IROC, I was raised in a presbyterian household although looking back I was just going through the motions because my parents wanted me to.

Going to church was a chore, like mowing the yard.
By the time I reached my twenties and was out on my own, I had come to the belief that there was no God. It was the worst, most unsettling period of my life. Up to that point I concidered myself a rational, scientific person, although unhappy and unsatisfied. All the riches in the world are not enough, we always want more. Just a little more. It never ends. There just had to be something better out there.

Many years later I went to church to keep a girlfriend happy. Again I was going through the motions. I was bored so i picked up a pew bible and started reading. Then I went out and bought a bible.
I was still skeptical but was interested so I kept reading.
It didn't take long for things to make sense, not only the things I read but the things I had experienced in my life. I really was that obvious. All I had to do was open my eyes, up to that point I was constantly looking away from God, doing everything I could to explain why there couldn't be a God. I worked very hard to not allow myself to believe. I didn't really go looking for God, I just dstopped fighting it and allowed him to come to me. He gave us that choice.

Yes, I am absolutely certain that there is a God and that he loves me and has forgiven me for being imperfect. He is and was always there, and came to me when I needed him most.

Yes I rejected god but he never rejected me. It was not too late and never is as long as you have the breath to call to him.

Saying that when some people reject Christianity it means it is false is absurd.
A person with true faith does not completely leave God or reject his teachings. We all are tempted and Satan may try to test our faith, but true belief is so powerful that not even Satan can destroy it.

A better explaination for your scenarion would be that a person who does not have faith (or who has not yet obtained a true faith) may decide to stop pretending. Even that is not necesarily permanent as was my case.

I'd tell you but you wouldn't believe me. Rather, I've tried to explain, but I'm obviously coming up short or you're chosing to not accept the answers that I'm giving. That's OK. I'm not going to beat you over the head, but I will try to answer the questions that you raise -- or else why are you asking?

Quote:

Jesus died for us? But wait, he’s not dead, he’s alive. “God gave is son…” But wait, god has his son. And the miracles in the bible are so full of reasonable doubt that taking them literally is absurd. The virgin birth? Come on, we know what happened there. The whole story is so illogical it boggles my mind.

There are lots of things that appear so illogical that they boggle my mind, even if I've seen them in person! Like this for example...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpHNB5O6lbA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GpHNB5O6lbA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

But just because I don't understand it, doesn't make it false or non-existant. It just means that I don't understand it.

Quote:

How can someone possibly be accurately quoted decades after the fact? That doesn’t happen today, let alone 2,000 years ago. All of this, in my mind, makes the more reasonable, logical alternatives the obvious truth.

Actually, the "Dead Seas Scrolls" are an excellent example. The earliest known "Old Testement" sources date back to about 1000 AD and were used for the "Old Testement" translations of the Bibles that many of grew up with. With the discovery of the "Dead Sea Scrolls", it was learned that changes in the texts during the intervening millenium were exceedingly minor at best. I gave an example earlier.

It just dawned on me that we've wandered (potentially) quite far off-track. The question was "what's up?" with the Catholic church's latest proclamation about homosexuality. I think the answer is that what the Catholics have announced is consistant with what is written in the Bible, which is the foundation of that organization. If you chose to not believe what is written in the Bible, then you'll never understand what the Catholic Church was trying to say.

You missed my point, but I'm glad that you are happy and content with your beliefs. In fact, your post is illuminating in that it represents exactly what I am talking about - you are not capable of envisioning a world without a diety. That's OK.

Mike

Funny, but I went back this morning and re-read Supe's original post and what struck me was that if the point is that we are all "disordered" then why did the church feel the need to single out homosexuals if they are simply disordered just like everyone else? Did they really intend to say "hey, we're all one big screw-up family?". It seems that was not the intention.

Mike

Well Jeff, you believe what you believe. And that is just fine. I have different views - and that is just fine as well.

I think I understand Christians and Christianity very well, having grown up in family full of them. If you have never met a Christian that doesn't discriminate, you live on a planet that is very different from mine.

My comments were prompted by the 'learned' exchange earlier in the thread about whether or not homosexuality was condoned in the old testatment. A truly silly exchange in my view, and one that I still compare to Mullahs looking in the Koran to support whatever twisted proposition requires such support.

And I read carefully what you said about the gospels and the old testament. But I don't buy it. Sorry. The argument that goes "my book is better than your book" is not all that convincing.

Do we really have to rehash this, or should I just refer to the first page of this thread? The church makes statements about various things. Constantly. The alternative is that it stops giving guidance. Stops saying anything.

Okay, so the Church makes statements about alcoholism. The alcoholics take it in stride. The Church makes a statement about polygamy. The Mormons yawn. The Church makes a statement about homosexuals, and California shouts as though its pubic hair is on fire. "Why" Califormia asks "is the Church singling out homosexuals?"

Sheesh!

IROC, Did you read the post before commenting on it?

You said "you are not capable of envisioning a world without a diety." (sp)

I just got done saying that for many years I did not believe a deity existed.
Soooooooo, if i didn't believe there was a deity at one time, I guess you could say that I "envisioned" that one did not exist.

I simply came to the conclusion that my previous opinion was incorrect.

dates! matter! herod [the great] died in 04 BCE
if JC was born before herod died and lived 33 years
he could not live intill 33 ACE but died in 28 or 29 ACE
and NOBODY but a few thumpers date the writting of any gospel to 40 ACE most agree on post 70 ACE at the very earlyest possable and as late as 110 ACE for john
so sorry but the scholers donot belive any 7 year BS
or even 37 try over 40 minimum and thats not counting revisions or late additions

To net this out, isn't the latest view from teh church, "Don't hate the playa, hate the game"?

Well then, all one can gather from this is that you have made a choice to either be missinformed or defiant. Maybe a mixture of both.

First off, you did not read my words very carefully. I very clearly stated that "I do not know a single Christian that would stand for discrimination". The Bible tells them not to. That does not mean they are not hypocrites that practice discrimination anyway. All it means is that their faith tells them it is wrong. If you still do not understand the dynamic of why Christians say one thing and do another, why they continue to sin even though they know better, then maybe you should go back and read through this thread again. Supe, and others, have explained that rather succinctly.

So what is not to "buy" concerning my description of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New? Believe me, I'm not nearly creative or bright enough to come up with that description on my own. EVERY Christian understands what I tried to explain. It is as fundemental to Christianity as breathing is to living. The Law accuses and convicts; the Gospel acquits and saves. If you don't "buy" into that description (and this is entirely seperate from believing the content of either) than I submit you are not nearly as knowledgable about Christianity as you think. In spite of growing up in a house full of them.

So if you grow up in a house full of brain surgeons, that makes you one by proxy? You understand their craft just by being around them, through osmosis or something? I'm sorry, but the study of the Bible and God's word is more serious and involved than you, or many others, would like to think. From an "insider's" perspective, the statements you post concerning the topic are simply rife with missperceptions and error. As are most non-Christians on this board who profess to know a thing or two about it. Don't get me wrong, you are free to believe what you will.

You, and others in your camp, might be well served to actually make a serious study of this subject matter. If nothing else, even if you don't believe a word of it, you will then be better equiped to discuss it. Then again, maybe not.

Just as with a foreign language and culture, you simply will never truly learn it from a book or by any means of detached study. It requires what linguists and anthropologists call "full immersion" i.e., going to live with the people until you are considered (by them) to be "one of them". You will never fully understand Christians until you do. As an observant adult, not a child that is forced to comply.

I have a couple of suggestions for you. First, an English class or at least a Spelling class would be helpful to you.

Also, scholars have revised their estimates in recent years. Not that much different, but almost nobody dates any gospel more than one hundred years AD. 90 is basically the latest. The earliest used to be in the 50-60 neighborhood, but now they are thinking as early as 45 or even 40. Fact is, it oooks like there were some people who were alive at the time of the crucifixion....and still alive when the LAST gospel was written. This crap about multiple generations coming between the events and the writings is just that....crap.

But hey, if you are trying to descredit the document, you will surely find all the justification you need. If you were trying to UNDERSTAND it, the same thing would happen.

And another thing. Check out the difference between ME (Modern Era) and AD (Anno Domini, which means 'after decension.')

Yes, but Paul's Epistles (for example his first letter to the Corinthians) was written about 57 AD, and it and the other Pauline Epistles effectively record the historical beliefs (and non-beliefs in some cases) of the eary Christians. I'm not saying that you have to take everything that Paul says as dogma, but you can also read what he is responding to in the different congregations and other details.

You know, I can still ask my Dad about things that happened to him during WWII, and he has very clear memories of names, places and activities -- even after 60 years! Why would you expect anything less then that of the people 2000 years ago?

Besides, you can just start out by assuming that the 1930 year old documents about things that happened 1970 years ago are inaccurate. But if you assume that, how are you going to find more accurate information??? Make it up? Real Historians and Archeologist will take the document at face value, and then compare it up to other documents from same era. Are they consistent? How? Are they inconsistent? How? Oh wait, the other documents (the Gospels, Acts, other Epistles) are consistent, but you don't want to believe them -- so then what do you have????

I didn't think there was any pubic hair in California.

Jeff, with respect, I have heard the "if you knew it better you would understand it and believe it as well" argument often enough. I really don't think I have to live and devote myself to Christianity in order to hold some informed views about it. Any more than you need to do this with Buddhism or Communism or whatever. Life is far too short for this.

I do not buy into the superiority of Christianity over any other monotheistic religion despite the analyses (the law accuses and convicts and the gospel acquits and saves) that you presented. I don't buy the "my book is better than your book" argument. That is what I do not buy into.

I know many Christians and I know many non-Christians. I cannot objectively say that the former live more meaningful or better lives than the latter - even though of course most of the former are convinced that they do.

Kang had a post here a while back (about faith meeting needs) that summed up my views pretty well so I won't bore you with this.

I took issue only with what I referred to as the 'deliberate ignorance' of people who looked for absolute answers to a subject as genetically, psychologically, sexually, and socially nuanced as homosexuality.

That's it. That's where I lose respect.

I hope that clarifies my position.

I’m glad you remembered that. Yes, I think that god (and religion) was created by man, in man’s image, to meet normal human psychological needs.

Well then your God would be more obedient and more convenient than mine.

I make suggestions to God all the time. And He always listens. But He doesn't always obey.

Maybe if I threatened Him........

Or perhaps a bribe......

Kill something and burn it - he likes the smell

Sometimes your prayers are answered and sometimes they are not? Can you say coincedence? Sometimes what you pray for happens and sometimes it does not. I see no divine intevention there.