Gay friendly religions?

Originally Posted by Time

You shouldnt condemn the bible. I dont agree with what people do with it, but the book itlsef isnt harmful untill we make it harmful, and it isnt good untill we make it good.

If you read the bible, there are a fwe things you need to understand.

The OT is generaly the jewish books, namley the torah.
The OT was written over a thousand years, by 4 distinct "writers ", who had an army of scibes.
The NT was written over about a thosuand years, the books in the bible are generaly 3500 - 2000 years old.
The OT, in which the NT wouldnt be around with out, was strictly based ont he jewish people trying to seperate themselves from opperssion. They were taken slaves by babylon, assyria, and rome, and many others at that time. All they wanted to do was be different, hence the one god, when everyone else had multiple.IT is written in a jewish context for jewish people.
The NT is generaly the same

Now, generaly speaking, most, if not all the storie sint he bible are taken from other traditions. Im not talking stolen for fun, I mean assimilated into their own due to time, trade routs and spreading out. IT was never meant to be read literal, or read as a historical document, but as a cultural book, for jewish people

Time I don't wish to get into a long discussion or argument about the Bible. But here are a few facts, reference above post.

- I don't remember the exact number but only about 2/3 of the OT books are in the Torah.
- Judean scribes began writing the OT around 700 BCE - almost 1500 years after the "facts" of Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Joshua without written record of any kind. Their purpose was two-fold. One - develop a history for the Jews/Israelites and two - to set the foundations for monotheistic religion without getting their more powerful and pagan neighbors in an uproar and wiping them all out. They completed their work in about 20 years.
- The first known gospels were written between 70 and 100 CE. In 325 CE the Council of Nicea determined which books would be included in the New Testament and everything that was Gnostic in nature was left out and even destroyed wherever it was found.
- Yes, the OT was written in order to separate the Jews from others, but the "others" were their own kind - Canaanites. The Israelites were a sub-set of the Canaanites. Aside from the writing their own history and developing the one-god religion, they also set themselves apart from the kinfolk by refusing to eat pork and shaving their beards.
- There was no exodus of millions of Israelite slaves from Egypt. The Egyptians kept detailed accounts of their history and this isn't in there. It's inconceivable that such a large resurrection would not be mentioned in any of those records.
- The timelines of Abraham, Moses, Isaac and Joshua also do not match any of these records or any other known historical records of the time. In fact, there are no records of any kind that prove the existence of any of these "great Jewish leaders".
- Right - they wanted to be different and the OT, one god and other things is how they went about setting themselves apart.
- Right - without the OT there would be no NT because one of the books in the OT talks about the coming of the Messiah (definition of the term Messiah is arguable). The Messiah thing came about several times, in different societies for thousands of years before the OT was written and guess what....everyone of them had the Messiah being born to a virgin mother, the son of god with twelve disciples. Hmmm?

Bottom line the Bible is an interesting book, written in modern language in thriller format it would be an international bestseller...of fiction. I condemn the book because of the literalists who claim it to be the word of god and thereby subordinate the free will of millions of people through fear...fear of a wrathful god and the invention of a place called hell. The Bible is used solely to control people and that's what I find offensive about it; especially as it truly is - The Greatest Lie Ever Told (an excellent book by that name, written by WH Uffington).

Originally Posted by Rivendoah

It's on old trick in debating to twist around a statement in reverse... but in this case it doesn't hold any water... especially Holy Water! lol...

Seriously theophilis... no one has the answers... we have faith... belief... but nothing more than that... I think accepting that fact opens all kinds of doors spiritually... it is much harder to grow in knowledge and truth if one stays in a locked room...

"For Fundamentalists the Biblical word is clear and absolute, it is a reality in itself and its meaning is unchanging. It is not relative to the understanding of those who hear it in its varying cultural and historical context. As a result is does not really require interpretation. In a sense fundamentalism is not another kind of interpretation, but a denial of the need and legitimacy of interpretation. It presupposes that the Biblical word can be immediately grasped by all. Unwittingly of course the fundamentalist does interpret, such is the nature of reading and communication. Without realizing it, the fundamentalist equates 'the Word of God' with his or her interpretation of it, and absolutism that for all. In the Catholic Church we have only ever claimed that one person is infallible. In fundamentalist Churches, everyone is infallible."

Great post Rivendoah! ;o)

I did say " generaly" the torah :P

And I agree with you, dont think I dont..... well except abou the cannanites.... LOL the isrealites were basicaly cannanites..... They wanted to be seperate from the opressers, liek i stated babylonians and the like.......

But, i do agree with you, i just cant condemn a book that isnt harmful in itself, a book cant cause harm only through us can it

Originally Posted by Time

I did say " generaly" the torah :P

And I agree with you, dont think I dont..... well except abou the cannanites.... LOL the isrealites were basicaly cannanites..... They wanted to be seperate from the opressers, liek i stated babylonians and the like.......

But, i do agree with you, i just cant condemn a book that isnt harmful in itself, a book cant cause harm only through us can it

True...condemning a book - a thing - is kind of silly, I guess. Glad to see we've agreed to amiably agree...;o). Thanks!

http://thesecondadvent.com/

[quote=Rivendoah]



Here a quote that says it all in my opinion.

"For Fundamentalists the Biblical word is clear and absolute, it is a reality in itself and its meaning is unchanging. It is not relative to the understanding of those who hear it in its varying cultural and historical context. As a result is does not really require interpretation. In a sense fundamentalism is not another kind of interpretation, but a denial of the need and legitimacy of interpretation. It presupposes that the Biblical word can be immediately grasped by all. Unwittingly of course the fundamentalist does interpret, such is the nature of reading and communication. Without realizing it, the fundamentalist equates 'the Word of God' with his or her interpretation of it, and absolutism that for all. In the Catholic Church we have only ever claimed that one person is infallible. In fundamentalist Churches, everyone is infallible".

AMEN! Love it. And the cherry-picking convenient picks are there too. I know a non-denominational couple whose church is fundamentalist and just may as well align with the Southern Baptists. They believe oh yes, the man is the head of the household, but the wife works full-time and I believe makes just as much, if not more money than her husband and has a higher education, (college vs. the husband's high school diploma) works a professional job where she has to make authoritative decisions. Yet on Sundays, at church, she will meekly sit there as the female secondary role. What a contradiction. Again, MAN wrote the Bible. In the New Testament, the whole "I do not permit women to teach" (1 Timothy 2:12), uhm, who is I?? It doesn't say "God". I don't need "Timothy" ordering my life.

[quote=chakragal]

Originally Posted by Rivendoah

What a contradiction. Again, MAN wrote the Bible. In the New Testament, the whole "I do not permit women to teach" (1 Timothy 2:12), uhm, who is I?? It doesn't say "God". I don't need "Timothy" ordering my life.

Exactly. 'I' just means the author of the First Epistle to Timothy. But Christians operate on a weird hermeneutic that says anytime a text in the Bible says 'I', it's God speaking through the man like a ventriloquist. There is no good or responsible reason to read the Bible like this, yet they do anyway.

I respect the vision of Bible Christianity, but they fall WAY short on the actual reading and applying it part.

Feel free to tell "Paul" to shove it if he says something absurd. He's only a man, not God, nor is he a dummy used in the infallible ventriloquism of God.

The Bible has so much to teach us. But like any other book, you are responsible for holding to the good and disposing of the bad using your intellect and intuition.

Well said Avenger!! And actually, I probably should have said I don't need "Paul" ordering my life, as I think he may have been the author, and I guess the recipient was Timothy. (LOL, I'm not a Bible scholar-did some studying of it, but not in an academic or fundamentalist sense). My issue with the New Testament is sometimes everything BUT the four gospels. As for the OT, there are many beautiful psalms, proverbs, etc, and I appreciate quite some of the precepts, as long as it is not putting anyone down, or into a secondary role. Same as the nice words in the NT that aren't the gospels, such as in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 about love is patient, love is kind. Definite good precept to live by. But another example of fundamentalists not even listening to their own Bible is when some of them (not all) haughtily and HATEFULLY condemn people. I'd like to say, excuse, me love is KIND and you're supposed to LOVE, so why not act like the Jesus you say you worship!!

LadyScarletmoon,

Are you still looking for an answer to your question? It doesn't appear you have replied to the latter pages of posts. I believe i can offer an insight. The truth is all denominations fall short in their attempts to understand the divine aspirations in same-sex relations. Yet, just as all are welcomed to attend and while all are knowingly flawed, same-sex orientation should likewise not be a catalyst for divisiveness. Sadly, such things are seldom realized and understood.

The Uniterian Universalist church has a welcoming policy re gays. Gays are regarded as equal in all church business and activities.
i belonged to one church for 2 years before realising 2 of the main people involved were a female couple with an adopted daughter.

There was an article about some branch of christianity church who is accepting openly gay ministers and priests......