Eyesopen

Amazing! They actually have more color and life than a photo. I want one! Ok so I'll settle for a print. Cant quite afford the real thing, or find a wall to fit it...but I want one.

Hmmm...from a doctrinal point of view, I agree that one cannot separate doctrinal from practical. Doctrine is supposed to be a guildline. It seems to me that the example that we see in Jesus Christ woud be a good place to start. No I'm not talking about the fact that the Bible as we have it today does not record him talking about the subject. That is a different subject. I'm talking about how he treated people in general. I bring this up because he was the one that showed everyone how the doctrinal was to be put into the practical in all things from the Sabbath to teaching. So how did Jesus treat people?

As I recall he treated the vast majority with compassion, understanding and love. He looked upon the intent of the man/womans heart and not necessarily on their actions or sins. Look at Mary Magdalene for example. Certainly her sin was great and yet he chastised the other people in the city stronger than he did her...why? Because of her heart. She ended up becoming a very influential leader in the early church and if the record in the Bible is correct the first person to see the resurrected Jesus.

The people that Jesus treated harshly were those that had 'hardened their hearts' against God or His people. It seems to me that he was hardest on those that knowingly and deliberately blasphemed God. For example the money changers that did their buisness in the Temple. This was not an unknown custom. The Temple in ancient times was also the bank. So why did Jesus get so angry at them? I'm not certain but it could be because they broke God's commandment that He had written in Ezekiel concerning the loaning of money and the amount of interest that you can charge. They intentionally swindled the people of God and used His Temple with which to add credence to their 'company'.

How would I treat a homosexual? With compassion, understanding, love and acceptance, just as I believe my Savior would have done. You cannot redeem someone to the household if you are railing against them. Jesus is my example so I guess I would follow him.

I like the way the grey of the trees almost falls into the vibrant colors of the leaves. Then it comes forward as a dark at the top of the trees.

I think that any artist that has a feel for seeing (and mastering the use of) negative space as well as the positive space will have a feel for the abstract.

Yup! Exactly what a person needs on the bathroom wall...something to ponder in the positive and negative spaces....

No really its a nice piece, but not my favorite. I still like the lady in the boat and the shepherdress.

"I think he was painting his version of Salome (you know - the chick who wanted John the Baptist's head.)"

That's what I thought at first too, but no, it's "Judith and the head of Holofernes"

Holofernes was a general in Nebuchadnezzar's army. Judith snuck into camp, seduced him, and in an - uh - distracted moment, managed to stick a sword in his throat (I've known a few women like that). She then brought his head back to the Israelite camp and they had a party. Gee, another heartwarming story from the pages of the O.T....

Now now, you know someone's heart was warmed by it, they did after all have a party.

I rather like that birch tree scene. Tho I must admit I am kind of looking for the horse or wolf or whatever to come out from the shadows, like those perspective paintings that are so popular. See if you can find all 10 wolves in the forest...

That one would look good on the bathroom wall. Kind of gives a person something to think about and ponder while they're waiting for mother nature to do her magic.

eyes,

what is the link to the site you are referring to?

peace,

jen-o

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

I know how this person feels, I come from a very dysfunctional group of "little" people as well!!

Heeheh heee haww heee hee haahaaha .... thanks, that was very refreshing.

Now that that bit of nastyness is out of the way...no offense Bumpy, normally I find your posts to be a welcome relief from some tense moment, but please dont do what you just did again to me.

So....Bride, I am sorry for not posting last night but for some reason the browser would not even come to GS. I tried several times but finally gave up. The place that I get information on the ancient Greek language so I can see a fuller meaning of a word is called Perseus tuft. Here are some links that I have in my bibliography. They are only on one word, Porneo or pornos. It was used in I Cor 5:1 and is most commonly translated as fornication. I had no real reason to look it up except I wanted to get the full context of I Cor 6:9 and it (fornication) seemed like the topic. Anyway here are the links:

“Pornos. Demosthenes, Speeches 22, section 73.” Kata Androtiônos Paranomôn, Editions and Translations: S. H. Butcher and W. Rennie, based on Demosthenis. Orationes. Oxonii. E Typographeo Clarendoniano. 1907 and 1921. Perseus Tufts Online Classics Collection, with assistance by The Annenberg CPB/Project 2006.

<Demosthenes, Speeches 21-30 speech 22, section 73>

“Pornos. Aeschines, Speeches #1, section 130.” Kata Timarchou, Translations: Charles Darwin Adams, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA, based on Aeschines. Aeschines, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1919. Perseus Tufts Online Classics Collection, with assistance by The Annenberg CPB/Project 2006.

<Aeschines, Speeches speech 1, section 130>

“Pornos. Aeschines, Speeches #1, section 157.” Kata Timarchou, Translations Charles Darwin Adams, Ph.D. Cambridge, MA, based on Aeschines. Aeschines, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1919. Perseus Tufts Online Classics Collection, with assistance by The Annenberg CPB/Project 2006.

<Aeschines, Speeches speech 1, section 157>

“Pornoi. Demosthenes, Letters 4.10.” Peri tês Thêramenous blasphêmias. Editions and Translations: Greek, W. Rennie | English, Norman W. DeWitt, Norman J. DeWitt 1931. Based on the book: Demosthenes. Orationes. ed. W. Rennie. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1931. Perseus Tufts Online Classics Collection, with assistance by The Annenberg CPB/Project 2006.

<Demosthenes, Letters (ed. W. Rennie) card 4.10>

I looked up a good many words using this particular sight. One of the most illuminating words that I looked at here was the word Malakos which is translated 'effeminate' in I Cor 6:9 and is used to say that this verse is talking about 'homos' (to quote LCM) If you look this word up in the Bible and in Perseus you will find that nowhere does it allude to homosexuals or the act in any way. But it does talk about 'soft' men who wear 'soft' clothing, and a referrence is made to the slaves in Herod's household who have become weak and soft. It is also linked with disease but there is more to support that it is referring to a group of people of type of people being a disease in a community than anything else.

Anyway it is a great site for research that is just a bit above and beyond.

Eyes, I think the "sharper than any 2 edged sword" bible is about to go out the "back door"! If you can re-work the bible to promote homosexual behaviour as being OK with God's plan for man.... I think you've got a best seller on your hands!

Hopefully your agent isn't a boring, straight, conservative Christian!

Hmmm... have you ever stopped to think that maybe someone else reworked the Bible to say that homosexuality was a sin? And perhaps after 1700 years of constantly being told that 'this is the way it is' and having the freedom to persecute people for their sexual orientation maybe we have just been buying and selling another bigots point of view for so long that we really believe it? I asked a question of myself and then of God and the Bible. What I found may not be what 'mainstream Chrisitanity' teaches but that doesnt preclude it from being right. My conclusions may be wrong...only time will tell, but at least I didnt just swallow the hook again because it tasted good to me at the time.

This may have been plagerized (well it was plagerized) but the words actually meant something to me:

...Who teach because they love the teacher's task

And find their richest prize

In eyes that open, and in minds that ask.

I have asked questions since I was a child, in fact it was in asking questions that got me kicked out of twi. I will never stop questioning the world around me and I will never stop questioning any doctrines that are promoted as truth and/or Godly when they encourage hate and violence. And frankly I dont give a rats tail if I sell one more book if it were only about money...I have said it over and over again but some just never seem to believe me, I am not doing this to sell books and make money, I never even intended to write one, but since it developed that way I made it available for those that were interested. If you're not interested then please feel free to stop posting on this thread. I dont get it! Why is there so much talk about me making money or selling books? Some of you act as if my mind is on money. It that's what you think, mister you got two more thoughts coming and their both wrong!

I still love my family even when they act like total screw-ups, don't you? That's how. One can still love a person even if they are doing wrong. Sins, transgressions and iniquities can be repented of and healing obtained through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I hear you here, I really do and of course I still love my family if they sin or whatever. Perhaps I should expound on this a bit...when I lived in Little Rock after my first WOW year and prior to entering into the Corps I worked as a waitress at a Mexican Restaraunt. Among my co-workers besides an 11th Corps grad who was my Way home coordinator and my WOW brother, there were several bisexual or gay people. Now I was not ignorant and I had worked with gay people in a restaraunt setting before I went out WOW. So to me this was no big deal. I had been taught by my parents that your "judge" each person on an individual basis and never upon their skin color, race, religion or sexual orientation or whatever. There was never a "love the person and hate the sin" mentality or doctrine in my family. So when twi introduced me to it I simply could not swallow it.

To me people are people, if they make a mistake and "sin" ok, dont do it again. If they have a habit of it I dont sweat it I just walk away since they obviously dont want to change. Now this would be just fine when it came to homosexuality except for one thing... I actually got to know quite a few of them and became friends. Some loved God and wanted to hear the word but they were not allowed at twig until they professed their change in lifestyle. Which of course they had major problems in doing. I talked with one of them at length about this and deep in my soul I realized that she couldnt change. It didnt matter if it was a sin, or a learned behavior or if anyone else thought that she could, she just could not be something that she wasnt. This should have set off red flags and sent me running from twi but it didnt. I figured that she must just be an isolated case. My Way home Coordinator told me to just brush the dust off....but that didnt make sense either. Jesus said 'if they dont hear you' then brush them off. But she wanted to hear and was denied.

I just couldnt and still cant wrap my brain around the seperation. My family is full of 'sinners' including myself, as we all are, but if someone wanted the word I would never brush them off despite whatever sin they were in. Since that time I have met and now know many gay people and have found that my friend was not an isolated incident. Now, without twi I just lived my life and accepted people as they are because no matter what I may say they arent going to change anything unless they want to. But I dont 'hate' the sin, I simply choose which 'sins' as it were, that I will allow access to my life by way of a friend. Did that make sense?

Eyes, I'd be interested in your findings concerning the Greek words especially. I take it you are referring to Romans in the Greek? Or are you referring to the LXX for the OT?

Romans was one of the sections of verse that I studied in the Greek. But there are actually 10 sections of verse that are used regularly to prove the sin nature of homosexuality, and all of the ones in the NT I studied in the Greek. I didnt know that there were so many going into this but I figured it out pretty quickly. Anyway, I know that sometimes in the Bible a word is used that it is difficult to ascertain the actual meaning of or it is a word that is only used once in the Bible. I dont like to take anyone's word for it when it comes to definitions of ancient words as those meanings can change quickly in a culture or not at all (which is of course another reason why knowing the history is so important). So what I did with most of them was look them up in the writings of Authors, Poets, Speeches and anything else that has survived the centuries to see how the word was used in everyday language. This was quite helpful in several places. Let me look up the link and get back to you. It is fairly simple to use as you can change it from Greek to English but you have to know kind of what you are looking for before you switch.

I have already done a lot of research on the "submission" doctrine that is so prevalent not only in TWI but in the mainstream churches. This was spurred on by the feelings elicited whenever I heard D. Moneyhands teach on the subject of marriage.

I dont think I ever got the 'pleasure' of such a teaching and if I did it apparently was altogether forgettable. I really hated the way that we had to treat the guys in residence. It always felt like the ladies had to kiss their tails and pretend to not be smart or have an idea anytime a man was around. It probably wasnt easy on them either tho, they had to have all the answers or they would be chastised. I just thought it was sickening. But I would like to see what you have found on the topic.

I gotta go and make dinner, so I'll get back at you before the night is out. (on the West side)

I think that TWI had so much screwed up when it comes to homosexuality that I support Eyesopen's endeavor wholeheartedly. I admittedly won't be able to get her book right now, or give her level of labor its due consideration right now, but I hear what she's saying about needing to rework the whole field after her TWI' days. TWI missed the boat so badly on this one that it should be looked at anew IMO.

Go for it EYESOPEN!!!

(edited for grammar)

Thanks for the support Jeff, I really appreciate your kind words.

Eyes,

I've finished your book. It was a fascinating and thought provoking read. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the culture in OT times and how it relates to writings in the OT. You did a marvelous job of researching it and presenting your findings in a logical, easy to follow, manner.

I agree with many of your conclusions. A few I'm not yet "on the same page" with you. That is not to say I reject your conclusions, just that I would need to do more study on my own to accept or reject them. Until then, we can enjoy a difference of opinion.

Great job! Can't wait to read your future publications. And remember, I get an autograph of this one at the next BBQ!

PurpleDays

Of course I will sign it and I very much have looked forward to your critique especially of the things that you did not agree with or you found something missing from them. It sounds like we will have lots to talk about while we tool around Houston trying to find our hotel.

Thank you for the kind words as well they mean a great deal to me.

Oh my goodness! The realism and the beauty of that realism is just breathtaking. I would love to have a print of any of them. I really like the shepperdess and the lady in the boat. What I wouldnt give to paint like that.

I'm intrigued by what inspires people to strike out and investigate things, to question things. I think it must have been a difficult matter, choosing to question this particular topic.

Actually I didnt pick this topic. I was asked if it was a sin or not and I was unable to give an answer that I was comfortable with. When I was in twi the verses seemed clear at the time and I felt comfortable saying that it was a sin. But even then I was not comfortable with the dicotomy caused by the 'love the person hate the sin' doctrine. How pray tell does someone seperate the two? I guess some folks were able to do so and some still do but I just couldnt do it. Anyway, when I was asked if it was a sin 10 years after leaving twi forever and I found that the verses were no longer as clear as they once had been and the person asking me was asking some pointed questions that made me wonder if I really knew what the book was saying.

What I found in the OT was that with a simple lesson in history and culture the verses made perfect sense without a lot of extra study. In the NT things were a bit more complicated especially in Romans where the writer relies heavily upon what 'everyone' knew. But once again with some more history lessons and quite a bit of Greek study specifically of the language and how some words were used in the everyday venacular, a picture soon developed. All in all I found that the NT follows well with the OT in practical doctrines and customs. If there was a specific section of verses that you were interested in I would be happy to tell you what I found if you tell me which one.

As far as ridding yourself of twi doctrine and beliefs sometimes it is easiest to read, as you have, what others have done, such as the things that Raf did on PFAL. Most of the conclusions I agree with and some I do not but that is to be expected. Not that I agree with the teaching either but I dont totally agree with where he (and others) went with it. But I myself have not bothered to rehash PFAL so I have no other conclusion to offer.

The topic of homosexuality or the twi doctrine concerning it was never a big concern to me and I doubt if I ever truly would have researched it had I not been asked and hence got intrigued. I was more bothered by the 'submission' doctrine that twi promoted and perhaps one day I will research that one.

Exie darlin' there are so many things about vp that a person can have a problem with, adultery was just one of many. Feel free to jump in whenever you like.

So I pulled this out of the pie fight on the other thread. The blue is Jen-o and the red is my response.

it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?

i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...

why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...

Leviticus 18: 1-5

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord you God.

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

Ye shall do My judgments, and keep Mine ordinaces, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

Now what you said about the following scriptures being a list of 'abominations' is not correct, (I think you used that word correct me if I'm wrong) the word 'abomination' does not apply to all of them as God distigueshes between them where they are written. But the fact that they are a list is to me obvious so in that part you are correct. But they must be seen in the context of idolatry. God does not remind them that He is their God on a whim. He tells them three times just in these verses. The number three denotes what....right...completeness.

Furthermore in verse 21 God comes right out and names Molech (king of gods) and reminds them again that He is their God. And finally at the end of the chapter he says it yet again.

He also does not use the word "neither" on a whim...it is a word that connects two different things. This clearly shows that he is not referring to only the ordinances that you spoke of although they are part of it. To gain a full understanding it is clear that God EXPECTS the reader to know what the "doings of the land of Egypt...and...the doings of the land of Canaan" were.

So I do not fully disagree with your conclusion, I only think that there is more to it than what you are seeing. Is that x, y and z enough?

I received no response as of yet to this post, but am patienly waiting to see if this is what Jen-o wanted or not.

On this thread I made this statement:

So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.

To which Rhino replied:

OK ... this would make your opinion clearer ... IF you are talking about the Bible... is that the hateful doctrine you are referring to? If it is, then it seems you would have no reason to bother trying to interpret what the Bible really means ... you are just saying the Bible, at least as we have it, is hateful and flawed.

Is that right?

And I replied:

And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.

Perhaps my reply here is not clear enough as Rhino is still saying that I have said that the Bible is a flawed and hateful document. So just to set the record straight...I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the book itself has had many "hands" in it since it first began long before some of it was even written down, to me this means that it is flawed. If you have a better word then please use it. I clearly never said that the Bible was hateful, I said (basically) how can an organization promote a hateful doctrine. If you equate the Bible with an organization than fine, but I do not. As Bramble continues to say doctrine that is harmful or not helpful does not seem Godly to me and should not be equated with God or His word and I agree.

And finally, Rhino if I somehow inadvertantly or by your perception have wronged you than I apologize. But if 'the shoe fit' with one of my more downgrading comments then that sir is on you as I directed none of my comments to anyone in particular, just as I said in the homosexual marriage thread. Jen-o decided to take my opinion personally for which I asked her why and she could give me no answer that I found to be adaquit. But you have indicated that you wish it to be done so it is. Done.

With that being said....can we go back to the orginal topic of this thread...please?

But, I'm interested, if you care to share it, in how much of this, your research and your writing this book, has been a healing and maybe a reclaiming process for you and what that journey has been (and is probably continuing to be) like?

Thank you for your kind words, I agree that questioning is not a bad thing...although sometimes my boss would prefer that I do that after I have done what I was told to do.

As for this question, I would like to answer it. During the research part of my book where what I was writing was a jumble of what is actually written (in English) and my personal views (which have changed) and the sheer volume of information on any given piece of the subject matter, it was a time of discovery and inner reflection.

As the project moved forward from one section of verse to another I saw a synergy of the scripture that I had taken as hype from the vicster. I'm not saying that it 'fits like a hand in a glove' or that every section will agree with every other section, but there is a flow and definate connection between the scritures that reflects the common roots of the writers. Because of this I gained a deep respect for the books that are in the Bible that definately influences my thinking and of course my view of life.

Another thing that my research did was open doors of thought and opinion that I otherwise may have overlooked. It is very easy for a researcher or scientist in any field to become narrow minded, and by that I mean that their focus is so accutely on what they are studying that they sometimes inadvertantly put on blinders that 'narrow' ones view. A biblical researcher is no different in that respect. Sometimes it is good to shake up the ole brain and look at views that are at polar opposites to your own. If nothing else you allow yourself to see from a different view the same topic. It's like looking at the Grand Canyon from the West rim and then going over and looking at the same place in the Canyon from the East rim. Its the same thing but you get more depth of understanding.

It is a continuing journey as you said. This topic was I believe the first of many. And as I alluded to in the previous paragraph one of the hardest things to do in science is to not allow your own personal preconclusions to cloud the research. One cannot go in with a conclusion only to work towards the same conclusion. That would not be honest or helpful. I recall in TWI that is exactly what Dr. did and hence taught us how to do. Many times I heard him say something and then when he couldnt find the verse he was looking for to verify what he had just said he would ask Walter to find it in the Bible where it says something to support his comment. That was not honest, but we learned ourselves how to do that by watching him and I saw lots of TC's and above do exactly that. (And just to be clear, I'm not refering to anyone in particular)

This project also took me in a direction that twi would never have approved of. Can you see me presenting this book as my Corps research paper? Me neither! Although I used a lot more research materials and sources than were ever made available to graduating Corps to finish their papers. But to be fair part of that is due to the internet but still.

So to make a short answer long, this project has allowed me to heal some of what I did not percieve as broken from my twi days and has opened my eyes, heart and mind to the actual words of God that are nestled inside of the Bible. It has helped me in immesurable ways from a research point of view and has I believe made me a more flexable person. I really cant wait to see what tomorrow will bring.

I hope that answers your question.

Wow Dan, that's nothing short of beautiful! It's so realistic and intriquit. (Did I spell that right?) Anyway this painting really could live in my house, it could work with the decor and if it wasnt too big I might have a wall for it. It gives me a sense of serenity and joy. I really like it.

Ya Shellon I gotta agree with you on that one. I was 'hoping' but I dont think it will be getting me anywhere fast. But it was worth a shot.

Bride, that's an interesting piece of information. Thank you.

I still think you would be better off if you paraded your credentials on the Amazon site ...

I'll take it into consideration.

And please do not buy my book....unlike vp, I dont give a rats tail if you do or not...but wait I think I've said that several times. Sorry didnt mean to repeat myself.

I hate it when that happens mstar! Do long posts in Word or something first then post 'em. That way you dont lose 'em.

Bumpy, those masks are amazing! I just love the apparent similarites between African tribal masks and native American ones...all of the Americas. Its really amazing!

Gotta love that particular painting, dooj but seeing the star transposed over it is cool. Mary is obviously the focal point but Christ (who is in vitro) is in the little pyramid. Then you got the lines of the star, one going through the center of Mary and the other through the center of the men on the horizon. It makes you wonder what ole Mike was really thinking of when he painted this one. Could I live with it? You bet gotta love all that nakedness!

I'm not sure you meant this to be humorous ... but it is ... I'm intelligent but ridiculous and "acting stupid"?

People (most of Christendom?) that believe differently have a strong Biblical basis for what they believe on this issue. You seem to have none, and yet try to claim some biblical backing for what you say. Now at the same time you say people that seem to have a very clear backing from the Bible for what they say ... are not based on the Bible.

It is not a cheap shot ... you have no doctrinal backing, yet you claim the Bible before it became flawed and hateful ... agreed with you. So those original texts you speak of ... are nothing like what we ended up with ... that makes no sense.

Why not just say your beliefs are NOT based on the Bible ... because what we do have in the bible does not agree with what you think God would say on this issue. Isn't that more honest?

You have no idea what I've got and that is the real crux of your problem. The rest is your opinion based upon a belief that you have. You do not wish to be moved but you seem to act like what I might say could possibly cause you to reconsider. BS, you just want to know what I wrote in my book.

As we have said and you still don't admit, you had every chance and refused, but dug in deeper about your professors and whatever else ... So in response to the "hey, she wrote a book, she doesn't have to answer" ... I gave my opinion that there was no evidence the book meant you had any credentials ...

Just a question...since when does someone need a degree to write a book? I never claimed to be any kind of authority on homosexuality or on Biblical Studies or on the connection between so why am I being expected to act like one? I was very clear in both threads I dont want to have a big discussion on this. I have never gone out and said 'buy my book'. I simply made an announcement on this thread and gave you my opinion on another. My right to speak is in the Bill of Rights!

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/index-med.html

http://www.ldolphin.org/Homo.shtml

http://www.gladventist.org/isa/inge-faq.htm

http://www.nobeliefs.com/luther.htm

http://glow.cc/index.htm

http://www.pflagdetroit.org/BibleandHomosexuality.html

http://www.religioustolerance.com

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/religion.htm

Here are a very few of the links that I used to come to my conclusions. Read them yourselves. There are 25 pages in my book of such links. Some influenced more than others I will put in more later if you want.

Happy birthday sweetie! Have a wonderful day, and do something special!!

WW and Jen-o, Hmmm....somehow you are missing what I am saying...I hold the Word of God in high esteem, is the Bible the actual Word of God? I think that it contains the words of God but because of many hands throughout the years has become flawed. Does that mean that I do not hold the Bible in high esteem? Perhaps or perhaps not. But I no longer believe what twi taught about it being completely infalable, and perhaps you still do or you believe something similar. I thought that the reason for studying the Bible was because there were things that we didnt understand. Am I wrong?

what kind of "peace" is that to nod in assent about something that has not been clearly defined...

imo, because it cannot be clearly defined...

And there it is in a nutshell. The way I read this is "Eyes you can 'explain' your position until you are blue in the face and you will always be wrong, because what I see is 'clearly stated'."

So I ask you...why should I bother? According to you there cannot be peace between us and I dont want to fight and you say the same thing so why are we here?

Also I am still waiting for you to tell me what I admitted to? Did you misread something that I posted...is it possible that you did not understand something that was written? Please tell me what I supposively said.

Cman, I agree with you 100%. I am tired of the changing field and being the a target. And I also believe that this topic has so many little things that influence it just from the Bible itself, which is why I asked to not be drawn into a long drawn out discussion on a board such as this. There is just so much information and only so much space that Paw should pay for.

And finally, Rhino, you seem like an intelligent man...so I'm going to address you as such. Your comment about the Bible and flawed doctrine is ridiculous. You know as well as I that the doctrine of thousands of organizations are not based upon the Bible. Now many may say that their doctrine is in fact based on the Bible but it is not. So please dont act stupid to try to take a cheap shot at me. It demeans both of us.

Sirguessalot...no worries, life happens. Take care of yours and be at peace.

Jen-o I answered your question on the other thread, but you did not answer mine. What did I admit to?

Rhino, the victors write the history. From your view it is not normal and in fact it is quite repulsive (I would guess) But from the other side of the coin, your are the one that is not normal and your sex life repulses them. I just see no point in relying on a document that has been flawed by many hands just like the soup. In this administration (if you want to call it that) the rule is Love not hate. So how can an organization that promotes a hateful doctrine be the authority. Do we listen to the Al quida? Their doctrins also promote hate.

Cman, that is an interesting point of view. I had never thought of it quite that way but I think with that input I can understanding a bit more about the ancient Celts and the two-spirit people.

As far as perverted sexual practices, heteros can do them, too.

I just thought that little line deserved another look see.

i can't speak for anyone else...

but i would like to know if you really think that you were "attacked" on the "God bless CA" thread?

and if the answer is affirmative, then i would like to know specifically what you deem to be an "attack"...

I already answered that. Rhino was good enough to admit it, of course then he said that he only used the word because I had. Ok...

if i have "attacked" anyone, i most certainly would like to know where, and have the opportunity to apologize for it...

Never said you did, but if you would like to step up to the plate no-one here will stop you.

eyes, no one has asked you to "justify" yourself...

Right...

it was a simple question, i.e. what are your reasons for disagreeing with the plain meaning of the scriptures?

i'm not so sure why you have assumed such a defensive posture about this...

why not just say: i disagree because of xyz...

Already did that but if you want a repeat then ok...the first few verses of Leviticus 18: 1-5

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,

"Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the Lord you God.

After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

Ye shall do My judgments, and keep Mine ordinaces, to walk therein: I am the Lord your God.

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord.

Now what you said about the following scriptures being a list of 'abominations' is not correct, (I think you used that word correct me if I'm wrong) the word 'abomination' does not apply to all of them as God distigueshes between them where they are written. But the fact that they are a list is to me obvious so in that part you are correct. But they must be seen in the context of idolatry. God does not remind them that He is their God on a whim. He tells them three times just in these verses. The number three denotes what....right...completeness.

Furthermore in verse 21 God comes right out and names Molech (king of gods) and reminds them again that He is their God. And finally at the end of the chapter he says it yet again.

He also does not use the word "neither" on a whim...it is a word that connects two different things. This clearly shows that he is not referring to only the ordinances that you spoke of although they are part of it. To gain a full understanding it is clear that God EXPECTS the reader to know what the "doings of the land of Egypt...and...the doings of the land of Canaan" were.

So I do not fully disagree with your conclusion, I only think that there is more to it than what you are seeing. Is that x, y and z enough?

you did state the topic was idolatry, but this is the first i've heard about "practices"... i said the bible called them "abominable customs"... now here you say they are "idolatrous practices"... whichever name you want to use, God still says not to do them (the customs/practices)... maybe, i will take this up on the doctrinal thread...

I'm sorry where does it say 'abominable customs?'

And no that was not a backhanded comment that was a straight forward comment as opposed to using "inuendo or hints".

peace,

jen-o

eyes,

now that i've read your admission, i think that i understand a little better...

and i do think that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the interpretation of these scriptures...

since you do say that you are a christian...

i think you've said that anyway... correct me if i'm wrong on that...

although it is a little puzzling to me because of certain things you have said regarding christians...

if i may borrow a word from another thread, it seems to me that you have an almost "hateful" attitude toward christians...

as in: "Christian missionaries when they came to shove their religion down their throats"

as well as a dismissive attitude toward the scriptures themselves by referring to them as "tired verses"...

i don't know... maybe it's just me... but most christians i know highly esteem the scriptures...

peace,

jen-o

What pray tell are you talking about? My admission? Of what? How can you understand me if you don't know me? Face it we have never actually had a discussion.

And for the record I dont 'hate' Christians I am one. I do however (as you) disagree with acts. The history of the Christian Church is a bloody one and I am often disgusted by the atrocities that I read about and the butchering of the scriptures is one of those atrocities. I hold the word(s) of God in high esteem. And I'm fairly certain that you do also. But we seem to disagree on some funamental issues. We both need to agree to disagree.

But do please let me know what the heck you are talking about concerning the first comment.