The Bible; The Unabridged-Version

[Andy]

Because you are the driving force in the culture in which I live, my rights are abrogated on a daily basis by your religious beliefs. Your holy book has cost millions of lives due to it's violent admonitions and contradictory rules. If you people just stopped trying to force others to live by your rules you'd have no trouble from me. My marriage my yet be taken from me by your Bible-beater brothers and sisters, that constitutes an assault on me because I don't believe the same way as you do.

Well this will likely be a losing fight for you, and I have yet to see a contradictory rule. You can mock us, and make your claims, but you'll never convince a true believer. Marriage is between a man and a women. That's what it means. I may want Blue to be orange, but it is still Blue regardless of what I want it to be.

Further, from our perspective you are assulting us by trying to redefine the institution of marriage on us. There is no right to redefine the meaning of things just to suit ones own personal desires, anymore than I could redefine what murder means just so I can kill people who believe differently (if I wanted that, which I do not).

If you have the power to redefine things, then so does everyone else, and you would likely not want them to redefine things on you either.

Since you don't have this right that never existed, how about we both agree to not infringe on the other. I won't burn anyone at the stake, and you do not impose a selfish redefining of the institution of marriage. Otherwise, I will always fight for what I know marriage is, and you will always run around lying about what the Bible says.

Unfortunately there are no other options since you know I'll never back down even to death.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well this will likely be a losing fight for you, and I have yet to see a contradictory rule. You can mock us, and make your claims, but you'll never convince a true believer. Marriage is between a man and a women. That's what it means. I may want Blue to be orange, but it is still Blue regardless of what I want it to be.

Further, from our perspective you are assulting us by trying to redefine the institution of marriage on us. There is no right to redefine the meaning of things just to suit ones own personal desires, anymore than I could redefine what murder means just so I can kill people who believe differently (if I wanted that, which I do not).

If you have the power to redefine things, then so does everyone else, and you would likely not want them to redefine things on you either.

Since you don't have this right that never existed, how about we both agree to not infringe on the other. I won't burn anyone at the stake, and you do not impose a selfish redefining of the institution of marriage. Otherwise, I will always fight for what I know marriage is, and you will always run around lying about what the Bible says.

Unfortunately there are no other options since you know I'll never back down even to death.

Well, number 1, you called me a liar without providing any proof. I defy you to show one lie I have told about the Bible. I give exact quotes and scriptural references.

And number 2, smug self-righteousness didn't start with you. People of your ilk said that women would never get equality, the vote, or the right to own property (all things against which the Christian church was adamantly opposed), that blacks would always be slaves because God said they should be in the Bible (dark skin was the mark of Cain), in the 50's and 60's they said that they would never integrate, they said that God forbid interfaith marriages and interracial marriages and they would never be allowed, they said that God condemned homosexuality and it would never be legal... Do you see a pattern here? You're right, you'll fight to death to force others to obey your myths and superstitions, but dinosaurs die and the new generations are smarter.

Allowing gay people to marry has nothing to do with you or your religion. It's the law in parts of the US, that's all. If someone was trying to get YOUR specific sect of Christians (out of the more than 4000 arguing sects) then you would have a valid complaint, but no one is asking that since there are plenty of Christian churches willing to marry gays as soon as it's legal. Gays have traditonally be allowed to marry in a large number of cultures worldwide--even the Catholic church used to marry them--some of the Saints were gay and got married.

I'm always amazed that self-identified Christians are so openly hypocritical. I hope Numinus is reading this because you are another vocal Christian who has never posted (that I have seen in our discussions) the two most important commandments in the Bible. All you have done is use the Bible as a weapon, picking out scriptures that hurt others and bragging about the power you have to force others to bow to your wishes.

 

[Dr.Who]

Well, number 1, you called me a liar without providing any proof. I defy you to show one lie I have told about the Bible. I give exact quotes and scriptural references.
.

I agree with you rather than Andy on this one. I do not know you to be a liar. Apparently seriously biased to the point of delusion, but not a liar. The number of bible passages that you read to mean the exact opposite of what they really mean is absolutely astounding!!!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I agree with you rather than Andy on this one. I do not know you to be a liar. Apparently seriously biased to the point of delusion, but not a liar. The number of bible passages that you read to mean the exact opposite of what they really mean is absolutely astounding!!!

So you say, but as yet have not proved. I asked you to take it word by word, phrase by phrase and show me that I'm wrong, but you have failed to take me up on that.

 

[Andy]

Well, number 1, you called me a liar without providing any proof. I defy you to show one lie I have told about the Bible. I give exact quotes and scriptural references.

Good catch. You are absolutely right. To me they are lies. However to you they might be exactly how you claim they are. In which case that would not be a lie. So I submit my mistake.

And number 2, smug self-righteousness didn't start with you. People of your ilk said that women would never get equality, the vote, or the right to own property (all things against which the Christian church was adamantly opposed), that blacks would always be slaves because God said they should be in the Bible (dark skin was the mark of Cain), in the 50's and 60's they said that they would never integrate, they said that God forbid interfaith marriages and interracial marriages and they would never be allowed, they said that God condemned homosexuality and it would never be legal... Do you see a pattern here? You're right, you'll fight to death to force others to obey your myths and superstitions, but dinosaurs die and the new generations are smarter.

I'm not trying to force you to submit to anything. From my perspective, you are trying to force me to submit to your belief that Marriage means something else.

As far as the rest of the other stuff, you are being prejudice. Trying to stereotype everyone into one group. Further, the anti-slavery movement was created by Christians believing that all people are equal under G-d. So that really doesn't fly. Especially in regards to women. Before Jesus and his disciples showed up, women were pretty much objects and property. The idea laid out in the Bible that a man should lay down his life for his wife, was completely opposite to the cultural norms of the day. In fact, men would send their wives as captives to be raped and brutalized, in place of themselves.

Allowing gay people to marry has nothing to do with you or your religion. It's the law in parts of the US, that's all. If someone was trying to get YOUR specific sect of Christians (out of the more than 4000 arguing sects) then you would have a valid complaint, but no one is asking that since there are plenty of Christian churches willing to marry gays as soon as it's legal. Gays have traditonally be allowed to marry in a large number of cultures worldwide--even the Catholic church used to marry them--some of the Saints were gay and got married.

Any Christian sect that willing to marry same sex couples, isn't following the Bible, because the Bible is specifically opposed to it. They clearly are not Christian, if they are not following Christian Biblical doctrine.

I'm always amazed that self-identified Christians are so openly hypocritical. I hope Numinus is reading this because you are another vocal Christian who has never posted (that I have seen in our discussions) the two most important commandments in the Bible. All you have done is use the Bible as a weapon, picking out scriptures that hurt others and bragging about the power you have to force others to bow to your wishes.

I don't see that anywhere in my posts. In fact, I would wager most 'earthly' power is in opposition to me. If I could force people to bow to my wishes, this entire country would be a much different place. Almost no taxes. Far fewer laws. IRS would be disbanded. And there wouldn't be a death row for sure.

I also don't see what is hypocritical about my position either. But then you and I have different world views. You attribute positions and events to me that do not apply. I can see that coming every time you judgmentally say "you and your ilk".

 

[Andy]

So you say, but as yet have not proved. I asked you to take it word by word, phrase by phrase and show me that I'm wrong, but you have failed to take me up on that.

Well I have tried that before, but you seem completely convinced of what you have already determined to be the answer. As they say "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". Of course your not a guy, but the statement remains true.

I don't think you want to consider alternatives to your view, so why bother debating it? Again, we are not confused by the meaning at all. It's very clear to me at least. I wager the same is true for Dr Who.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Good catch. You are absolutely right. To me they are lies. However to you they might be exactly how you claim they are. In which case that would not be a lie. So I submit my mistake.

Fair enough.

I'm not trying to force you to submit to anything. From my perspective, you are trying to force me to submit to your belief that Marriage means something else.

Passing laws to force others to follow your interpretation of the Bible is what I'm talking about. The laws of this country should not reflect religious bigotry, we are all supposed to be equal, but since Christians are a majority they pass laws to make themselves MORE equal and to punish those who disagree with them.

As far as the rest of the other stuff, you are being prejudice. Trying to stereotype everyone into one group. Further, the anti-slavery movement was created by Christians believing that all people are equal under G-d. So that really doesn't fly. Especially in regards to women. Before Jesus and his disciples showed up, women were pretty much objects and property. The idea laid out in the Bible that a man should lay down his life for his wife, was completely opposite to the cultural norms of the day. In fact, men would send their wives as captives to be raped and brutalized, in place of themselves.

So, how do I talk about the Christians who fought up into the 60's to maintain the blacks in subservience? It's only in the last hundred years or so that Christians have allowed women to own property and to vote. The churches fought against women owning property in their own names because they said it would prevent men from controlling their wives and would destroy marriage.

Any Christian sect that willing to marry same sex couples, isn't following the Bible, because the Bible is specifically opposed to it. They clearly are not Christian, if they are not following Christian Biblical doctrine.

This is part of the hypocrisy, you take a scripture out of the Bible on a subject that Jesus never mentioned and you use it as a weapon against people YOU don't like. You ignore all the other prohibitions in the Old Testament that apply to you though.

I don't see that anywhere in my posts. In fact, I would wager most 'earthly' power is in opposition to me. If I could force people to bow to my wishes, this entire country would be a much different place. Almost no taxes. Far fewer laws. IRS would be disbanded. And there wouldn't be a death row for sure.

You are foresquare for the disenfranchisement of gay and transgendered people, you and your ilk have the votes to take away our rights and punish us because of what YOU believe. But you carefully avoid all the Biblical laws you are breaking and give yourselves a free pass. That's hypocrisy.

I also don't see what is hypocritical about my position either. But then you and I have different world views. You attribute positions and events to me that do not apply. I can see that coming every time you judgmentally say "you and your ilk".

Have you voted and campaigned for adulterers to be killed? Do you purify yourself after you touch a woman having her period? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibers? Do you cut the hair on the sides of your head? You take one thing from the Bible and make it law to punish people YOU don't like. You post your smug self-righteous attitude, announcing who is and who isn't a Christian based on your interpretation of the Bible. You pass judgment on you fellow Christians very easily, Andy, Jesus would be proud, but you ignore the things that Jesus told you to do. You are a perfect example of the kind of Christian that Numinus and I have been discussing. How come you haven't posted about interfaith marriages and condemned as un-Christian the churches that perform those marriages? How about inter-racial marriages? Gay people are simply the flavor of the month for Christian hypocrites like you, 50 years ago you'd have your knickers in a twist about inter-racial marriages.

I love the way you hide behind the fact that there are 4000 sects of Christians and none of them agree with each other, that gives you the out so you can say "Not all Christians..." and have it be true. I have to look at the great mass of Christians and deal with them, not the silent group of them who have let the religion get hijacked by folks like you and Fred Phelps--haters, people who piss on Jesus name every single day by using the Bible as a weapon.

You disgust me, but I will wait patiently for you to die peacefully in your sleep confident that the new generation to whom I speak at University classes will forge a better world based on the real teachings of Jesus rather than the bastardized violence you advocate.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well I have tried that before, but you seem completely convinced of what you have already determined to be the answer. As they say "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still". Of course your not a guy, but the statement remains true.

I don't think you want to consider alternatives to your view, so why bother debating it? Again, we are not confused by the meaning at all. It's very clear to me at least. I wager the same is true for Dr Who.

That's the beauty of interpreting the Bible, you can make it say whatever you wish and to Hell with what is actually written in it. You are a good example of why we need a new Council of Nicea, to redraw the Bible, take out the hatred, stupidity, and violence attributed to God, dispose of the nonsense called the Old Testament, and focus on the Christ in Christ-ianity. Have a Bible that actually has Jesus' teachings and not just the maunderings of a bunch of goatherders and religious revisionists like we have now.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

This post is specifically to Numinus, Dr. Who, and Andy:

Dr. Who brought up the concept of internal consistency in religious doctrine and I think that's an important point. I suppose that we can all agree that Jesus said that the two most important commandments in the Bible were to: LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

Each one of you has put forward ideas grounded in the Old Testament, mostly condemnations of gay and transgendered people. Andy has gone so far as to say that Christians who are willing to marry homosexual people are not Christians. I have no reason to believe that Who and Nums believe differently.

The Christians who would marry gay people seem to be following Jesus' second commandment since marriage is one of the most treasured things two people can have and if you love someone as yourself how can you deny them what you treasure so highly? The only way you can do that is to ignore Jesus very clear statement and willfully place the Biblical condemnation of homosexuals ABOVE the importance of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

But it actually goes beyond deliberately ignoring Jesus' commandment, you are passing judgment on homosexual people based on your interpretation of the scriptures--and that you are forbidden to do as well. If marrying gay people makes God unhappy, then He will punish them, it's not your place to ignore Jesus' commandments about LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF and JUDGE NOT...just so you can punish people of whom you don't approve.

If Christianity is going to be internally consistent, then Christians will have to weigh every thing they do against what Jesus said were the two most important commandments. You can never again raise your hand or your voice against gay or transgendered people without denying your own Savior's direct commandments to you.

 

[PLC1]

This post is specifically to Numinus, Dr. Who, and Andy:

Dr. Who brought up the concept of internal consistency in religious doctrine and I think that's an important point. I suppose that we can all agree that Jesus said that the two most important commandments in the Bible were to: LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

Each one of you has put forward ideas grounded in the Old Testament, mostly condemnations of gay and transgendered people. Andy has gone so far as to say that Christians who are willing to marry homosexual people are not Christians. I have no reason to believe that Who and Nums believe differently.

The Christians who would marry gay people seem to be following Jesus' second commandment since marriage is one of the most treasured things two people can have and if you love someone as yourself how can you deny them what you treasure so highly? The only way you can do that is to ignore Jesus very clear statement and willfully place the Biblical condemnation of homosexuals ABOVE the importance of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

But it actually goes beyond deliberately ignoring Jesus' commandment, you are passing judgment on homosexual people based on your interpretation of the scriptures--and that you are forbidden to do as well. If marrying gay people makes God unhappy, then He will punish them, it's not your place to ignore Jesus' commandments about LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF and JUDGE NOT...just so you can punish people of whom you don't approve.

If Christianity is going to be internally consistent, then Christians will have to weigh every thing they do against what Jesus said were the two most important commandments. You can never again raise your hand or your voice against gay or transgendered people without denying your own Savior's direct commandments to you.

You have put your finger on the core of Christianity, which is not found in the Old Testament, but in the new. Love others as yourself, judge not, love your enemies, etc. Of course, that has nothing to do with your neighbor's sexuality.

So, how do I talk about the Christians who fought up into the 60's to maintain the blacks in subservience? It's only in the last hundred years or so that Christians have allowed women to own property and to vote. The churches fought against women owning property in their own names because they said it would prevent men from controlling their wives and would destroy marriage.

You have a good point here if you believe that the US is a Christian nation. If it is, then it was the Christians who tried to keep women in a subservient role and blacks in their place (at the bottom of society, of course). If not, then it was the federal and state governments that kept women from owning property and blacks from drinking at the same fountains as whites for so many years.

 

[Andy]

Passing laws to force others to follow your interpretation of the Bible is what I'm talking about. The laws of this country should not reflect religious bigotry, we are all supposed to be equal, but since Christians are a majority they pass laws to make themselves MORE equal and to punish those who disagree with them.

Aside from marriage laws, which is nearly universal, what other things have we forced others to do in recent years?

So, how do I talk about the Christians who fought up into the 60's to maintain the blacks in subservience? It's only in the last hundred years or so that Christians have allowed women to own property and to vote. The churches fought against women owning property in their own names because they said it would prevent men from controlling their wives and would destroy marriage.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I meet someone who claims to be Christian, yet says that other races are inferior or some such nonsense, I simply pull out the Bible, and ask them to show me where in the text it says that?

If they go to the old testament, I ask them if they are a Jew. That normally finishes that conversation.

If they go to the new testament, they normally can't find anything to support their views. So then I point out verses where Paul said "For there is no respect of persons with God" in Romans 2:11.

Or I point to the wise men of the east in Matthew 2:1, which may well have been Asian or some other eastern country.

Or I point out Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts Chapter 8, and how he was saved. And there are dozens of examples where people of different races where saved through faith, all throughout the Bible.

And I typically just lay these out and ask the person in question, how he rectifies his chosen view, with the Biblical view. Generally there are two responses.

One is a well here is my lame excuse for believing what I believe that has nothing to do with the Bible (that's a paraphrase), or a hasty retreat which normally involves a "well I hope we can still be friends" even though I'm not going to change my views just because the Bible says I should.

In which case I assume they were never really Christians because they clearly are not submitted to the Bible, which is a defining quality of a Christian.

The second, is somewhat of a startled revelation. Something along the lines of "I never realized that" or "No one told me about this passage". In which case I let it go, and assume G-d will reveal the rest of what he wants to that person in his own time.

So what should you say to claimed Christians who are racists? Well I really don't know because see you as the same as them. No, you are not racist perhaps, but to me you both are taking what you want from the Bible, discarding what you don't want from it, and twisting whatever you wish to fit the views you have chosen. They might be doing it to justify Racism, and you are doing it to justify anti-Christianism. In either case, you both are refusing to submit to the authority of the Bible. And that's your choice, and their choice. So what you would say to them is beyond me.

This is part of the hypocrisy, you take a scripture out of the Bible on a subject that Jesus never mentioned and you use it as a weapon against people YOU don't like. You ignore all the other prohibitions in the Old Testament that apply to you though.

Um, the Bible was inspired by G-d. Jesus was G-d. The new testament does mention marriage many times. It also mentions what marriage is not, many times. So in my view, Jesus did mention it. He even mentioned it directly when he said talked about marriage in Matthew 19. So I think it's clear Jesus did mention these things.

Of course, the best I understand the Old Testament, I am following what actually applies to me. This is where I see you as the same as those who try and justify racism by twisting the Bible like I mentioned above. You twist it to mean something that it doesn't, or apply it to people it doesn't apply to, then claim others are being hypocritical. From your perspective, I'm sure I do appear hypocritical.

But as best I understand the Bible, I'm doing exactly what I am supposed to be doing.

Have you voted and campaigned for adulterers to be killed? Do you purify yourself after you touch a woman having her period? Do you wear clothing of mixed fibers? Do you cut the hair on the sides of your head? You take one thing from the Bible and make it law to punish people YOU don't like. You post your smug self-righteous attitude, announcing who is and who isn't a Christian based on your interpretation of the Bible. You pass judgment on you fellow Christians very easily, Andy, Jesus would be proud, but you ignore the things that Jesus told you to do. You are a perfect example of the kind of Christian that Numinus and I have been discussing. How come you haven't posted about interfaith marriages and condemned as un-Christian the churches that perform those marriages? How about inter-racial marriages? Gay people are simply the flavor of the month for Christian hypocrites like you, 50 years ago you'd have your knickers in a twist about inter-racial marriages.

I rest my case about the twisting of the Bible to fit predefined views.

I love the way you hide behind the fact that there are 4000 sects of Christians and none of them agree with each other, that gives you the out so you can say "Not all Christians..." and have it be true. I have to look at the great mass of Christians and deal with them, not the silent group of them who have let the religion get hijacked by folks like you and Fred Phelps--haters, people who piss on Jesus name every single day by using the Bible as a weapon.

I agree with you on that. But I thought that you didn't pre-judge people? How are you any better than them, when you engage in the exact same pissing on Jesus, that they do? How are you any better when you are stereotyping all Christians the same, and claiming I'm one of them, when you don't even know me?

Basically why does everyone else have to be perfect and avoid these pitfalls, but you are exempt?

You disgust me, but I will wait patiently for you to die peacefully in your sleep confident that the new generation to whom I speak at University classes will forge a better world based on the real teachings of Jesus rather than the bastardized violence you advocate.

Thanks. You have no idea how much better I feel now.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's the beauty of interpreting the Bible, you can make it say whatever you wish and to Hell with what is actually written in it.

Well, YOU can make it say whatever you want it to say. But I think language is such that there is a limit to what a thing can actually mean.

 

[Dr.Who]

Dr. Who brought up the concept of internal consistency in religious doctrine and I think that's an important point. I suppose that we can all agree that Jesus said that the two most important commandments in the Bible were to: LOVE GOD and LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF.

And there is nothing inconsistent about expecting certain standards of behavior both from yourself and others.

Each one of you has put forward ideas grounded in the Old Testament, mostly condemnations of gay and transgendered people. Andy has gone so far as to say that Christians who are willing to marry homosexual people are not Christians. I have no reason to believe that Who and Nums believe differently.

There is a huge difference between disagreeing with the gay agenda and condemning the people themselves. feel free to show where each of us has actually disapproved of the gay people themselves rather than disapproved of their actions or agenda.

The Christians who would marry gay people seem to be following Jesus' second commandment since marriage is one of the most treasured things two people can have and if you love someone as yourself how can you deny them what you treasure so highly? The only way you can do that is to ignore Jesus very clear statement and willfully place the Biblical condemnation of homosexuals ABOVE the importance of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

The Christians who would marry polygamers seem to be following Jesus' second commandment since marriage is one of the most treasured things two people can have and if you love someone as yourself how can you deny them what you treasure so highly? The only way you can do that is to ignore Jesus very clear statement and willfully place the Biblical condemnation of polygamers ABOVE the importance of Jesus' commandment to love others as yourself.

But it actually goes beyond deliberately ignoring Jesus' commandment, you are passing judgment on homosexual people based on your interpretation of the scriptures--and that you are forbidden to do as well. If marrying gay people makes God unhappy, then He will punish them, it's not your place to ignore Jesus' commandments about LOVING OTHERS AS YOURSELF and JUDGE NOT...just so you can punish people of whom you don't approve.

As near as I can tell not a single person here has argued that marriage should be between a man and a woman because the bible says so and actually have made arguments based on universal human rights or gender differences or biology or the needs of raising children. But maybe I am wrong - maybe a single person HAS made that claim.

And I am much much more sure that no one has said they think marriage should be between a man and a woman because they want to punish gay people - that is just nuts.

And you are wrong about the meaning of judging:

"God judges in the temporal arena, and the eternal. In this life God will judge a person's actions, but always (except when the person has irrevocably rejected Him) holds out the chance for turning back and repenting. Only on the Last Day, at the great white throne judgment will God pronounce eternal judgment on a person, forever determining his or her destinies. From this judgment, there is no appeal or second chance.

The Christian, on the other hand, is never given the right or the responsibility of eternally judging anyone (unless they have clearly rejected Christ permanently). Christians cannot correctly weigh action, motives, opportunities, nor know all things about any individual: God alone is capable to do so.

However, Christians are to make decisions (appraisals, discernments, and even take corrective actions). But even judging in this aspect is intended to be remedial, and leaves the door open to the person for repentance and reconciliation. Any judging on the part of a Christian which does not, is a false aspect of Christian judgment. We are called upon to ''judge righteous judgment'' (John 7:24) and failure to do so is to be negligent in a crucial aspect of our Christian calling."
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/j14.html

Regarding the passage you quoted: "judge not" here is a commentary:

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/Matt/Do-Not-Judge-Others

If Christianity is going to be internally consistent, then Christians will have to weigh every thing they do against what Jesus said were the two most important commandments. You can never again raise your hand or your voice against gay or transgendered people without denying your own Savior's direct commandments to you.

True that. But we can talk with them about what is best and it might not always be the gay lifestyle.

 

[Dr.Who]

You have put your finger on the core of Christianity, which is not found in the Old Testament, but in the new. Love others as yourself, judge not, love your enemies, etc. Of course, that has nothing to do with your neighbor's sexuality.

I am pretty sure all of those are OT themes.

In fact my bible has this tricky tendency to have a little foot note next to every sentence that tells me where in the OT I can find a NT theme. And you know I cant remember ever seeing a NT theme that the editors did not refer to an similar OT theme.

Lev 19:18 love neighbor as self
love enemies - David's treatment of Saul
judging harshly - Oh im out of time

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I find it interesting, Andy, that when YOU speak for God and I speak for me, that you find both things to be equal. This suggests that you hold God in very low esteem or me in very high esteem. If you cannot see the difference between the two kinds of statements, then you are pretty dim.

Aside from marriage laws, which is nearly universal, what other things have we forced others to do in recent years?

What, disenfranchising millions of Americans isn't enough? Another example would be the sodomy laws that were just struck down as being un-Constitutional. The ERA comes to mind as well. And it isn't just marriage, many of the State Constitutional amendments preclude anything that would even approximate the benefits of marriage.

Well, I don't know about you, but when I meet someone who claims to be Christian, yet says that other races are inferior or some such nonsense, I simply pull out the Bible, and ask them to show me where in the text it says that? If they go to the old testament, I ask them if they are a Jew. That normally finishes that conversation.
If they go to the new testament, they normally can't find anything to support their views. So then I point out verses where Paul said "For there is no respect of persons with God" in Romans 2:11. Or I point to the wise men of the east in Matthew 2:1, which may well have been Asian or some other eastern country. Or I point out Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts Chapter 8, and how he was saved. And there are dozens of examples where people of different races where saved through faith, all throughout the Bible. And I typically just lay these out and ask the person in question, how he rectifies his chosen view, with the Biblical view. Generally there are two responses. One is a well here is my lame excuse for believing what I believe that has nothing to do with the Bible (that's a paraphrase), or a hasty retreat which normally involves a "well I hope we can still be friends" even though I'm not going to change my views just because the Bible says I should. In which case I assume they were never really Christians because they clearly are not submitted to the Bible, which is a defining quality of a Christian. The second, is somewhat of a startled revelation. Something along the lines of "I never realized that" or "No one told me about this passage". In which case I let it go, and assume G-d will reveal the rest of what he wants to that person in his own time.

So you have actually managed to move beyond the racist views held by the Christian religion for hundreds of years. Kudos to you. Have you as well moved beyond seeing mentally ill people as being possessed by demons, beyond seeing women as chattel, beyond seeing alcoholism as "moral turpitude", beyond the Biblical prohibition against interfaith marriages, beyond the Church's prohibition against inter-racial marriages? Great, if you have. Now it's time to move past the death sentence and abomination beliefs against gay people.

So what should you say to claimed Christians who are racists?

I doubt that I would have anything to say to racist Christians, they defend their beliefs with their interpretation of the Bible just the same you do.

Well I really don't know because see you as the same as them. No, you are not racist perhaps, but to me you both are taking what you want from the Bible, discarding what you don't want from it, and twisting whatever you wish to fit the views you have chosen. They might be doing it to justify Racism, and you are doing it to justify anti-Christianism. In either case, you both are refusing to submit to the authority of the Bible. And that's your choice, and their choice. So what you would say to them is beyond me.

Why can't you tell the difference between a problem with the Bible and a problem with God? If I am anti-Christian it is only in the definition. I think the teachings of Jesus are good, but my experience with Christians shows little Christ in the practice of Christianity today. You and Nums are good examples of this, you feel completely justified in speaking for God based only on your interpretation of the Bible and if that wasn't enough you actively persecute the people you judge to be not following YOUR understanding of an old book. You ignore Jesus' commandment to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF and help pass laws that punish the people you have judged.

I am definitely Pro-Christ-ian, but as you and Nums show, that doesn't make "real" Christians happy.

Um, the Bible was inspired by G-d. Jesus was G-d.

There is nothing to prove your statement? How is it that you can justify ignoring what Jesus told you and instead using less important passages in the Bible as a weapon against others?

The new testament does mention marriage many times. It also mentions what marriage is not, many times. So in my view, Jesus did mention it. He even mentioned it directly when he said talked about marriage in Matthew 19. So I think it's clear Jesus did mention these things.

Jesus never condemned gay people. If hating gays and punishing them was part of what Jesus saw as your role, then I'm sure He'd have mentioned it. You don't own marriage, marriage is used in almost all cultures, all religions, even non-religious people marry, the Catholic church used to marry people. Marriage in our country is a legal contract and should not be controlled by religious tenets of any religion since as a legal contract it provides legal rights and responsibilities.

Of course, the best I understand the Old Testament, I am following what actually applies to me. This is where I see you as the same as those who try and justify racism by twisting the Bible like I mentioned above. You twist it to mean something that it doesn't, or apply it to people it doesn't apply to, then claim others are being hypocritical. From your perspective, I'm sure I do appear hypocritical. But as best I understand the Bible, I'm doing exactly what I am supposed to be doing.

So you are cherry-picking what to obey in the Bible just like you accused me of doing in the first part this post. Why do you get to decide what's "gospel" and I don't?

I rest my case about the twisting of the Bible to fit predefined views.

Once again, you are calling me a liar with no a shred of proof, the things I cited are in the Bible--why do you get to decide that they don't apply to you?

I agree with you on that. But I thought that you didn't pre-judge people?

Are you aware of two different kinds of "judgment"? If I speak for me and my experiences, then I am "judging", but when someone speaks for God, then that is an entirely different thing, that is Judgment, and it is the very thing that Jesus forbade you to do. I never speak for God, you continually claim to be speaking for God.

How are you any better than them, when you engage in the exact same pissing on Jesus, that they do? How are you any better when you are stereotyping all Christians the same, and claiming I'm one of them, when you don't even know me?

I know you only by what you have written, you claim to speak for God, you post on a public site who is and isn't a Christian, and you are happy and proud to have helped to persecute people that you--speaking for God--have Judged to be sinners and deserving of punishment and disenfrachisement. You and your ilk have used your claims of God's Truth to pass laws that hurt others and deny them rights you gladly claim for your own. We are very different in that, I have not and will not deny to you any right that I claim for myself, I will not help pass laws that take privileges from you that I continue to enjoy. Jesus said to LOVE OTHERS AS YOURSELF, I practice that by not doing anything hurtful to Christians, but you can't say that about gay people, can you?

Basically why does everyone else have to be perfect and avoid these pitfalls, but you are exempt?

Am I exempt? What have I done to Christians that hurts any of them? What laws have I helped pass that take rights from them that I continue to have? I can, and have, given concrete examples of how Christian actions have hurt millions of people down through history, you have not seemingly learned anything from the abuses of your forebears and so you continue to use YOUR interpretation of the Bible as justification for ignoring Jesus' commandments and hurting gay people.