Do you believe in a higher power/God?

[Saint]

Also i find it very hard to understand someone who claims to be bi-sexual?

Can anyone explain that?

What's hard to understand? Do you think it's not possible for a person to be naturally attracted to both sexes? Attraction isn't exclusive. Alfred Kinsey said that sexuality is a matter of degrees, and that most people aren't exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but fall somewhere in between.

 

[gogetter0587]

So, if I kidnapped a school bus full of children and turned them into slaves and forced them to break rocks on my farm for the rest of their lives, would the children have to consider me Christlike and obey every command I give unconditionally?

No Christian has answered this yet.

OK well i would like to start by saying i am not like most "christians". I think that God is real and i believe in heaven and hell and i think all have sinned and all can be saved by him through grace. I however disagree with so much of how the modern "christian" does things and acts and talks to people and spends money and some of the biggest hypocrites i have ever met , some of the most verbally malicious people i have ever met where members of a church.


I do not attend a church.

I love people.

I think there are good people who are "christians" and i think there are good people who attend church but there are so many things wrong with how it works. The politics in a normal southern church the gossip and everything is sickining.

that being said the argument to answer your question is that first off the bible mentions people being slaves of sin and when saved set free from the slavery of sin. These are obviously not the same things as modern day slaves.

I have read commentary , not necessarily correct that in bible times sometimes people could not live without offering to be slaves of people so they would have shelter and food.

So you may say that is wrong but it is no more wrong than you saying you know for a fact that they were beaten and treated like pigs.

If you do not see that i do not know how else to explain it.


J man basically it is not certain.

No i do not agree with people having slaves.

I also think it is possible for the word slave to be interpreted differently after in our lifetime people were enslaved based solely on the skin color.

It does not necessarily mean it was the same way back when.

Also i do not know the verse, ( i can find it for you tomorrow if you like)

but there is a verse in the new testament which says something in regards to christians no longer being bound by old ( old testament) law.

( i am not as familiar as some with the bible)

 

[gogetter0587]

What's hard to understand? Do you think it's not possible for a person to be naturally attracted to both sexes? Attraction isn't exclusive. Alfred Kinsey said that sexuality is a matter of degrees, and that most people aren't exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, but fall somewhere in between.

Well sorry if you do not see it the same way. I personally am perplexed by someone who is attracted to both sexes. Just a personal point of view.

Do you agree with Alfred Kinsey in the regard that MOST people are not exclusively one or the other?

 

[Colossal Spoons]

So, if I kidnapped a school bus full of children and turned them into slaves and forced them to break rocks on my farm for the rest of their lives, would the children have to consider me Christlike and obey every command I give unconditionally?

No Christian has answered this yet.

No, they would not.

Christians are funny. I don't even argue with them anymore. Christians trigger the same kind of giggly feeling I get when Richard Simmons is on Late Night with David Letterman.

Way to generalize us all. What would you like to argue about?

 

[Saint]

Slavery meant the same thing in the Bible as it does today: owning people. The Bible expressly permits parents to sell their children into slavery. It expressly permits masters, upon death, willing their slaves to their children, and, in the exact words of the bible making them "slaves for life." It expressly permits the beating of slaves.

As I said earlier, anyone who attempts to excuse slavery in the Bible is morally bankrupt. Biblical slavery is distinct in no way that makes it excusable. Owning people is unacceptable under all circumstances. The God who condones it in his word is unquestionably evil, but then, this should come of no surprise, since he also advocates the murder of nonbelievers and disobedient children.

 

[Obi-Ron]

I also think it is possible for the word slave to be interpreted differently after in our lifetime people were enslaved based solely on the skin color.

It does not necessarily mean it was the same way back when.

Skin color has nothing to do with the definition of the word "slave."

slave = a human owned as property by another human(s).

 

[Venom'sDad]

Here's a thought: There have been hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament detailing the coming of the Messiah. Yet, the chosen people did not recognize his coming… if you are a Christian. Given that Christians cherish the teaching of the New Testament more, would they recognize the Second Coming?

 

[The Senator]

No, they would not.

Sorry, but that's not what the New Testament says:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

I would also be allowed to beat my slaves brutally if they disobey me:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47)

 

[Saint]

Well sorry if you do not see it the same way. I personally am perplexed by someone who is attracted to both sexes.

It perplexing you has nothing to do with it being true or not. The theory of relativity perplexes me, but my lack of understanding doesn't qualify as a refutation of it.

Do you agree with Alfred Kinsey in the regard that MOST people are not exclusively one or the other?

I probably should not have said "most." I don't recall the actual numbers, so it may or may not have been a majority. Either way, it was a very significant percentage, and yes, I do believe that many are not exclusively one or the other. That doesn't mean most people are bisexual, though. As I said, it's a matter of degrees. The majority of the non-exclusive may be homosexual to such a small degree that they would never really notice.

To put things in perspective, Kinsey had a scale. Bisexuality falls in the middle.

0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual

 

[Hotwire]

Also i find it very hard to understand someone who claims to be bi-sexual?

Can anyone explain that?

Are you only attracted to red-heads, or can you also be attracted to blondes as well?


And while we are on the whole, gay is a choice kick,could a straight Christian please answer this one...
When did you choose your sexual orrientation?

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Sorry, but that's not what the New Testament says:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

I would also be allowed to beat my slaves brutally if they disobey me:

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47)

In 2009 if you kidnapped a schoolbus full of children; they'd be hostages, not slaves.

 

[Hotwire]

In 2009 if you kidnapped a schoolbus full of children; they'd be hostages, not slaves.

But what if he purchased them from their parents?

 

[The Senator]

OK well i would like to start by saying i am not like most "christians". I think that God is real and i believe in heaven and hell and i think all have sinned and all can be saved by him through grace. I however disagree with so much of how the modern "christian" does things and acts and talks to people and spends money and some of the biggest hypocrites i have ever met , some of the most verbally malicious people i have ever met where members of a church.


I do not attend a church.

I love people.

I think there are good people who are "christians" and i think there are good people who attend church but there are so many things wrong with how it works. The politics in a normal southern church the gossip and everything is sickining.

that being said the argument to answer your question is that first off the bible mentions people being slaves of sin and when saved set free from the slavery of sin. These are obviously not the same things as modern day slaves.

I have read commentary , not necessarily correct that in bible times sometimes people could not live without offering to be slaves of people so they would have shelter and food.

So you may say that is wrong but it is no more wrong than you saying you know for a fact that they were beaten and treated like pigs.

If you do not see that i do not know how else to explain it.


J man basically it is not certain.

No i do not agree with people having slaves.

I also think it is possible for the word slave to be interpreted differently after in our lifetime people were enslaved based solely on the skin color.

It does not necessarily mean it was the same way back when.

Also i do not know the verse, ( i can find it for you tomorrow if you like)

but there is a verse in the new testament which says something in regards to christians no longer being bound by old ( old testament) law.

( i am not as familiar as some with the bible)

Slavery, back in the Biblical times, was MORE brutal than what occurred here in the Americas. People weren't enslaved solely because of their skin color, either. They were also enslaved for having DIFFERENT religious beliefs than the empires which conquered them.

Moreover, the NEW TESTAMENT claims that slaves should have to submit to their masters and consider them Christlike. Not the Old Testament. See, I explicitly chose this verse because I knew the Christians here would play semantics and attempt to dance around the fact that the Bible condones slavery. And I guarantee you that slavery was NOT what you have previously outlined, people living in a nice home and performing everyday duties in return for compensation. Slaves were NOT compensated back in Biblical times, slaves were NOT rewarded with luxuries, slaves did NOT have a right to life, and slaves were NOT treated fairly.

They were, however, brutally beaten, murdered, tortured and treated like animals by the various empires which existed in that time period. This continued long after the Bible was written, when the slave trade moved into Africa and those "savages" on that continent were exploited for labor. And why was this? Because the Bible is pretty clear on slavery, that it is our God-given right to own slaves, and that the slaves shouldn't revolt against us because such revolt is against God's teachings.

See how that works? Now, I find it strange that so many Christians are unwilling to adhere to those verses. If I went and kidnapped a bus full of children and forced them to work on my farm for the rest of their lives, you would consider me a monster. But, in fact, you would be SINNING because in God's eyes, I am like Christ, and should be treated as such by the slaves I exploit!

Is that not IRRATIONAL? How could your God condone such a thing?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual

"Last night there was this incident involving alcohol and this dude I met at the bar...I'm totally still straight though"

 

[The Senator]

In 2009 if you kidnapped a schoolbus full of children; they'd be hostages, not slaves.

But I thought God's word was eternal and relevant for all time periods! You aren't claiming that the Bible is outdated, are you? Because Christians are not supposed to disagree with what the Bible says, and the Bible clearly claims that I should be considered Christlike by any slave I wish to keep.

Which means, it would be very Christian of me to go out and kidnap a schoolbus filled with children and turn them into slaves. It would be very un-Christian of you to question my motives or consider me a wrongdoer.

 

[gogetter0587]

Skin color has nothing to do with the definition of the word "slave."

slave = a human owned as property by another human(s).

I agree. Modern day term Slave is usually related to the african americans who were enslaved in america in the south.

It perplexing you has nothing to do with it being true or not. The theory of relativity perplexes me, but my lack of understanding doesn't qualify as a refutation of it.

OK

I probably should not have said "most." I don't recall the actual numbers, so it may or may not have been a majority. Either way, it was a very significant percentage, and yes, I do believe that many are not exclusively one or the other. That doesn't mean most people are bisexual, though. As I said, it's a matter of degrees. The majority of the non-exclusive may be homosexual to such a small degree that they would never really notice.

To put things in perspective, Kinsey had a scale. Bisexuality falls in the middle.

0 Exclusively heterosexual
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual; bisexual.
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual

How exactly does Kinsey judge people using this scale?

Are you only attracted to red-heads, or can you also be attracted to blondes as well?


And while we are on the whole, gay is a choice kick,could a straight Christian please answer this one...
When did you choose your sexual orrientation?

You are trying to say that attraction is filled with options. Sex with a man and Sex with a women are not the same thing as comparing hair color

You think we choose our sexual orientation?

 

[Hotwire]

You think we choose our sexual orientation?

No, I don't. However, many Christians feel that gays choose to be gay. So, if gay is a choice, would straight be a choice as well?

 

[Saint]

How exactly does Kinsey judge people using this scale?

I don't know; my familiarity with the Kinsey Reports is not extensive. I do know that 46% of the male subjects reported having had a sexual reaction to another man, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. I imagine these are the sorts that fell into the non-exclusive sections of the scale. I also imagine that conscious reaction or action were not necessarily required to fall into these categories.

 

[gogetter0587]

No, I don't. However, many Christians feel that gays choose to be gay. So, if gay is a choice, would straight be a choice as well?

I DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE

you keep lumping me in with "christians"

but the argument would be that straight is norm and in order to be homosexual you are choosing something different not that you pick at the beginning.

 

[Intuitive]

I don't know; my familiarity with the Kinsey Reports is not extensive. I do know that 46% of the male subjects reported having had a sexual reaction to another man, and 37% had at least one homosexual experience. I imagine these are the sorts that fell into the non-exclusive sections of the scale. I also imagine that conscious reaction or action were not necessarily required to fall into these categories.

I recall that later studies showed Kinsey's numbers to skew high.

 

[Saint]

I recall that later studies showed Kinsey's numbers to skew high.

That's certainly possible; I have neither the information nor expertise to judge his methods, nor the methods of whatever detractors he may have.

 

[Hotwire]

I DO NOT NECESSARILY AGREE

you keep lumping me in with "christians"

but the argument would be that straight is norm and in order to be homosexual you are choosing something different not that you pick at the beginning.

Not lumping you with anyone, the question was posed to anyone who thinks gay is a choice.

 

[DBella]

Christians are funny. I don't even argue with them anymore. Christians trigger the same kind of giggly feeling I get when Richard Simmons is on Late Night with David Letterman.

I would appreciate it if you would refrain yourself from making such a broad generalization about a group of people. They may share the same faith but everyone is different. Thank you.

 

[Intuitive]

I think many religious folk believe homosexuality is like being a murderer. We are capable of it, but gay people simply act on it. They think it's ok to be born capable of murder, but if you actually murder it's a sin.
In other words, It's OK to have gay urges, just as long as you live your life as a miserable lie and spit out some kids.
Fight the urge to be happy while you're alive. There is plenty of time for that when you're dead. (You just better hope you're right about God because it would really suck to waste the only life you have fighting your natural urges)

I would appreciate it if you would refrain yourself from making such a broad generalization about a group of people. They may share the same faith but everyone is different. Thank you.

What if it is the very basis of what makes them Christian that he thinks is funny. It would be a fair to say all Christians believe in God and Christ. If it is the idea of someone believing in god that makes him giggle, than it is not a generalization to say he finds all Christians funny.

 

[Kelly]

I'm christian, I guess I would be classified as "nondenominational"....The church I sometimes go to is nondenominational.......I don't necessarily agree with "all" of any religious doctrine, but I think its a personal thing, and to each his/her own.