this natural world is sometimes in conflict with literal biblical verse. Their position often now falls in favor of science, their official statement being that the big bang and evolution are not incompatible with church teachings. See what I mean about advancing scientific understanding in turn effecting changes within religion? We NOW have enough science to show the same thing with homosexuality. And ZFEL promotes a natural absorption of those better understandings of homosexuality within society.

"Should I turn my back on my faith(something I can personal feel and experience and know to be true for myself) for something that has some of the answers and is constantly "evolving"?? NO"
- What you should do is acknowledge that science and our evolving (improving) understanding of reality truly impacts religious thought and belief; and sometimes causes great shifts in religious perspective. It's been happening for centuries. Just ask Newton and Galileo. Just ask the Vatican. It all toggles back to the ZFEL dynamic with all life - diversity and complexity (on the social level as well) continue to be promoted and embraced. It caused a shift in understanding/interpretation of slavery, it helped bring about freedom of religion (also tied to free thinking in science and the age of reason), it's enticing the change in better acceptance of sexual orientation. Soon it won't be considered any more a "sin" to the masses than standing next to a menstruating woman.

A tendency toward complexity and diversity is the law of life in nature, not exclusive or isolationist religious paradigms based on ancient understanding.

"Should I turn my back on my faith(something I can personal feel and experience and know to be true for myself) for something that has some of the answers and is constantly "evolving"?? NO"

That's just it. It's YOUR personal reality. You can't quantify it, qualify it, or justify it any more or less than a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim or Wiccan. Faith is internal reality, not a commonly shared external and observable reality. What makes your belief any different than the next person's? Unlike science, faith remains a wholly subjective phenomenon.

Meanwhile, the very heart and core of science is a matter of commonly shared external and observable reality.

Vesimir
DETROIT: "Alas you insist on viewing things through "sides" and winning and losing and further base those on one particular person on political parties without looking at nuances."
"Another false assumption on your part."

Wrong and this is exactly where you discussed sides and winning and losing. Own your statements, dont back away from them when they are called out and act like you didnt say them.

Vesimir clearly said the following:
" Oh well. Life goes on, and REALITY continues to gain ground, and your side continues to loose it (notice what one of the Bush twins has just publicly endorsed?)."

My side continues to lose it.Hmmmmm So you say my side in terms of losing but NOW you dont see things in terms of sides? You CLEARLY assume in the above statement that I am on the conservative/Bush/Republican "SIDE". Which is exactly why you said my side is "loosing" I think you meant losing. Of which you would be 0-3 on those assumptions. I pointed out to you that that Christians can be on both sides of the spectrum.

Be honest at least vesimir. Its one thing to argue your position, its another thing to turn around and say you didn't say mean something you clearly did.

Vesimir
"Its clear that some Christians took these scriptures out of context(which wasn't for them) and used it to enslave a race of people."
- Really? How is it "clear?" What changed SPECIFICALLY with doctrine? The answer - nothing changed. Yet it took, what, 1800 years to fix the problem? Like I said..reinterpretation (without god ever directly intervening) demonstrating the clear inability for the religious to rest firmly and concisely on its own doctrine. Same with the reformation. It amounts to guessing games with people's lives and freedom in the balance. Nothing changed with scripture regarding the reformation - only interpretation; same with the inquisition; same with the crusades."

Wrong. I'll tell you what changed with the doctrine. The people which applied it changed. The nature of the enslavers changed. They were European, not Jewish to whom the allowances were made. That is significant, basically the most significant issue. I could also go into how other principles of the slavery were violated in terms of nature of it, laws, purpose etc. However the main issue is it was mis-applied by Europeans. Can I go back to Those allowances were made to the Hebrews.

Yet it took, what, 1800 years to fix the problem? Like I said..reinterpretation (without god ever directly intervening)"

Of course, it took that long. If the religious are the same ones violating the principles AND benefitting hansomely economically from it, it will take some time to reverse that process. The key issue here you keep missing is these Christians got the scriptures WRONG in regards to their ability to apply it to their generation. God did not get it wrong in writing it. God gives humans free will, he doesn't intervene and make us do anything so of course he wouldnt have intervened.

All of your examples slavery inquisition, crusades.. Christians getting the scriptures wrong in how they applied them. NOT the scriptures being wrong. Thats a ssignificant is difference becuase one speaks to the falibility of man, the other of scripture and God.

I believe in the former, you clearly in the latter. I don't see that changing no matter how many times you post.

Here you need to go back and do some more Bibilical research my friend.

"Where does it say Egyptians weren't allowed to own slaves?"

Read Exodus, he freed them from the Egyptians, ergo that wasn't something he wanted to continue.

"BTW, God obviously thought Jews could own each other, noting the women and children and property "justification" in the bible."

Hebrew on Hebrews slavery was indentured servitude. It was voluntary. People became slaves for their OWN economic well-being, to be provided for. There was no welfare net.Hebrew slaves were required to have the same accomodations as their masters in food and lodging. No way of caring for the least of that society this is how it was done.NOT like black slavery. So much for your universally wrong assumption and everything that came after

"Maybe God is also evolving more now to better understand the nature of homosexuality?"

Now this is a ridiculous statement. Let me get this straight. If one assumes as I do and Newton, Einstein, apparently even yourself(but do correct me I dont want to "assume") that God created mankind, he would need to "evolve" to understand his own creation?? Thats makes not sense.God is very clear on the nature of his creation, us and our tendencies, proclivities, lifestyle choices, sinful nature.. Thats why his word is written exactly how it is.Then now and forever.

If he didn't get the nature of slavery itself was wrong, there's no reason to believe he couldn't get it wrong about gays.

I'm assuming you meant he couldnt get it right, then he was wrong on gays. But he did get it right at the time in the context with the Hebrews. You have failed to show that God himself got it wrong. All you have shown is that his followers did.
"The people who extended it for generations to come out of context were wrong."
- Wrong according to god? How do you know? Yep wrong according to God. No and h

"He never came back to clarify scripture for 1800 years or so."

He wont come back until the world ends so to expect him to come back to clarify a principle is misguided, not a sign of agreement with status quo.

"People just reinterpreted / renegotiated the "word" differently. "

People "returned" to the original reading of scripture. That slavery was no longer applicable and indeed hadn't been outside of the Hebrew context. Thats the difference between your perspective and mine.

"Just like the sin of being in proximity of a woman on her period. Is that STILL a sin?"

Same difference. you are right. It is actually the same thing, just not how you intended it. It was a Jewish requirement related to purification, that was not applied to gentiles. So no its not still a sin. So it existed within Hebrew society not outside of it. You are right same difference, well from my perspective anyway.

"Whatever created the universe has decided to remain vague and unproven;"

"No proof = no legitimate moral authority."

So just because my God who created the universe has decided to remain "unproven" I must now renounce my faith and and ascribe to whatever seems right and can be proven. Hmm.. there is the rub once and for all my friend. You say no proof. Well as I stated so many times before, where is the proof of the Big Bang? Evolution? You cannot claim the need for proof to believe in something when you do NOT apply the same requirement to these theories(whether they are designed to demonstrate proof or not) Faith is not designed to demonstrate proof. So your premise is false and I reject it. I do not need to prove God exists to claim moral authority interms of what MY FAITH teaches. It is what it is. Man might get it wrong from time to time but God hasnt. ZFEL is that kinda like Zeus? That was "created" like yesterday lol

vesmir: Thanks looked up ZFEL, not really interested in a brand new "law" and theory of what a couple of scientists think might apply to this topic. Thats precisely my point with science. Scientists/philosophers in this case come up with all kinds of theories as to why things might occur the way they do.there is no end game to it. It will continue as long as we have breath in our bodies. I could spend a year and come out with a theory myself that is in the universe of things I believe. Intelligent Design anyone? I don't suppose you agree with ID(maybe you do, but it seems like you wouldn't) Even, if you dont, can you say it is not possible? No. See my point? Not anymore than you can say there isnt a moral personal God.

A tendency toward complexity and diversity is the law of life in nature, not exclusive or isolationist religious paradigms based on ancient understanding.

Complexity and diversity exist within Christianity. However you are right in a secular world the norm is to move toward no religion at all as they are definitive and stand for something as opposed to nothing(eventually).Just because you disagree with something doesnt make it isolationist, it just doesnt jive with how you think.

As long as this country exists we as Christians in other countries as well will have a right to stand on our beliefs against scientific and secular pressures to de-principle ourselves in the name of "inclusion" Positing a new-born "law" on this topic as the evidence of the error of my position is hardly conclusive.

"Their position often now falls in favor of science, their official statement being that the big bang and evolution are not incompatible with church teachings. See what I mean about advancing scientific understanding in turn effecting changes within religion?"

I'm not Catholic so I can't say I give much sway to what they say as a moral authority. Quoting them to me, while not the same exactly, is moving down the road of quoting Jewish authorities to me. I have said I am not opposed to science. I am not opposed to scientific inquiry. I beleive that it is entirely possible that something like the Big Bang could have been how God created the universe. I simply believe God did it, intentionally,not through a non-divine, non-personal perfect mixture of superhot gases.

"Based on eye witnessaccounts/photos/video, there is actually as much if not more "evidence" to support that idea as there is to support your religion. We can postulate aliens had populated the earth with life just as easily as we can postulate it's your god that put life on this planet. Careful where you go with that."
Not really videos and photos can and have been doctored. Jesus actually walked this earth. Eye witness accounts- be careful where you go with that. Aliens? not so much. We can just as easily postulate that the Stay Puft Marshmellow man populated earth as we can aliens. Nice try though.

"That's just it. It's YOUR personal reality. You can't quantify it, qualify it, or justify it any more or less than a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim or Wiccan. Faith is internal reality, not a commonly shared external and observable reality. What makes your belief any different than the next person's? Unlike science, faith remains a wholly subjective phenomenon."

I disagree. Faith is an internal action, based upon personal experiences and viewed in external ocurrences and realities. It's far more than just MY personal reality. Its the reality for 2.2 billion people who beleive in a personal moral Christian God. Miracles HAVE ocurred in the plane of this world we live in the past and the present. So to limit faith to some personal internal mental excercise is simply inaccurate.

"Perhaps you should scan the web for science vs faith arguments."
- Science monitors itself and cleans its own house. What you need to do is provide peer reviewed evidence AGAINST these theories. You'll find it is severely lacking and all but absent. Meanwhile, NO specific faith is providing any supportive proof of it's authority. None whatsoever (even by your admission)."

The "proof" is NOT evidence against scientific theories. If that were the case we could rightfully assume my position is correct as science cannot provide any evidence against the existence of a God either. If ANYTHING, as we have gone in circles on, science through its own shortcomings has left open a large door for the existence of God in the area of things it cannot answer or address. Ultimate origins and purpose speifically. So in the end two, at times consistent and at times incompatible systems, based on entirely different "belief" systems, neither which can prove or disprove the other.

DETROIT, you are saying that God helping Jews escape slavery automatically translates to non-Hebrews not being allowed to have slaves? What about all of their non-Hebrew slaves? Basic logic, DETROIT - because A is part of B does not logically translate to all of B being part of A. All JEWSIH slaves were rescued, not ALL slaves of Egypt. Again, where does it specify that slavery was forbidden by Heathens?

Same A/B logic follows with Jews in slavery. Not all Jewish slaves entered slavery VOLUNTARILY. You conveniently ignore the passages (again) about women and children being kept for life. As spelled out, that left the "freed" male slave having the option (if he wants to stay with his family) of being a slave "for life." Nice choice God permits, huh? Freedom OR, if you want to keep your family together - slavery for life! Yep...nice and "just," that god of yours. Why do you think that's acceptable? Because your "perfect" god said so?...wow...

And let's look at all the Heathen slaves allowed to be bought and sold from foreigners. Nope, no "economic" gain inherent in THAT process..no siree, Bob! Those Hebrews buying Heathen slaves had to ensure the slave traders weren't making any money off the transaction. Right? Where IS that regulation, btw? Does it exist?

Those were your three positions against slavery, yes? Your reinterpretation against that evil is anything BUT logical. If that's how it needed to be viewed in order for slavery to finally be considered evil, no wonder it took 1800 years to figure it out.

"....science through its own shortcomings has left open a large door for the existence of God in the area of things it cannot answer or address. Ultimate origins and purpose speifically."

The clear falsehood of your observation is in attaching the idea of a vague and undefined creator, such as Einstein acknowledged, to any detailed version of God. Like you said - a PERSONAL god.

Here's a simple yet cogent analogy - science accepting the possibility of UFO's and alien life versus you not only agreeing that is the case, but being adamant that those UFO's originate specifically from Alpha Centauri and the nice ones are gray skinned with four arms, but the bad ones are blue with 3 appendages. Where's the proof? See the leap in "faith"? Just as you do with Einstein and God.

DETROIT: "The "proof" is NOT evidence against scientific theories. If that were the case we could rightfully assume my position is correct as science cannot provide any evidence against the existence of a God either."

1). It isn't necessary for science to prove a negative in support of their claims, it offers facts and evidence to the positive of it's own theories. Just as science has evidence that continues to compile in support of the big bang, it would as readily accept viable evidence of any specific God. Where is it? All the accumulative evidence supporting the big bang, evolution, heliocentric solar system, etc. compared to all ABSENCE of evidence that your specific God deserves credit. What analogies should be drawn? None!

You can't play on the same plane of logic, DETROIT, Science isn't a belief system. It takes facts, observations, develops hypothesis, attempts to prove AND disprove those hypotheses (via counter facts and observations). It leads to conclusions, ideas and theories based on the evidence. Your God can't disprove sciences observations because you have no evidence in support of your position. It takes real facts to counter other facts. Saying we exist and therefore YOUR god deserves credit isn't evidentiary. It a guessing game.

CONTINUED from prior post -

2). What external factors are you bringing to the table to prove your belief system? You feel there is credibility because a certain number of people follow one belief? Let's look more closely and do some math. When it comes to accepting science regarding the big bang, evlution, etc. you need to cut that 2 billion number you tout at least in half. Remember, Catholics aren't necessarliy on your side with that anti-big bang stance. And, of the remaining Christians, approximately half - at least in America - embrace the science aspect as well. They get science - why don't you? The number of Xians embracing biblical verse in lieu of science is at the 1 billion mark or lower (and steadily decreasing).

Remember my point about a commonly shared reality versus a belief system? Science usually holds sway in the long run. If science evidences the big bang, and your God belief HAS to be one against the big-bang, then all that evidence for the big bang falsifies your belief. That's the scientific method of falsifying ideas and hypotheses.

Do you have any evidence that falsifies the big bang theory? Nope.

Let's consider the billion plus Muslims, or 900 million Hindu. Where are your FACTS that show they are wrong (their beliefs are falsified) and you are right (your beliefs confirmed)? Now flip it - where are THEIR facts that say they are right, thereby falsifying your beliefs? Like I said, it's all INTERNAL reality. NO external evidence.

Because multiple people subscribe to that same INTERNAL idea, doesn't mean they have proof. A cultural expression of religion isn't any more valid a claim of credibility for Christians a similar cultural meme for the Aztecs, Greeks, or whatever.

BTW, claims of miralces happen in all faiths (and some outside of any faith), not just yours. Your point is not a logical appeal for validity of any religion.

"Not really videos and photos can and have been doctored..."

Not ALL of them, I'm sure. Plus, that video of the Phoenix lights looks pretty legit to me!

"... Jesus actually walked this earth."

You say that while having no contemporary extant evidence of Christ's life. No Roman record of his crucifixion. Biblical scholars mostly agree the actual writers/authors of the new testament never personally witnessed Jesus's ministry or his crucifixion. Everything we know about Christ and his life is technically based on hearsay after the fact. You couldn't convict a shoplifter with that standard of evidence, yet here is the arguably most important figure in human history?

Like I said, faith, not fact.

"Thanks looked up ZFEL, not really interested in a brand new "law" and theory of what a couple of scientists think might apply to this topic."

Do you realize what it takes to get peer-reviewed ideas establish as a "law" of science?

Wow....

Are you sure you're on board with a heliocentric solar system? Just how far do you go to stand against science?

Yes, DETROIT, you DID have bad assumptions of the "sides" I was discussing. Those "sides" were not tied to political parties as you assumed. More so an example of internal changes and of one camp moving further away older Buddy Bush - influences and ideology. It was the nuance in itself that I was considering. GW who pushed for a marriage amendment compared to his daughter campaign for marriage equality. Get it!?

The competing sides I was referring to were in regards to those adamant in faith-based self-righteous posturing versus the side which increasingly accepts and embraces concepts of equality and fairness and diversity.

But in your case, it's seem to be much more a matter of provable reality/science vs faith-based ideology.

Some pretty interesting stuff here, DETROIT:

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religion-and-Science-A-Timeline.aspx

Notice the 4th century bullet point.

Vesimir
"DETROIT, you are saying that God helping Jews escape slavery automatically translates to non-Hebrews not being allowed to have slaves? What about all of their non-Hebrew slaves? Basic logic, DETROIT - because A is part of B does not logically translate to all of B being part of A. All JEWSIH slaves were rescued, not ALL slaves of Egypt. Again, where does it specify that slavery was forbidden by Heathens?"

Yes I am actually. God freeing the slaves certainly doesn't suggest he is FOR slavery. There you go trying to apply reasoning and logic to faith. Its not applicable.Which is were your moral human reasoning is at odds with God's. Once again it wouldnt say slavery was forbidden for non-Hebrews because the scriptures were written for HEBREWS. Would the Koran give laws to Christians? Of course not lol.

"Same A/B logic follows with Jews in slavery. Not all Jewish slaves entered slavery VOLUNTARILY. You conveniently ignore the passages (again) about women and children being kept for life. As spelled out, that left the "freed" male slave having the option (if he wants to stay with his family) of being a slave "for life." Nice choice God permits, huh? Freedom OR, if you want to keep your family together - slavery for life! Yep...nice and "just," that god of yours. Why do you think that's acceptable? Because your "perfect" god said so?...wow..."

Um you fail to follow my statements.(again) I never said ALL slaves were voluntary.Some were captured and placed into captivity But ALL Hebrews slaves were voluntary. I didnt leave them out I'm aware of those as well. Yes God is perfect. I don't pretend to "know" all of the reasons why God allowed certain terms and conditions in conditions within the society.I however am not moved by your arm-chair moral quarterbacking and attempt to invalidate God's authority. I don't understand or evern agree with everything God does and the way he does it or allows it, but that doesnt enable me to put myself in his place and usurp his moral authority. That's bass-ackwards. Yep thats why I think its ok. God offered alot of "bad" choices to people over the years. It didnt look so good for a pregnant teenage Mary, it turned out ok for her.

"And let's look at all the Heathen slaves allowed to be bought and sold from foreigners. Nope, no "economic" gain inherent in THAT process..no siree, Bob! Those Hebrews buying Heathen slaves had to ensure the slave traders weren't making any money off the transaction. Right? Where IS that regulation, btw? Does it exist?"

Um why do you keep harping on the economic issue? What's the fixation? As I've said(many times) the point of difference was not simply that Europeans benefited economically even though they Jews did too; the difference was non-Jews enslaving others out of context based upon old testament religious justification. OF WHICH THERE IS NONE. So your questions here are off the point.

No not my reinterpretation the correct view. Not illogical my friend

"The clear falsehood of your observation is in attaching the idea of a vague and undefined creator, such as Einstein acknowledged, to any detailed version of God. Like you said - a PERSONAL god."

It's not a falsehood. Even for the non-believer it is a possibility. For me its the truth. For you its doubtful. Under no circumstances is it false.

"Here's a simple yet cogent analogy - science accepting the possibility of UFO's and alien life versus you not only agreeing that is the case, but being adamant that those UFO's originate specifically from Alpha Centauri and the nice ones are gray skinned with four arms, but the bad ones are blue with 3 appendages. Where's the proof? See the leap in "faith"? Just as you do with Einstein and God."

Its faith. There is NO PROOF.(for the 100th time) If you are tryin to argue back and forth on this issue we can stop now. Thats not a point of contention as I have said before. Science can no more define the parameters of faith than faith can define the parameters of science. There is nothing to suggest that God isnt exactly as it has been written. Besidesif it is generally accepted that there are aliens in your example then those details are not a stretch or inconceivable; particulary when there is a widely accepted and believed.

"You can't play on the same plane of logic, DETROIT, Science isn't a belief system. It takes facts, observations, develops hypothesis, attempts to prove AND disprove those hypotheses (via counter facts and observations). It leads to conclusions, ideas and theories based on the evidence. Your God can't disprove sciences observations because you have no evidence in support of your position. It takes real facts to counter other facts. Saying we exist and therefore YOUR god deserves credit isn't evidentiary. It a guessing game."

I never said they were the same. Funny you say all that, yet those same scientists the ones I mentioned still beleived God(a supernatural being) created all of it. Einstein anyway didnt believe in a moral God that was invovled in human affairs but he and I have one thing at least in common. We both looked at all the scientific evidence data known and unkown and concluded that was a likely outcome. So spare me all the hyperbole about how a lack of evidence supposedly eliminates the existence of God or makes it folly to beleive in one.

"What external factors are you bringing to the table to prove your belief system? You feel there is credibility because a certain number of people follow one belief? "
Nope I said no such thing. we've already been over the proof issue. Simply an example of how my beleifs are not some silly fringe element. I actually don't need to cut that number in half because that 2.2 billion are Christians who believe in a personal God as I do. How we all view the universe may very, but they all believe in Jesus Christ as their savior. Something which you do not.

I'm sorry who are "Xians"? are you referring to Taoists? Why would they beleive in the Bible? I'm not familiar with that terms I've been meaning to ask you about it.

"Remember my point about a commonly shared reality versus a belief system? Science usually holds sway in the long run. If science evidences the big bang, and your God belief HAS to be one against the big-bang, then all that evidence for the big bang falsifies your belief. That's the scientific method of falsifying ideas and hypotheses."

You of course are assuming that for one the Big Bang actually ocurred. Which there is no proof that it actually did. Second if the Big Bang did occur(and I don't rule out that posibility in some way)you suggest the elimination of the possibilty that God used the Big Bang to create the universe for his purposes.That doesnt falsify the belief at all.

"Because multiple people subscribe to that same INTERNAL idea, doesn't mean they have proof. A cultural expression of religion isn't any more valid a claim of credibility for Christians a similar cultural meme for the Aztecs, Greeks, or whatever."

Apparently multiple people subscribing to an EXTRNAL idea based upon what they agree to believe evidence doesn't mean they have proof either. Alas, an impasse.

"BTW, claims of miralces happen in all faiths (and some outside of any faith), not just yours. Your point is not a logical appeal for validity of any religion."

It is of course if(and I do believe so) they are actually true.

"Not ALL of them, I'm sure. Plus, that video of the Phoenix lights looks pretty legit to me!"

Of course all of them can be fabricated.There's nothing to say it cant be a military or exponential craft. The last miracle I saw looked pretty legit to me too. That proves more of my point than yours.

"You say that while having no contemporary extant evidence of Christ's life. No Roman record of his crucifixion. Biblical scholars mostly agree the actual writers/authors of the new testament never personally witnessed Jesus's ministry or his crucifixion. Everything we know about Christ and his life is technically based on hearsay after the fact. You couldn't convict a shoplifter with that standard of evidence, yet here is the arguably most important figure in human history?"

Not so my friend. Let's disect your errors on this point. The Gospel of Mark was closely told to Mark who served as his interpreter by Peter who was an eyewitness. That makes Mark the court "scribe" whose transription of Peter's eyewitness accounts "convicts your shoplifter." Additionally John was another eyewitness nearly 15 different detailed scriptures combined with historical accounts support his authenticity. Oddly enough Tacitus the Roman historian refers to Christ's life and death at the hands of the Romans. As does Flavius Josephus, andPliny the Younger among others.Yes here is the most important figure in human history, and his accounts exist, inside the Bible and outside of it.

Do you realize what it takes to get peer-reviewed ideas establish as a "law" of science?
Wow....

Not sure, but I know how little it takes to get a book published and put forth some ideas. (LAST YEAR even). Sorry dont see alot of evidence of the scientific community and given the frequency with which science "renegotiates" with itself. There is no telling how long this "law" will be considered applicable if it truly is even universally accepted now. A review of the web suggests otherwise.

"Are you sure you're on board with a heliocentric solar system? Just how far do you go to stand against science?"

There goes your award winning hyperbole and sarcasm again. If you spent less time doing that and more time reading you'd know I'm not against science.

The competing sides I was referring to were in regards to those adamant in faith-based self-righteous posturing versus the side which increasingly accepts and embraces concepts of equality and fairness and diversity."

I can only take your word for it. However even that account you just gave is off base. True Christians are NOT self-righteous. That's the antithesis of what we believe as there is no righteous of our own that we can claim. As I mentioned there is great diversity fairness and equality within our faith as well so your premise that one "side" embraces those concepts and other does not, is still misguided.

Nice link you provided, although the 4th CENTURY link was outweighed by the 1961 bullet as well as the last one on Collins

DETROIT: "There you go trying to apply reasoning and logic to faith. Its not applicable."

Yet you attempt to argue some sort of reasoning to validate scripture? Then you posture that reason and logic are not applicable to faith? Why do you then attempt to rationalize the justification of slavery or the end of it? Or ANY of your points on interpretation of scripture? No wonder it took 1800 years to end slavery. Sheesh!

"Apparently multiple people subscribing to an EXTERNAL idea based upon what they agree to believe evidence doesn't mean they have proof either. Alas, an impasse"
- No, it only highlights the points I've made previously. Science isn't a belief system, but you're required to view science (which IS the process of understanding our commonly shared reality via facts and evidence, read: proof) on the same plane as religion, an internal reality that continually fails to operated on the same basis as science - by your own admission - sans logic and reason; they aren't applicable according to you, yet solely what science relies on.

"Of course all of them (UFO pics and videos) can be fabricated."
- And all the stories in the bible could have been fabricated as well, much more easily in fact.

"The Gospel of Mark was closely told to Mark who served as his interpreter by Peter who was an eyewitness."
- Thank you for adding to support to my comment. Like I said, hearsay after the fact (second hand testimony).

"Additionally John was another eyewitness nearly 15 different detailed scriptures combined with historical accounts support his authenticity."
- Yet biblical scholars mostly agree on the lack of proof to support the book being authored by John the apostle, and that the biblical writings attributed to John were actually multiple authors -
From: intranet.stgregorys.edu/People/faculty/aday/four_gospels.htm
"The traditional author of John is John, Son of Zebedee, one of the apostles. It was said that he lived into old age and, late in life, wrote John, 1-3 John (Epistles), and Revelation. Today it is typically not thought that one person authored all of these works. The date of its composition is given anywhere from 90-110. We really have no clear idea. "

Unlike the big bang, believing John, the Apostle, wrote these texts requires FAITH. But that obviously works for you since your standard maintains that logic and reason aren't applicable to faith.

"Oddly enough Tacitus the Roman historian refers to Christ's life and death at the hands of the Romans. As does Flavius Josephus, andPliny the Younger among others."
- Yep - ALL many decades after the supposed fact of his crucifixion and well into the 2nd century; at this point, when these historians mention Christ, it's just historicity of a religious movement. Again, hearsay after the fact. To repeat, no contemporary extant proof - meaning writings, records, etc. DURING Christ's lifetime - exit.

ALL hearsay after the fact.

Second and third hand hearsay "testimony" along with well established doubts of experts on the authorship of the Gospels. All this (lack of) evidence to promote the most important figure in human history. Yet, you can ignore the proof and evidence in support of the big bang...too curious.

To reiterate YOUR position once again: Logic and reason are not applicable to faith. It does illustrate why your standards of proof for your religion are entirely incongruous with your standards of proof on scientific issues, and why your appeals to logic regarding the bible have been so overstretched. You loose any coherent sense of reasoning in or out of a religious context.

Then again, it'd be foolish of me to continue a debate with someone who stands on grounds that logic and reason aren't applicable to faith - which in and of itself wholly negates ANY appeal to logic given by you in defending the bible.

Good luck, DETROIT!

VESMIR,

You are a real hoot.

DETROIT said:

"Additionally John was another eyewitness nearly 15 different detailed scriptures combined with historical accounts support his authenticity."

To which you reply:

- Yet biblical scholars mostly agree (not true—only a handful with an obvious ax to grind) on the lack of proof to support the book being authored by John the apostle, and that the biblical writings attributed to John were actually multiple authors –

Then DETROIT said:

"Oddly enough Tacitus the Roman historian refers to Christ's life and death at the hands of the Romans. As does Flavius Josephus, andPliny the Younger among others."

To which you replied:

- Yep - ALL many decades (LOL—as opposed to two millennia as with your “scholars”?!) after the supposed fact of his crucifixion and well into the 2nd century; at this point, when these historians mention Christ, it's just historicity of a religious movement. Again, hearsay after the fact (RAOTFL…as opposed to the “hearsay” of your “scholars” 2000 years after the fact?). ALL hearsay after the fact.

Second and third hand hearsay "testimony" along with well established doubts of experts on the authorship of the Gospels.

…… :-) …..I’m sorry….give me a moment to wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes…..OK….there….better now.

So…let me get this straight. The testimony of a handful of liberal “bible scholars”--with an obvious agenda--2,000 years after the facts is more credible in your estimation than eyewitness testimony recorded and preserved for 2000 years? You are aware that testimony written down…let’s see…how did you put it….”decades after the supposed fact”….could still have been written down based on the testimony of EYEWITNESSES to the events in question, aren’t you?

You seem to be terribly ignorant of the fact that the New Testament is the single most well-preserved and documented piece of literature in all of ancient history—with one possible exception: The Old Testament.

Who exactly is it that you think is making a blind leap of faith here?

“Hearsay”? Bwaaa….hahaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaaa………….

RCO, the bigot that can't face the ugliness of his own character rears his head once again!

I'm sorry mister laught-a-lot...didn't you originally contend that the gospel authors were in fact those the gospels were named after? Are you changing your tune now?

Tacitus, Flavius, etc. WHEN did they write these musings you and your cohort are standing behind? WHEN?!? Was it even in the FIRST century? WHO told them?

Alas, hearsay after the fact...the TECHNICAL definition fully applies. To borrow a phrase..Bwaaa….hahaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaaa………….

And those biblical scholars, if you weren't paying attention earlier, MOSTLY agree (not mere a handful as you have must dishonestly represent to uphold your misaligned incredulity) the authors were NOT the same people the gospels were named after. That includes those listed at the St. Gregory link.

Plus, why didn't the Gospel of John even appear in history until the second half of the 2nd century?

Why didn't they write down the gospels and begin to disseminate them while it was nice and fresh in their mind?

Why do ALL gospels date so much later (decades - 30 plus years) post Christ's life?

Why wait until the apostles were already dead?

IF it was so important, why weren't those gospels written immediately after or no more than a decade or so following the crucifixion?

To claim DIRECT authorship or authority strains the limits of reasoning and logic...but as your cohort so appropriately indicated...neither is applicable to "faith." Considering the adamant stance both of you have...that REALLY deserves a chuckle!!! Again...Bwaaa….hahaahaaahaaahaaaaaaaaa………….

As you so eloquently mention, RCO...Mark, considered by MOST (not a "handful," what a liar - hey - is that "false witness" - you now show yourself to be a bigot AND a liar...no surprise there) to be the FIRST gospel, had been penned by a follower who was told about Christ. What do you call it when someone writes something down decades after an occurrence and does NOT personally witness it, WHAT is it called?

Everyone!!!!.....That's RIGHT!
HEARSAY after the fact.

Go ahead, try and convict a shoplifter with that standard of evidence. Now THAT's hilarious!

Just goes to prove the point DETROIT made, reason and logic...definitely NOT applicable to the "faith" crowd.

vesimir
There is a difference between scientific logic and logical rationales that EXCLUDE the likelihood of faith and God and understanding scripture in its proper theological context. The assumption that religion doesnt also apply some level of knowledge is ignorant in and of itself. Another classic fail on your part of trying to put my position in an incongruous "either/or" conundrum. Ah there goes that award wining hyperbole again. Throwing an exclamation point in there doesn't make you anymore right. You are off base on this point(again) As I just demonstrated.

Thanks, DETROIT,

"The assumption that religion doesnt also apply some level of knowledge is ignorant in and of itself"

"Knowledge" without reason and logic...

You again illustrate for us your point of why "reason and "logic" are NOT applicable to your "context" of faith based knowledge.

A perfect explanation of why Xians have not and cannot unilaterally and consistently agree on scripture and/or doctrine. Knowledge ("revelations?") without reason leads to reasons without logic. Wonderful!

"- No, it only highlights the points I've made previously. Science isn't a belief system, but you're required to view science (which IS the process of understanding our commonly shared reality via facts and evidence, read: proof) on the same plane as religion, an internal reality that continually fails to operated on the same basis as science - by your own admission - sans logic and reason; they aren't applicable according to you, yet solely what science relies on

And where exactly is that PROOF? You say on one hand that science is head and shoulders above because of its "evidence:read proof" but most agree that proof is NOT the ultimate goal of scientific inquiry, rather it is and ongoing system of evolving empirical evidence and intellectual inquiry which arrives at the current "best answer" given existing evidence.

See how you keep going in circles? Like a dog chasing his tail you run faster(argue more vehemently) yet your tail (the reality that faith and science are more alike than you probably will ever admit in their inability to prove these external realities) remains at the same distance from your mouth. Keep running around. It is entertaining. For the last point see the clarification above for your edification.

"- And all the stories in the bible could have been fabricated as well, much more easily in fact."

Not really, How easy is it to keep a 2,000 year old conspiracy going? Not every my friend. Nice try though.

"- Thank you for adding to support to my comment. Like I said, hearsay after the fact (second hand testimony)."

A contemporary account, meaning that he was actually was around these events as well as a close associate if someone who experienced them. Not some second hand testimony that you try to devaluate below.Hardly someone making them up centuries later my friend.

"Yet biblical scholars mostly agree on the lack of proof to support the book being authored by John the apostle, and that the biblical writings attributed to John were actually multiple authors -
From: intranet.stgregorys.edu/People/faculty/aday/four_gospels.htm
"The traditional author of John is John, Son of Zebedee, one of the apostles. It was said that he lived into old age and, late in life, wrote John, 1-3 John (Epistles), and Revelation. Today it is typically not thought that one person authored all of these works. The date of its composition is given anywhere from 90-110. We really have no clear idea."

Sorry saying most people dont think he wrote it in your opinion is not. Yet biblical scholars mostly agree" Most Biblical scholars fail to agree on most things. Thats your opinion, not a fact.Pick up a reference Bible. Almost all of them recent and older versions attribute the book to John. These are Bibilical scholars as well.

Here is an EXHAUSTIVE look at John that concludes he is the author based on the best available INTERNAL and EXTERNAL evidence.(rather scientific eh?)

http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/John.htm

"Unlike the big bang, believing John, the Apostle, wrote these texts requires FAITH. But that obviously works for you since your standard maintains that logic and reason aren't applicable to faith."

Actually the Big Bang requires faith too or some sort of "we just dont know yet, but we think this is how it happened" position. Sounds familiar to me anyway.

Yep - ALL many decades after the supposed fact of his crucifixion and well into the 2nd century; at this point, when these historians mention Christ, it's just historicity of a religious movement. Again, hearsay after the fact. To repeat, no contemporary extant proof - meaning writings, records, etc. DURING Christ's lifetime - exit."
Not at all its documentation of a religious movement and the external Biblical sources of Jesus existence.

Your "logic" on this point is comical. Do we discount today's historians because they were born hundreds of years after the events of centuries ago? Your position would suggest we should. That would be good news to college students, it would keep the costs of books lows since no new textbooks would ever be written. I am happy to take the historical word of people who were born a mere 20 years after his death as well as those who walked with him and his disciples over yours anyday.

To reiterate YOUR position once again: Logic and reason are not applicable to faith. It does illustrate why your standards of proof for your religion are entirely incongruous with your standards of proof on scientific issues, and why your appeals to logic regarding the bible have been so overstretched. You loose any coherent sense of reasoning in or out of a religious context.

I've already addressed how you are offbase on this context both on my perspective and the "prrof" of science as well tonight. Scroll up.
. I mean if you dont want to debate anymore with me just say so. Don't hide between an inaccurate facade of intellectual imcompatibility or superiority. I think you mean lose. No my reasoning is consistent both in and out of religious contexts, but especially within them. You have failed to show otherwise my friend.

vesimir:

You again illustrate for us your point of why "reason and "logic" are NOT applicable to your "context" of faith based knowledge.

You have consistently demonstrated a lack of an ability to show perspective and intellectual honesty in the debate. Let me break it down for you. A scientific approach to faith is incompatible with faith itself. Faith is not PROVEN(not yet anyway it will be). God doesn't require us to PROVE he exists before we believe in him. That is backwards. So to treat faith like a lab experiment is not applicable.

That does not mean that one cannot approach the texts with knowledge reason or even logic. You can look at one scripture and logically deduct (even with some background research) what it means.

That reason and logic however exist within the context of God's word in principle and/or in practice. As a faithful beleiver one cannot simply impose their own morality or interpretation into the faith based upon shifting secular "moral" logic and reasoning. That is specifically what the Bible warns against doing.

"A perfect explanation of why Xians have not and cannot unilaterally and consistently agree on scripture and/or doctrine. Knowledge ("revelations?") without reason leads to reasons without logic. Wonderful!"

Well you know from what I've heard those Taoists are big on knowledge and enlightenment which is why they keep seeking truth and may not always see eye to eye. I assume thats who you are referring to by your term.But I think in general your point is rather ignorant. Mankind in any religion or any other issue, doesnt unilaterally agree on anything. Thats what makes us human we all have different perspectives based upon environmental impacts etc.

That is precisely why something like a faith rooted in consistency and principled is important, even if it is(wrongly applied from time to time) Thanks for underlying my point.

Post Script:Im with you RCO well said lol.

DETROIT: "rather it is and ongoing system of evolving empirical evidence and intellectual inquiry which arrives at the current "best answer" given existing evidence."

Exactly what I said...PROOF! The PROOF (evidence) leads to the best possible answer: big bang/evolution/earth revolves around the sun. Science NEVER says they have an absolute answer to anything...we went into this already.

Are you going to argue with me about the meaning of 'hearsay' as well? LOL.

BTW, look at your own link. Right off the bat, your guy posits more than one author for John's gospel (internal direct evidence as he puts it).

Later he states one reason that "most likely" the author is John as: "1.3.2. Irenaeus (130-c. 200) identifies John the apostle, the son of Zebedee, as the author of the Gospel of John."

Along with: "C. The source for Irenaeus's knowledge of the origins of the Gospel of John seems to be Polycarp (69-155), whom Irenaeus knew in his youth and who knew the apostles, including John. Polycarp is a bridge between the generation of the apostles and that of Irenaeus..."

So, we have another author tinkering with the gospel (by your guy's own admission); plus Irenaeus "seems" to have known someone who knew John.

Notice, Polycarp was maybe 20 when John was approx. 80 years old (assuming Polycarp really DID know John). And Irenaeus was approx. 20 when Polycarp was 80.

Already into the middle of the 2nd century here, DETROIT. If that isn't HEARSAY I don't know what is.

Your guy even admits: "1.5. In spite of the internal (he admits to there being another author in John's gospel) and external evidence (all from 2nd century hearsay), many scholars believe that John the son of Zebedee could not have written the fourth gospel because, as an account of the life of Jesus, it is unhistorical and as such is incompatible with having an eyewitness origin."

Your guy disagrees, but as I state, MOST biblical scholars agree the authors are not those the gospels are named after. You will, no doubt find lingering opponents, as you did.

In contrast, attempt to find lingering opponents in science that offer any peer-reviewed evidence (PROOF) in opposition to the big bang. Plenty of ideas expanding on the on the basic idea of the big bang, but where are the one's that say it didn't happen?

I know/I know and you're back to a "belief" and "knowledge" outside of "reason and logic."

Gotcha.

"Well you know from what I've heard those Taoists are big on knowledge and enlightenment which is why they keep seeking truth and may not always see eye to eye."

Yep, thanks for highlighting my point one more time. The heart of ANY religion is a matter of faith, NOT fact. You can't offer evidence that your faith is any more vilid or provable than the next. (Your own admission - you HAVE no facts.) And you only support my other point..."Knowledge without reason leads to reasons without logic."

Here's your idea in a nutshell - you believe in YOUR God because "he" says you should believe, but you can't prove he said it. So you must believe he says it, just so you can feel it good and necessary that you believe it. Like I said...knowledge without reason.

"That does not mean that one cannot approach the texts with knowledge reason or even logic."

One last time: YOUR words, not mine: "reason and logic" are "NOT compatible" with faith.

The second logic catches up to you, you high tail it to the "not compatible" safety zone.

Disingenuous and silly.

Good luck, DETROIT!

I notice it was wrong word I quoted as being used by you. But whether using "applicable" or "compatible," my message remains the same.

Faith isn't fact. You should try to rely on a little humility and more intellectual honesty instead of blind faith.

Good luck.

vesmir: You went through all of that to say that the guy agrees with me? He wasnt saying he beleived in other authorhship but rather that others do. Nice. You saying Most doesnt mean most scholars my take the position you have described. At best,there are those who continue to debate authorship of them as debates continue about everything in the Bible.

That's man's nature(as you and I are proving ad nauseum on this board) It means you disagree. i can(and have) found many scholars, not to mention Biblical historians, and writers of Biblical concordances who agree with me, you say the opposite. Hardly a lingering doubter though my friend. Impasse. You say second century as if that signifies that these accounts cant possibly be true. Mark the author of his gospel, was written 55-65AD first century my friend.(like that really matters but to appease you)

"Yep, thanks for highlighting my point one more time. The heart of ANY religion is a matter of faith, NOT fact. You can't offer evidence that your faith is any more vilid or provable than the next. (Your own admission - you HAVE no facts.) And you only support my other point..."Knowledge without reason leads to reasons without logic."

Thanks for agreeing with me again. You say faith has no facts like thats a bad thing. Its simply a different thing. You act as if we started this discussion with me saying "faith is based on facts" and you attempting to convince me otherwise. You can't claim credit for a point I conceded from the beginning. LOL

No I dont support your other point. There is a difference between secular moral reasoning and logic applied out of context to a theological spiritual construct. The two are often incompatible. As I already mentioned, reason and knowledge are applied to faith. That does not make it folly as you suggest.

"In contrast, attempt to find lingering opponents in science that offer any peer-reviewed evidence (PROOF) in opposition to the big bang. Plenty of ideas expanding on the on the basic idea of the big bang, but where are the one's that say it didn't happen?"

Funny I didnt know evidence the same thing as proof of something. I thought evidence leads to proving something. Although I was under the understanding that science doesnt PROOVE anything per say(thats for mathematics).

There is nothing that says 50 years from now that some other explanation won't have taken its place. It is only 80 years old itself. Hence why I have such little "faith" in such theories, even outside of my own beliefs.

Vesimir:

"That does not mean that one cannot approach the texts with knowledge reason or even logic."
One last time: YOUR words, not mine: "reason and logic" are "NOT compatible" with faith.

"The second logic catches up to you, you high tail it to the "not compatible" safety zone.

Wrong again my friend. You have demonstrated a repeated inability to understand perspective and nuance, especially theological ones. Moral reason is not the same as reason in a theological context. I have been saying this all long.

You can take knowledge of historical context, culture and society and understand Biblical context. What you cannot do is take secular moral codes and supercede them over God's moral authority not within Christianity anyway. Hence is the rub here as it always has been as I have said before.

Your use of the word "safety zone" only demonstrates your ignorance on the nature of the issues and your own lack of "intellecutal honesty."(people in glass houses..you know the rest)

Lets look at it this way. Lets say a teenager who is under the moral authority of his parents argues for the family to behave in the same manner(in any way) as his friend's families based upon his reason and logic and perhaps theirs as well.

The parents will use their own reason and knowledge, but will no doubt base their decision on their own principles, NOT the childs or the surrounding community no matter how much "reason" they exhibit.

In the end the decision rests with the parents, the ultimate authority is their's. We as Christians view it the same way.

While we are not ignorant to the world around us(its not flat)moral codes, belief systems and ultimate definition of who created the universe(if not how) are God's principles, not man's. Not popular opinion, not necesarily the hot new theory(ZFEL) or anything else.

Super-imposing secular morality or "reason" over theological principles is no longer Christianity, it is moral relativism.

We did not create ourselves(science and faith agree here) nor can we save ourselves. So not a safety zone, truly an area of incompatibilty of systems secular vs Christianity.Which is exactly why we have had this long drawn out and apparently unimpactful(on either of us) debate. You have secular worldview and I have Christian one. While they can overlap from time to time on issues, they are in the end, incompatible on these points.

Stating my beliefs does not signal a lack of humility. I would, and have questioned the humility of some scientits who in the end still cannot answer with any certainty say where or how everything truly began(pre-big bang theory.) Your suggested humility actually applies more to them than to me.

Go with God my friend.

VESMIR,

So I am a "bigot" and a "liar?" Wow. That's classy. Your's is a sad position, my friend, and your understanding of New Testament scholarship is woefully uninformed.

Worse, your obvious malevolence is characteristic of male homosexuality in which the male--having taken on effeminate characteristics relationally--then over-compenstates and becomes irrationally aggressive.

You're in way over your head.

I am praying for you.

typo:

"...then over-compens()ates..."

Nothing "classy" about your posturing RCO. Truth can hurt. Though I doubt the reality of the evil of your position will ever register with you.

Bigot is as bigot does, RCO. Your latest attempt at stereotyping gays speaks for itself. You expose yourself fully as a self-righteous holy roller bigot. Friend of Reverend Phelphs, maybe?

On what exactly have I over-compensated? Are you surprised that someone can wholly challenge your belief system relying on facts and history? Afraid of the common reality that faith isn't fact? Oblivious to the fact that your beliefs lead you to such bigotry? Poor thing.

Must be disconcerting for you to be faced with details of reality that so heartily oppose your particular mindset and paradigm. Too bad. You must have no recourse other than attempt to deny that reality (ergo - lies about a "handful" of scholars).

Or I could just posit that your inability to absorb verifiable facts and the reality of your faith lacking proof clearly illustrates your intellectually stifled capacity for reason. Although, a "handful" of scholars, as you put it, was absolutely a dishonest attempt to minimize reality in favor of your "beliefs." Simply a lie? Or maybe a bit of self denial to protect your belief system?
Probably a little of both.

Nothing effeminate about me, RCO. The fact you have to go that route of amateurish pseudo-psycho lingo only exposes the lack of your own piety and brings to the forefront your personal insecurities about anyone different than you. You display both the symptoms and a germinating cause of all bigotry.

The ugliness of your character continues to elude you, which further evidences your illness of prejudice. Thankfully, yours is a social disease that continues to lose ground, while the ongoing remedy of nature's diversity and inclusiveness works to relegate your affliction to eventually being nothing more than a subject of history's past. Just like the inquisition, or polio or small pox.

Pray about it some more. Maybe you'll find "revelation." Maybe you'll learn from your arrogant mistakes of being so judgmental in reliance on and service to an unprovable doctrine. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's any real hope for you, but do yourself a favor and make the effort anyway. You never know, miracles DO happen!