(October 10, 2015 at 12:03 pm)Randys brother Wrote:(October 10, 2015 at 11:43 am)Pyrrho Wrote: The Bible is not consistent, so it does not work. It is only one of many things that don't work. Nevertheless, those are the words reportedly that Jesus spoke on the subject. And even though divorce was discussed in the Old Testament, Jesus still felt the need to discuss the subject. But he did not feel the need to condemn homosexuality. I think that is strongly suggestive that the "sin" of divorce is more important than the "sin" of homosexuality, according to Jesus.Yes and this is what you're doing right now.
The simple fact is, people latch on to bits and pieces of the Bible, and ignore other parts. It is not purely that the individual chooses, as most Christians are indoctrinated to believe certain bits and pieces, and are not as exposed to other parts. So when one attends a church run by a closeted gay homophobe, one will tend to have that bit about homosexuality emphasized. Which will tend to affect what the parishioners believe.
"The Bible is not consistent" you believe that but don't try to get me to believe it because I won't.
We don't want you to believe it. We want you to figure it out for yourself. Read serious, scholarly work by Christian theologians and Biblical historians who aren't super-fundamentalists (meaning the ones who don't start and end with the presupposition that it must be literal), and they'll explain it to you in an honest way.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.