Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers homosexuality to be immoral

Again, not being able to force your views on others is not the same as persecution. Nobody prevents you from believing whatever you want to believe but you don’t get to tell people that they have to act as you believe and that is not ‘being under attack’. If you really can’t understand the difference between the two then you are a ponce who is sincerely lacking in perspective.

Based on your other statements in this thread I don't think that that is the case, but rather you are suffering from the infiltration of a viral meme and need to self-examine. Physician, heal thyself.

 

Hey HB: I had asked a question earlier that I was hoping to get an answer to. If the Bible is the manual, and God is the all-knowing infallible creator who gave us this manual which we must follow, why do we adhere to some (homosexuality is wrong) but not others (bringing a disrespectful son to the town villagers to be stoned to death / stoning adulterers to death).

Are all verses to be followed to the letter? If not, what are the criteria for which ones to take literally and which ones to take figuratively?

 

Tell me, if you dont want your child to have sex ed in 5th grade but live in a place that has sex ed at a young age, how can you feel otherwise? If you discipline your child because they are naughty, then the state takes you away because they think there should always be a laissez faire attitude when it comes to discplining your child. Views are forced on people all the time, it's not just a one way street. I agree with you that views shouldn't be forced on others, but the reality is it goes both ways. the left can be just as intolerant of the right's views and vice versa.

ok I like to think I'm ver good at reading, but I think I need ur help on this one.

 

CB,

your question is probably better answered by someone with a theological background. I don't feel learned enough to give you a satisfactory answer to this.

However, I do have an example which I use for myself whenever there are conflicts like this. In the case of adultery, punishable by death in one verse I believe, Jesus provides an aswer to this for Christians.

An adulteress was brought before Jesus and His enemies wanted Him to condemn her to death by the written law. Jesus obliged and said, yes it is a sin punishable by stoning, however let he who is without sin cast the first stone. As noone in the world can claim that excpet Jesus, the woman was freed.

I hope this gives u some guidance.

 

Here's my thoughts...and remember, I'm a flaming Jesus freak, so understand that I might say things in an objective way that really are just my thoughts from how I understand my faith: The Bible is NOT a manual. It's not an owner's guide. Preachers say that all the time...and I think it confuses people. Because they open it up, and it just isn't that. It's an ancient narrative. If you're looking for it to be a how-to book, then you're looking at the wrong book. There's a great article by a guy named N.T. Wright that I've posted here a few times, if you're interested, that addresses that very topic. I get very frustrated when I hear people in the church refer to the Bible like it's a playbook....manual....etc. It's among my bigger pet peeves, frankly. I just think it's an oversimplification of a very complex and difficult collection of stories, which were all written AT LEAST (roughly) 2000 years ago.

I'm persuaded by a concept called progressive revelation. Essentially, I believe Christ is a much better set of lenses to who God truly is then what is presented to and through Moses, for example. When Moses calls God, "Father," it's revolutionary...when Jesus calls God, "Abba/Daddy", it's another revolution. It's another peeling back of the layers of understanding this God that is so beyond our comprehension in so many ways. So as a Christian, I'm not going through Leviticus or Deuteronomy to adhere to "The Law." (like 600+ laws) Because Christ tells us we've been freed from that. Actually, he ups the ante on us first....you thought you were doing great because you didn't murder someone?? well guess what..you've harbored hate in your heart...so you're a murderer. You thought you were doing just fine because you haven't slept with someone else's wife...well guess what..you've lusted after that woman over and over again, so you're an adulterer. He does this to point out how far we are from the SPIRIT of the law, when setting up legalistic, lawyer-like rules to carry out the literal law. So I'm not gonna go stone my child when he talks back. And I'm not gonna sacrifice a bull at the temple. Because the check has already been paid. Jesus fulfilled the law.

Now that doesn't mean I have license to go do whatever I want, whenever I want. Check that...I do. I have free will. But as someone who feels grateful to God for his gift...I try to live my life in response to that gift.

Frankly, I struggle with the issue of homosexuality. I really do. I do not condemn anyone. How could I? I've been forgiven of so much. How could I possibly believe that someone needs the sacrifice of Christ more than me? They don't. I know a wonderful man who is gay and who is a follower of Christ. He's an old friend of my family. He's been to Bible college. He loves God and other people, truly. You don't have to be around him for more than 10 minutes before you get that. He is in a committed relationship with his partner. He and I are not close enough to have gone into the subject. I would love to talk to him about it, but don't want to make him uncomfortable, either. There are parts of Paul's letters which seem to address homosexuality...yet, I've heard convincing arguments that they're really addressing pedophelia with young male prostitutes, which was apparently a big deal in a few of the communities where the early churches were getting started. But I don't know for sure. It's certainly not something I'im dogmatic about...and as a practical matter, it doesn't affect how I live from day to day.

Is it a sin? I'm not entirely sure. But I believe, in the eyes of God, that we all fall short of God. That we all suffer from a separation from Him. It's not as if, but for the fact a man had sex with a man, he would be clean and pure before God. Not as I understand God, anyway.

 

In my personal experience, these always provide an way for parents to let their children opting out. Schools where parents disagree with books on religious grounds always have an option for a similar, but acceptable book. In my experience, schools are always willing, either naturally or because of experience, to come up with an alternate acceptable curriculum when objections are made on religious grounds.

At the same time they are not willing to change their curriculum for everybody if a minority finds it objectionable. All the conflicts and law suits that I have seen occur because parents object to anybody reading books that they find objectionable. From where I sit the schools are much more reasonable about this than the religious parents, who have no desire or ability to compromise. I've never seen a school suing a parent to make them send their children to sex-ed.

I apologize for the obscurity. A meme is just a way to view the spread of ideas like the spread of pathogens in biology. A meme, therefore, is an idea that is a packet of information like a virus is a packet of biological material. In normal life you don't get to choose which memes you catch. Some memes which get spread get spread in an unwanted way, like a catchy jingle that you can't get out of your head. Some other memes get spread because they pass into your mind when your defenses are receptive like at Church. If you spend all your time in a hospital, sooner or later you will get sick.

It was just my way of saying that I think you have accepted an idea that if you examined it thoroughly and critically and from a distance from a location other than a church, you might not have been so willing to let it in at true. Honestly, as (I assume) a regular churchgoer you have been inoculated enough times that it would be a difficult idea to abandon, and we really are only talking a personal annoyance, so it doesn't really matter.

The only real point that you might want consider the alternate idea that the world isn't against you, but at worst indifferent. That that is a genuine difference.

 

damn i called that one. good sermon though max. seriously.

 

excellent post, thanks. i will follow up soon. much appreciated.

 

Max,

If there were more Christians like you, this would be a whole other country.

 

As far as the bible verses I will give some ideas that I agree with. This is a very simplified bbs version. The stories in the bible have an underlying message. If the verse out of context belies the overall message then something isn't being thought out correctly.

When Jesus was tempted by the devil, the devil quoted bible verses exactly. But he was going against the underlying message. Jesus illustrates this same point in several different stories in the bible.

It all comes down to seeing how they fit with the bigger picture. That is the way that has helped me see it.

 

As gifford said, we could use a lot more people like you, Max. I really enjoyed reading that post, even though I'm agnostic. Sure you won't run for office??




D&D. Who Says there Aren't some Intelligent People Here? I may not be, but Max Qualifies!

 

Well, you made a good point, KC, joke or not. How could someone like General Pace not know this was inappropriate for a person in his position to say? I saw a clip on one of the cable news channels (can't remember which one) that showed Colin Powell, while he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, saying that it wasn't the place for military officers to make comments on matters of this nature. I wish I had his exact words, because he was eloquent, as usual. Which brings to mind another thought... how on earth have we come to this pass, where we seemingly have a dearth of solid leaders at the top, both in the military and the civilian side? Or a better comment might be, why do we have a civilian administration so eager to promote what are apparently, in my opinion, unqualified leaders at the highest positions? Yes, that's a broad statement on my part, but Pace shouldn't be in Powell's former position. He's not worthy of shining Powell's shoes, or the shoes of several top military people forced out by the Bush Administration.



D&D. Dirty Shoes.

 

What I find ironic is the law dictates that gays can't say anything but Pace can open his mouth and say something stupid like this.

 

Excellent point. A really excellent point. The difference between Powell and Pace couldn't be more striking.



D&D. Strike Three!

 

Casey? Who said Casey?

 

Isn't it cool how I replied to your post using the right name, and didn't even notice you'd gotten it wrong until you pointed it out?



D&D. Pace Picante Sauce.

 

This ain't right! I would think a republican military would want to enlist and send gays to war.

Kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

-----------------

U.S. Military Discharged Fewer Gay Personnel in 2006

By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 13, 2007; 5:26 PM

The number of homosexuals discharged from the U.S. military under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy dropped significantly in 2006, according to Pentagon figures released today, continuing a sharp decline since the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts began and leading critics to charge that the military is retaining gay and lesbian personnel because it needs them in a time of war.

According to preliminary Pentagon data, 612 homosexuals were discharged in fiscal 2006, fewer than half the 1,227 who were discharged in 2001. On average, more than 1,000 service members were discharged each year from 1997 to 2001, but in the past five years that average has fallen below 730.

"It is hypocritical that the Pentagon seems to retain gay and lesbian service members when they need them most, and fires them when it believes they are expendable," said Steve E. Ralls, a spokesperson for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group that opposes the policy.

http://rawstory.com/showoutarticle....ntent/article/2007/03/13/AR2007031301174.html

 

MadMax answered it better than me, but here's some general rules to follow when trying to use the Bible as a guide for your life.

Whatever is in the Old Testament should be followed as shown to us by Jesus Christ and the epistles. The 600+ laws were set for many different reasons: order among Jews, cleanliness, ability to mediate disputes, and to bring the Jews closer to God's will. Paul specifically says that when Christ died, he fulfilled the Law, and Christians are no longer under the Law. We can still look at those Scriptures and learn from them, but we don't have to follow all of them by the letter.

Remember context. Every book in the Bible was written for a purpose. Some were written to record history, some as a literary work of poetry, some as a letter of instruction to a specific group of people, and some as a record of a prophetic vision. Sometimes, when an order is made in the Bible, God never intended for it to be a general order for all people to follow. It was an order to help a specific group of people.

Lastly, remember that the biggest theme of the life of Jesus and the New Testament is forgiveness. Even if something is sinful, Jesus really wants to forgive it. And since we as Christians can't know someone's heart, we shouldn't judge the person. We can say that we think an action is sin, but we should not judge anyone personally.

(I refuse to get into the homosexuality debate. My sister is gay, and I see how judgment hurts her.)

 

I just read in a related article on Gen. Pace that more than 10,000 troops have been kicked out of the service due to this since the don't ask/don't tell law was put into effect. I believe almost all of them brought it on themselves. I mean, i'm heterosexual. I don't go around telling people that i'm heterosexual though. Likewise, homosexuals in the military should not be acknowledging their homosexuality. Sexual preferences in the military should not even be brought up. What point does it serve?

I feel the overwhelming majority of those kicked out due to this were flaunting their sexual preference. Hell, alot of them may have done it purposely to get out of the military.