</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Here is a question. What if Noah picked gay animals to board the SSNoahsArk?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">LOL! I've seen this in my backyard from stray dogs mostly or in alleyways, but on the Ark? Never even thought about that!!!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> For that matter what if Adam and Eve (prototypes, were gay?)...I really believe that if it were what we were meant to be, then it would be written as least as many times as we find a married man and woman in the Bible.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">We have to take into account that the OT stories are of people who are linked to Jesus Christ. The more I go on in life, I start to come to the...realization...perhaps that the writers were making an account of Jesus' ancestors. Every person was linked to Jesus somehow, except for some books like Psalms, Proverbs, etc. These were written BY Jesus' ancestors, i.e., David, Solomon. These books were reflections of how God had sustained them & in Proverbs example, the wisdom that Solomon had learned. That is correct, isn't it? Wasn't Proverbs written by Solomon? Just had a "2nd guess myself" moment. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

All the prophetical books were definitely proclaiming the coming of the Son of Man. And then in the NT, it focused on events that took place after Jesus died & foretells the future of mankind.

I try to remember that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses himself, so I'm sure he received these stories by relatives perhaps? He wasn't around when these things took place so I have a pretty good inkling that it was kind of like hearing hand-me-down generation stories. I know other people probably won't agree with me on that, but that's how I view things. And my line of thinking didn't happen just like that, this is after many years of reflection & studies of the history of the Bible.

It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> If you feel like what you are doing is a sin, then it is upon your shoulders to seek the better way to do or not to do what you are doing. If you feel that your doing what is right and good, then there is no questions left.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree. I think the point that Jesus was trying to make was that if you're a sinner as well, like everyone else, then treating others with disrespect or condemnation or being unloving towards them was out of the question. I think the reason he was so angry with the Pharisees was because of their self-righteousness. They sinned like everybody else & chose to rely on the laws of the church in order to keep others from enjoying the benefit of worship too. He wanted them to realize that EVERYONE is a sinner & has the right to worship God, same as they did.

Nice post, Standing. I wonder about this too. You said:

It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak.

Some have said that the order of some stories is wrong. Some have said that they are keeping secrets from us! As if we would break if we knew some truths about this material!

I think that they found the scrolls and did the best that they could with them. What we read is made in print from those who were entrusted to interpret.

I think that the health of our living is basically what the books lead us to live. If Moses thought that God wished him to record his stories, history of that family, and so on and so forth...well, there are good lessons in them. The stories are indeed fascinating, imagining the past as it was, and folks still dress in the old ways in these Biblical cities.

We need to look at our goals when we read, listen, talk about things. What is the goal when we go to church? The best thing I can think of is to honor God. It is not about our personal needs, although we do like some basic esthetics in the church - simple music, choir, and a story. With the goal to honor God.

But the church is a place of worship, not a place to bring the political problems of the day, unless it is to do with the spiritual wellness of the people as a group. It is not a place to be expressing our EN's, and we if we became members with the knowledge of the kind of worship/Biblical teaching, then we should not be tricky and say, "well, now I disagree with the Bible, and I want it changed to support my personal claim" ! The Bible is not a Constitution. The church is about the group of people/ honoring God. So how to do that the best that we can, so that He will be pleased with us?

I do believe that if God intended us to be representing gayness in church, then there would be any kind of written history somewhere for it. It does not occur(Gods approval of gayness) in Christianity I think, nor the Old Testament.

I don't know about other religions, Muslim sure dont allow that. Sure the punishment of it is hefty. The punishments of those Puritan folks used to be pretty harsh as well. Glad we gave those practices up.

Well, In Gods time, we will understand, something. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="images/icons/cool.gif" />

ST,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> It just has me curious of how man decided to form the Bible. How did they decide of what to put in there & why? I know there are other ancient texts out there but are hidden from us. Maybe it would change things a little bit from the meaning behind the words so to speak. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">An interesting question.

The New Testament, if you notice, is not in chronological order. It is in order of size. The largest book to the smallest, excluding Revelations.

There are over 80 KNOWN Gospels in existance. Yet the Nicean Conference, AD300, chose to include only 4? Research the Gospel of Thomas; it is very interesting. It is not in "book" form. It is a collection of quotes from Christ. It was found with the other scrolls, yet the Catholic church still labels it heresy. It makes one wonder as to the rationale behind some church decisions. It would seem that they do, in fact, think we are not able to discern the truth for ourselves.

The Gospels were not written by the people they're named after. They were written about 100 years after the death of Christ.

I am curious as to where you read that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament. I've never heard that, and would be interested in more information.

Consider also the Apocrypha...several books of the Bible that the Catholic Church considers heretical, but accepted by many Protestant churches as authentic.

It all supports my claim, in an eariler thread, that the Bible, while INSPIRED by God, was not dictated, and is subject to inquiry and interpretation. Inspired by God; Written by Man.

Bob

Bob, in answer to your question, I found this on this site: Did Moses really write Genesis?

Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch
The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

Egyptian ruins. Internal evidences in the text of the Pentateuch indicate that the author was familiar with Egyptian customs, as would be expected of Moses.

Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4

The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium bc.8

The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.

Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.

In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.

There are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are (or ‘This is the book of’) the generations of …’ The Hebrew word toledoth translated ‘generations’ can also mean ‘origins’, ‘history’, or even ‘family history’, and each verse comes either before or after a description of historical events that involved the person named.9 The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.10

Genesis does not show a progress from idolatry to monotheism, as Wellhausen’s evolutionism requires. Rather, the Bible begins with an original revelation of God, which was later rejected to the point that the Hebrew nation itself descended into idolatry and so was given over to captivity by God.

ST,

Thanks for the information, I will read it at length tomorrow.

I was mistaken in something I said earlier about the Apocrypha...the Catholic church actually recognizes it as sacred text, but it is not included in many current Protestant bible translations.

Sorry for the error.

Bob

There was a program on several years ago, regarding the "other" scrolls, and interpretations. Do any of you recall it? So many were talking about it being kind of faith rattling. That is not how I see it. I would like to understand what else was being talked about way back when! Fascinating stuff.

Do you know who deciphers these things? It is painstaking work, no doubt. Hard enough finding and preserving some old relics. My H made an excellent point which I have made before on this forum, and that is you don't have words to translate some words in other languages, and so, sadly some meanings and intonations are lost. Just look at what is interpreted and misunderstood on this forum and in the same language, there is still misunderstanding... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

However, the basic gist of things is there I believe. But what about the other stories? What about the stories passed down to cousin families of Israelites, the other religions that developed parallel to them...Many many questions!

Editing here:
Alot of the writings do seem to show that there is survival of the fitest. " Go forth and multiply!" (If you were gay, then you would not be likely to do that, which would naturally decrease that genetic trait if there is one!)

The early writings of cave dwellers are pictures on rocks, which are viewed on all parts of the world. They may have had less math and science, but they knew how to create longlasting prints of their ideas in art!

Digressing again! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

<small>[ June 13, 2004, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: cardinal ]</small>

Very interesting thread…thanks Cardinal. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

The following two posts is my favorite:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by StandingTogether:
<strong>People seem to want to not allow gays to marry in a church for all the reasons you have mentioned, following the Bible, etc. but when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves. So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?

And anyone reading, please don't think that I believe all those in 2nd or subsequent marriages are living in sin, that is definitely not what I am saying. Don't slam me w/the 2x4's!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">AND
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jilliana:
<strong> StandingTogether:

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So, in essence, wouldn't they be "choosing" to live in adultery? Wouldn't this be the same thing? Yet, the churches still marry these people sometimes even having receptions in their fellowship halls.

All of this just has me very curious. Anyone see the point I'm trying to make here?
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In my opinion...yes! Yes, it is exactly the same thing, but shhhh.... let's just not talk about that k?

The point you make is crystal clear to me.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Standing, I agree with you 100% and your point is indeed CRYSTAL CLEAR to me. The issues you've raised really made me think - thank you so much!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> Your post illustrates why I’m very, very careful to make comments or judgments about issues like this in the first place… Let God rather be the judge…

Jilliana, isn’t it interesting that no one talks about this and just keep the silence??? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

<small>[ June 14, 2004, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]</small>

This statement :

" when it comes to remarriage for some people, who have divorced for reasons other than adultery, a "legitimate M" as other's see it, are married by a minister in the church they have belonged to for years. Shouldn't these same rules apply? According to Jesus' teachings, whoever marries another after divorcing for reasons other than adultery, has committed adultery themselves ..."

MY response to this is that it is a good rule to use. If you can work like Harley puts out in his work here/on the reading site/do the work to save your marriage, then you will reap great rewards. But it takes two. Giving up is instinctive to many. And when we just give up on our sacred marriage, the price we pay is a painful feeling of loss - I would analogize this to losing a member of your body, or a dear family member whom you once loved so. There is no replacement for the divorced partner.

This sin is not something we can always avoid. Why does our Father in heaven want us to not sin? My answer is because it makes our lives better when we follow the most important rules.

As far as the rate of remarriage of divorced people in my church, well I can't recall one. The only remarriage was done in the past ten years, and it was due to the young woman had lost her H by his becoming ill and dying. Other than that seems like the marriages of people who live here and stay in this church do not remarry by default.

Remarriage does cause a lot of hectic problems. Dividing up all of your belongings, children. Doesnt it feel wrong when your marriage is in the gutter? And when it feels unreparable, if you don't do everything in your power then you will have guilt. You did not marry with the promise of ending it as soon as it was in trouble.

When a church promotes healthy marriage, and supports the family morals and ethics in a community, the community is a fairly stable one. Now, the only condemnation you will feel is when you were unable to make it. And it hurts like HE!!. Jesus teachings are promoting/encouraging the healthy life, the spiritual life. Healthful family relations are derived from a healthy marital relation. Otherwise things are goofedup for us. Just read the difficult paths of the divorced and divorcing ones.

Pain is very real when we are not on the best path.

AND these statements:

very careful to make comments or judgments about issues like this in the first place… Let God rather be the judge…

Jilliana, isn’t it interesting that no one talks about this and just keep the silence???

Lets talk! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> And when you feel like love is hurting you, why? What is going wrong? The questions of what can I do, pervade your thinking! So talk about goals and methods of fixing the painful situations, and make them better.

When we read that God says in Leviticus that a man with a man is "disgusting", what does that mean to you.

What two consenting adults do together is not always the best thing to do. What is the difference between two consenting adults and three consenting adults and so on and so forth. Permissiveness was never a cure.

Cardinal,

I agree that permissiveness is not a cure and wrong. I agree that homosexuality is a sin in God’s eyes… But to divorce and remarry (except if it happens because of adultery and/or death) is ALSO a sin in God’s eyes and ADULTERY (not my words, but God’s words & standards...) Nowhere in the Bible is written that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery… And if people start to judge homosexuals, they must also start to judge people who divorce and marry another… That’s why I’ve said that I’m very, very careful to make my own comments and judgments about sensitive issues like this.

<small>[ June 14, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Suzet* ]</small>

Suzet...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Nowhere in the Bible is written that homosexuality is a bigger sin than adultery… </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">That's a wonderful point. In fact, as I read it, I recalled being told by my own pastor how "Sin is sin. There are no varying degrees in God's eyes."

There isn't a panel holding up numbers..."The judges give it a 9.5 for execution, but only a 9.2 for difficulty". We, as humans, are the ones who try and placate ourselves by telling ourselves that some sin is "less bad" than other types.

Bob

So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws. So, when we are encouraging others, we ought to have the values in our heart and minds...And in particular, when a teacher teaches, a parent teaches, or a minister or whoever is in charge is teaching...We should keep that in mind. Yes, sin is sin. And we should try to not do it...

I think that God knows that we will make sins in our lives. The goals seem to be to work toward doing things better. As a parent knows their children will make mistakes (how we learn good lessons sometimes), the parent wants the child to know that they are going to be doing well, if they will work toward the better behaviors that make the life they live more wholesome, and fulfilled.

It is counterproductive to teach a child that any behavior that they do is ok. They do need to learn that when we apply boundaries in our behaviors, and understand them, that the life is going to be better, stable. We learn quite alot through mistakes.

Decisions that we make in life or avoid in life, have a direct correlation to what we get out of our life.

Ok...if sin is sin, and no sin is greater than another, then why the 10 commandments? Why break it up into Leviticus, the 10 commandments, and so on and so on....? Interestingly,
adultery is mentioned in the 10 commandments, but homosexuality is not.

Here's a clip taken from an article I was reading:

"It is ironic that "gay" and "adultery" are both involved here, causing confusion. Both words' meanings have been altered from historic definitions. The "Gay '90s" of the 19th century meant something quite different from the "Gay '90s" of the 20th century! And the ancient meaning of "adultery" is quite different from its misunderstood use today.


Therewith lies both great confusion and irony. After all, historically, the very first use of the written word, "adultery," appears in the Bible. It is in the seventh of the Ten Commandments. Moses, a devout and holy man of God with two wives, was the first to write "adultery," Exodus 20:14. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

But polygamous Moses did not write it in English. "Adultery" is translated from the original Hebrew word, "na`aph." It means "woman who breaks wedlock," a married woman having coitus with any man other than her husband. "Na`aph," therefore, explains how so many of the Bible's heroes were polygamous without committing adultery. None of their wives were breaking their wedlock to a husband."

Ok, well where in the Bible does it talk at all, other than with disgrace re. man and man or woman and woman in any kind of union/marriage type.

The ideas are not part of the texts at all. It only refers to it as being bad. Find something which supports or encourages this kind of unity. If you will find it, I am all for listening, otherwise it is all about what the people of today want for the political challenge. What a consenting adult "grouping" wishes for , should that be what our Bible is all about? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> ... otherwise it is all about what the people of today want for the political challenge. What a consenting adult "grouping" wishes for , should that be what our Bible is all about? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Boy do I agree with you here Cardinal! In reading some of the Bible, it frightens me to think that some wish to use biblical concepts and scripture to push their political agenda.

It's a far cry from what religion and spirituality means to me.

Whenever this topic comes up ...it consumes me. Not quite sure why. Anyways, thought I'd share a link that I'm reading:

http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/wink.htm

I used to read the Bible a lot when I was growing up. When I was a teen, and then in my twenties. I read it because it seemed to be a good foundation. Nobody forced me to read it. I went to a church growing up. I grew up and went to many many churches, of friends. The Bible used in all of them.

I like the understandings. I don't stress over condemnation etc. But believe that if we are doing what it says we should strive to do, then life just goes better. I am saying this from my personal experience. When I did not do what it says I ought to do, then I did pay some consequences.

All in all I believe that my understandings are the biggest reason for our success in marriage. I believe that boundaries are things that we learn. When we fiddle around with them and test those boundaries out, see if stretching them works...I personally found out how painful that this was.

Rules are good. The parental role is important. We are responsible for what we encourage when we are in that role.

I read the article and believe that questioning the Apostle Paul's words is questioning the validity of the Holy Bible. Freud, the father of psychology was not a Christian did not believe in God from what I have read about him, therefore, I do not hold psychology up to same standard as the Holy Bible.

I found this link and it's commentary to be contrary to what I read in the Holy Bible.

I do remember that Satan knows the bible very well and will distort the truth to make people become tempted to sin.

Cardinal, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because Gods rules are important to me and I want to live a God-feared life, I try to abide by all his laws; “standards” and values for my OWN life without judging others… That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners.

My husband is bi-sexual but feeling more homosexual (lets not use the word gay...its a travesty...most of them are miserable)than hetreosexual at the moment. as religious man and a biblical scholar he recognises that to act on these feelings would be sinful. He also says that if he finally decides to live a homosexual lifestyle that he would NEVER enter into a same sex marriage. Civil union is another thing but marriage is of an esscence about families. All homosexuality has done to my family is break it up.....

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Suzet*:
<strong> Cardinal, </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"><strong>So, Gods rules are important to you? And if they are, then we just simply should try to abide by his "standards" or laws.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Because Gods rules are important to me and I want to live a God-feared life, I try to abide by all his laws; “standards” and values for my OWN life without judging others… That’s not to say I don’t have a clear knowledge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, but God also prohibits us judging others since we all are sinners. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So is that to say, that in the church we should change the Bible so as to be tolerant of Gay Marriage, and not to judge?