According to the bible loving, monogamous homosexuality is NOT wrong in God's eyes

[mike pulcinella]

I questioned his agenda because it didn't seem objective by virtue of his cherry-picked examples.

Furthermore, I've invited you to read these scriptures and make up your own mind about them. I haven't insisted on anything. Suffering isn't what this is about, but what the majority of us all consider main line interpretation connected to homosexuality, and including homosexuals. You can try to queer this interpretation based on agendas but it just doesn't fly for most of gays looking at this and mainstream Christians.

Furthermore, you can't provide any examples on these forums that proves that an objective interpretation is strapped with an agenda. Give me an example of what you insist is my agenda. Being connected to Christ isn't a logical example of that unless you have a prejudice about Christians...which you do.

On Christ: Christ says that He fulfilled the Law....end of discussion.

I know you would have loved to have engaged me in the kind of nit-picking biblical interpretation that you guys love to do. It is a hobby with you all that continually shatters and shreds your faith, often with violent consequences. But I will not engage you in your Dungeons and mind-pretzel wordplay any more that I would debate the homosexuality of Dumbledor with a Harry Potter fan.

But this conversation IS about interpretation. It is about the agenda for interpretation, the two of which cannot be separated.

No matter how "objective" you want to pretend you are, there is no denying that agenda determines interpretation. I know that makes you all uncomfortable, because you want to believe that there is only ONE right answer. But we have seen that is not the case, not only with this video.

And so I ask again, what is YOUR agenda? What do you wish to prove, or need to preserve with YOUR personal interpretation?

Further, I want you to examine what the CONSEQUENCES f your interpretation are and if maybe...just maybe... we need to think about re-interpreting the bible in light of the destruction it has caused.

[mike pulcinella]

Now let's get back to Paul. What evidence is there that God was speaking through Paul? Why should we listen to him about ANYTHING?

To me he seems like a salesman, embellishing the story and making up new rules as he went along in order to further convince people that his new religion (which Jesus never wanted) was worth having.

[Canucklehead]

I can meet your God face to face without fear. I have nothing to be ashamed of. Nothing to apologize for. You?

I don't believe that for one second. Everyone has done something.

[mike pulcinella]

I don't believe that for one second. Everyone has done something.

So? Do you really think God would condemn me for the very human failings that He Himself built into me?

Also, when I make a mistake I make recompense as well. In THIS life. Now. Not after death.

[mfcruncher]

Now let's get back to Paul. What evidence is there that God was speaking through Paul? Why should we listen to him about ANYTHING?

To me he seems like a salesman, embellishing the story and making up new rules as he went along in order to further convince people that his new religion (which Jesus never wanted) was worth having.

I can't dumb down my debate to this level. Wave the banner of victory for yourself. I'm tired of debating with someone that hasn't read the Bible or studied it at an elementary level.

[mfcruncher]

I know you would have loved to have engaged me in the kind of nit-picking biblical interpretation that you guys love to do. It is a hobby with you all that continually shatters and shreds your faith, often with violent consequences. But I will not engage you in your Dungeons and mind-pretzel wordplay any more that I would debate the homosexuality of Dumbledor with a Harry Potter fan.

But this conversation IS about interpretation. It is about the agenda for interpretation, the two of which cannot be separated.

No matter how "objective" you want to pretend you are, there is no denying that agenda determines interpretation. I know that makes you all uncomfortable, because you want to believe that there is only ONE right answer. But we have seen that is not the case, not only with this video.

And so I ask again, what is YOUR agenda? What do you wish to prove, or need to preserve with YOUR personal interpretation?

Further, I want you to examine what the CONSEQUENCES f your interpretation are and if maybe...just maybe... we need to think about re-interpreting the bible in light of the destruction it has caused.

You fail in your logic so often that I feel stupid responding to you.

BOLD: Maybe you're willing to embrace an interpretation that fits your agenda, but most scholars, and especially gays, are not. Most gay people objectively interpret the Bible as condemning their lifestyle. Ask homosexuals why they find the Bible distasteful. This dude is in the minority amongst gays that have read the Bible and looked at scripture objectively. You simply don't need to have an agenda in order to objectively come up with the opinion that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin. I gave you some scriptures to prove that.

Fact: Conservative Christians and most homosexuals believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. What possible agenda could homosexuals have in interpreting the Bible this way?!!!

Dan Savage, homosexual on CNN says, "“We can learn to ignore the (BS) in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the (BS) in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore (BS) in the Bible about all sorts of things,” Apparently, he believes it condemns a gay lifestyle.

As one homosexual said on a Yahoo blog, "It is obvious that all gays ignore the Bible, because if they followed it and accepted God's word, then they would admit that they are simply sinners who are being tempted by sin." I guess he condemns the Bible as well. Does he have an agenda? I don't think so...well maybe.

What the fuck is your agenda?!

[mike pulcinella]

I can't dumb down my debate to this level. Wave the banner of victory for yourself. I'm tired of debating with someone that hasn't read the Bible or studied it at an elementary level.

Sorry but it is these fundamentals which are at the root of the problem. The mere fact that you consider them settled IS the problem.

And once again, I've read it. It's a horrible piece of work. Barely readable and salvaged only in the King James version by the beautiful language.

[mike pulcinella]

You fail in your logic so often that I feel stupid responding to you.

BOLD: Maybe you're willing to embrace an interpretation that fits your agenda, but most scholars, and especially gays, are not. Most gay people objectively interpret the Bible as condemning their lifestyle. Ask homosexuals why they find the Bible distasteful. This dude is in the minority amongst gays that have read the Bible and looked at scripture objectively. You simply don't need to have an agenda in order to objectively come up with the opinion that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin. I gave you some scriptures to prove that.

Fact: Conservative Christians and most homosexuals believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality. What possible agenda could homosexuals have in interpreting the Bible this way?!!!

Dan Savage, homosexual on CNN says, "“We can learn to ignore the (BS) in the Bible about gay people, the same way we have learned to ignore the (BS) in the Bible about shellfish, about slavery, about dinner, about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore (BS) in the Bible about all sorts of things,” Apparently, he believes it condemns a gay lifestyle.

As one homosexual said on a Yahoo blog, "It is obvious that all gays ignore the Bible, because if they followed it and accepted God's word, then they would admit that they are simply sinners who are being tempted by sin." I guess he condemns the Bible as well. Does he have an agenda? I don't think so...well maybe.

What the fuck is your agenda?!

But they have been all influenced by the prevailing centuries of INTERPRETATION. Christian homosexuals would certainly gain from a new reading of these texts, just as many faithful scientists have reconciled the creation story with recent scientific discoveries.

Here we are presented with an alternate view of the biblical take on honest, loving sexuality (not promiscuity) which seems promising. (You still haven't told me what you think he gets RIGHT.) And yet with every fibre of your being you fight to adhere to the older interpretations even though they clearly cause needless pain and suffering for these individuals.

I can only guess at what your agenda might be.

My agenda? I'm curious, after all this time talking to me I'd like to hear, seriously, what you think MY agenda is.

[DEADn]

I will watch this and examine it for myself.

[DEADn]

I will watch this and examine it for myself.

[mike pulcinella]

Here's my point about all of this...

Faith is a CHOICE.

There is no proof whatsoever that Paul was divinely inspired. Nothing that shows beyond a shadow of doubt that God was speaking through him, if such a thing is even possible.

So, to take Paul's words as the word of God involved the DECISION to have faith that he speaks for the creator of the universe in the face of the overwhelming likelihood that he was simply a man trying to do good and spread the word about something about which he felt very strongly...and pretty much making it up as he went along

Now comes along this young man who gives us the opportunity, not to abandon faith entirely, but to bend it a little and re-interpret what we thought we knew in order to make room for those who have been excluded.

The faithful will not have it, and again this is a CHOICE on their part.

Remember, in this particular case they are not being asked to condone promiscuity or sex out of marriage, both things which religious heteros happily do anyway, but instead they are being asked to condone LOVE. God may be love, as the saying goes, but His followers don't seem to have as much of it for those they consider different.

All the video talks about is monogamous love between two people. That is all we are being asked to accept. It doesn't take a major shift in faith to accept it and yet there are those who will fight against it until the day they die...and find out how wrong they were.