• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Megachurch Pastor Comes Out Of Closet

CriticalThought said:
Let us assume that I were a Jeffersonian Christian. In other words, if I followed the Jefferson Bible. How likely would I be to percieve homosexuality as a sin? Furthermore, why would his Bible be any less valid than the one that was crafted by ancient religious leaders who were motivated by their own political ambitions?
Click to expand...

Well, the Bible is a book of faith, so I'm not going to try to prove its legitimacy. People have their own personal reasons for belief. However, I can tell you that it is more "valid" than some other books based on several reasons. Just take for example the Smithsonian statement regarding the Book of Mormon "The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book."

Then look at its statement on the Bible "Much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say that names of all peoples and places mentioned can be identified today, or that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated. There are conflicts between present archeological evidence and historical reports that may result from a lack of information on our part or from misunderstandings or mistakes by the ancient writers."

I don't feel silly putting faith in the Bible.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
I think its the way people have used the Bible in negative ways, the controversial history of the Catholic church, and they way modern right wing Christians come off as discriminatory, closed minded and dogmatic, that has turned many people off from the Christianity. The Bible, even with its many contradictions and Old Testament wrath, is a great spiritual book and I think it is filled with some profound truths. Ghandi said it the best "I'd probably be a Christian if I ever met one".
Click to expand...

Oh, I recognize what you are arguing, but I find much more absurd than that.

A question! If men who felt the Earth was flat, was the center of the universe, and who didn't even know that Pi is 3.14159, were to come up to you and inform you that they had compiled a book to tell you exactly how you should live your life, would you buy into it?

Modern day Christians do. And I absolutely love them for it. To listen to the writings of ancient men who knew considerably less than them and follow it so literally just because those ancient men claimed that their writings came from a supernatural deity, is deliciously absurd!

Why stop there? Why not believe in Zeus? Why not believe in Odin? I mean, if we are going to take the writings of ancient men so seriously and live our lives in accordance with people who didn't even know how to cook sea food properly...

Maybe I'll ask a caveman how to do Calculas while I am at it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure what's so negative about being a 'sinner'. Does being a sinner equate to being bad and punished in the hypothetical afterlife by some supernatural entity? If so, then it's time to find another religion. Seems like a pretty simple solution.
 
CriticalThought said:
Let us assume that I were a Jeffersonian Christian. In other words, if I followed the Jefferson Bible. How likely would I be to percieve homosexuality as a sin? Furthermore, why would his Bible be any less valid than the one that was crafted by ancient religious leaders who were motivated by their own political ambitions?
Click to expand...


It depends on your perspective, in a sense. However, Jefferson edited his Bible rather drastically. What was left would not be considered representative of Christianity by any reasonable measure... Deist, rather, as Jefferson himself was.

There are theologically-liberal churches who do not hold to traditional interpretations who do not consider homosexual behavior to be a sin, this is true. I acknowleged this when I noted that denominations that tend to be relatively literalist usually call homosexual behavior sinful.

In dealing with matters of faith, why a person believes this way and not that way typically ends up in issues of personal spiritual experiences and heartfelt convictions, and arguing these matters is rarely productive.

In short, no... most Christians would not consider a person following the Jefferson-edited Bible to be a fellow Christian.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh, I recognize what you are arguing, but I find much more absurd than that.

A question! If men who felt the Earth was flat, was the center of the universe, and who didn't even know that Pi is 3.14159, were to come up to you and inform you that they had compiled a book to tell you exactly how you should live your life, would you buy into it?

Modern day Christians do. And I absolutely love them for it. To listen to the writings of ancient men who knew considerably less than them and follow it so literally just because those ancient men claimed that their writings came from a supernatural deity, is deliciously absurd!

Why stop there? Why not believe in Zeus? Why not believe in Odin? I mean, if we are going to take the writings of ancient men so seriously and live our lives in accordance with people who didn't even know how to cook sea food properly...

Maybe I'll ask a caveman how to do Calculas while I am at it.
Click to expand...

One thing that trips me out about the Jews/Hebrews compared to other "ancient men" is their historical journey that was predicted from the beginnings of the Bible. They were deemed to be God's "chosen" people who were to usher in monotheism to the rest of the world. This was written back when almost the entire world was still polythiestic/pagan. And guess what happened? This small nomadic tribe did infact, somehow, end up spreading monotheism throughout the entire world. Then it is told that they will be repelled from their land by enemies, and then scattered, dispersed and persecuted. These things were being written from 500 B.C. and much earlier. As we know, these things came to pass when Rome sacked Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Jews lived scattered throughout Europe for the next 2000 years being persecuted almost everywhere they went. However, in those same prophetic scriptures it said the Jews would eventually get their land back one day. Now of course, anyone who lived before 1948 must have thought this was certainly a prediction that was wrong. After all, the Jews had not inhabited Israel (or Palestine as it was know for most of that time) for nearly 2000 years. But what happened? In 1948 they got their country back. As a student of History (I have my BA in History) I don't know of any other race or ethnic group that has survived 2,000 years in foreign lands without being assimilated into the culture of that land and fading away, and then, above all, getting their original country back after 2000 years! And to know that this was all written in old scriptures way before these events ever happened? I don't care if you believe in the Bible or not, any serious history student must admit those are significant anomalies in the study of history and anthropology.
 
CriticalThought said:
Faith is just another way of saying you refuse to thnk about it.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, you can no more prove that these beliefs are false any better than Christians can prove they are true. Taking the stance that these beliefs are false without any definite proof is equally fallible in the pursuit of logical thought as saying those beliefs are true without definite proof.
 
CriticalThought said:
Let us assume that I were a Jeffersonian Christian. In other words, if I followed the Jefferson Bible. How likely would I be to percieve homosexuality as a sin? Furthermore, why would his Bible be any less valid than the one that was crafted by ancient religious leaders who were motivated by their own political ambitions?
Click to expand...
I've never read the "jefferson bible", although I have heard of it. If this is the case, I suppose it just makes you a jeffersonian christian.

Furthermore, why would his Bible be any less valid than the one that was crafted by ancient religious leaders who were motivated by their own political ambitions?
Click to expand...
why do you beat your wife?
 
Singularity said:
I'm not quite sure what's so negative about being a 'sinner'. Does being a sinner equate to being bad and punished in the hypothetical afterlife by some supernatural entity? If so, then it's time to find another religion. Seems like a pretty simple solution.
Click to expand...

not really no. Christ himself, offers a way out of the spiritual consequence of sin, so there is no need to worry.

A sin is merely a spiritual transgression of religious custom, nothing more, some just seem to want to pretend they aren't sinners.

Homosexuality is a sin in christianity. Sorry, I wasn't "chosen" to be it's founder. It's not a big deal though, everyone is a sinner. But it's a sin regardless, according to christianity, whether you like it or not, CT.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
Funny thing is, you can no more prove that these beliefs are false any better than Christians can prove they are true. Taking the stance that these beliefs are false without any definite proof is equally fallible in the pursuit of logical thought as saying those beliefs are true without definite proof.
Click to expand...

I never said they were false. I simply said I don't take advice from people who know less than me, so I find it strange that modern day Christians take advice from ancient nomads who most certainly knew less than them. That is simply my observation.

I also know that life did not get considerably better for man when he adopted Christianity. For instance, life expectancy and infant mortality did not considerably improve. However, the advent of medical science 150 years ago did change things quite dramatically for man and things like life expectancy and infant mortality drastically improved. Not to sound too sarcastic, but it would seem to me that God should have taken some time in his book to mention sanitation and antibiotics.

I dunno, I may be wrong. I'm quite comfortable with the idea of being wrong. I have nothing to prove or disprove, I simply enjoy making observations of human behavior.
 
CriticalThought said:
I also know that life did not get considerably better for man when he adopted Christianity. For instance, life expectancy and infant mortality did not considerably improve. However, the advent of medical science 150 years ago did change things quite dramatically for man and things like life expectancy and infant mortality drastically improved. Not to sound too sarcastic, but it would seem to me that God should have taken some time in his book to mention sanitation and antibiotics.
Click to expand...
God covered that in his old testament :)
 
Johnny DooWop said:
One thing that trips me out about the Jews/Hebrews compared to other "ancient men" is their historical journey that was predicted from the beginnings of the Bible. They were deemed to be God's "chosen" people who were to usher in monotheism to the rest of the world. This was written back when almost the entire world was still polythiestic/pagan. And guess what happened? This small nomadic tribe did infact, somehow, end up spreading monotheism throughout the entire world. Then it is told that they will be repelled from their land by enemies, and then scattered, dispersed and persecuted. These things were being written from 500 B.C. and much earlier. As we know, these things came to pass when Rome sacked Jerusalem in AD 70 and the Jews lived scattered throughout Europe for the next 2000 years being persecuted almost everywhere they went. However, in those same prophetic scriptures it said the Jews would eventually get their land back one day. Now of course, anyone who lived before 1948 must have thought this was certainly a prediction that was wrong. After all, the Jews had not inhabited Israel (or Palestine as it was know for most of that time) for nearly 2000 years. But what happened? In 1948 they got their country back. As a student of History (I have my BA in History) I don't know of any other race or ethnic group that has survived 2,000 years in foreign lands without being assimilated into the culture of that land and fading away, and then, above all, getting their original country back after 2000 years! And to know that this was all written in old scriptures way before these events ever happened? I don't care if you believe in the Bible or not, any serious history student must admit those are significant anomalies in the study of history and anthropology.
Click to expand...

The Bible says the Bible predicts itself. You see nothing wrong with that strain of logic?
 
DarkWizard12 said:
God covered that in his old testament :)
Click to expand...

Yes, don't touch a woman while she is menustrating is certainly comparable sanitation advice to don't dump your sewage into your drinking water.:roll:
 
CriticalThought said:
Yes, don't touch a woman while she is menustrating is certainly comparable sanitation advice to don't dump your sewage into your drinking water.:roll:
Click to expand...
Damn more than that, my closed-minded friend.
 
CriticalThought said:
The Bible says the Bible predicts itself. You see nothing wrong with that strain of logic?
Click to expand...

No because the "Bible" was not written by one person in one time era. Bible simply means "the books" and that's exactly what it is. These many books were written by over 40 people throughout a time period of anywhere from 1000-2000 years in different places. So earlier authors could make predictions about events and then authors writing hundreds of years later could record those events. Of course, the actual event of the reclaiming of Israel by the Jews wasn't recorded in the Bible since the last added writings were written 2000 years ago and the Israel became a nation again only 50 years ago. But that event was predicted in the Bible and no one else, not any other religion, scholar or politician could have seen that event taking place prior to World War II.
 
Moderator's Warning:
A lot of sarcastic one-liners being thrown. This sort of thing rarely leads anywhere good, especially in an already-heated thread. This thread will be closed for a while, to allow the participants time to cool off and think of more substantive ways to contribute.
 
CriticalThought said:
I also know that life did not get considerably better for man when he adopted Christianity.
Click to expand...

That's not necissarily true. The most unreligious century was the 20th century and coincidently it was also the bloodiest century in the history of the world. Nietzche, who was even more anti-religious than you, foresaw this, when he said that "god is dead" and suggested that due to the downfall of Christianity they world would see more violence and human rights violations than ever before. And he was right.
 
Goshin said:
Orion, I'd have to disagree with you on that. For one thing, considering homosexuality to be a sin is not the same as hating gays. Hate is an emotional repugnance that carries connotations of a desire to do harm to the hated subject.

I know people who hate gays and who are utterly non-religious.

Hatred is rarely rational; it usually comes into being out of some sort of xenophobia, or a bad experience with a class of people, or similar things that result in a strongly negative emotional reaction being established as a habitual response. Justifications (rationalizations) then follow, based on whatever the hater thinks is a legitimate excuse.

Hating people for being different is hardly a new thing, and far from exclusive to the religious.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that all people who hate gays are religious; I am saying that hatred of gays came from religion. There is a difference. The fact that the non-religious hate gays simply means they don't know where the hate they were taught came from. It is from systemic indoctrination and it started with the Church. And let's look at the political trends, shall we? The only people still actively campaigning hard against gay rights are the religious right.

Sorry that the truth hurts.
 
Johnny DooWop said:
That's not necissarily true. The most unreligious century was the 20th century and coincidently it was also the bloodiest century in the history of the world. Nietzche, who was even more anti-religious than you, foresaw this, when he said that "god is dead" and suggested that due to the downfall of Christianity they world would see more violence and human rights violations than ever before. And he was right.
Click to expand...

Actually that is statically false. Per capita, the 20th century was the least bloodiest and violent in human history. Here is a great video to explain that misconception in greater detail...

 
Blackdog said:
Yes it is according to the Bible. Since the Bible is the authority of his chosen religion, I am certain he knows this already.
Click to expand...

The behavior is the sin, not the atraction. How could be he guilty for something which he has no controle over (retorical question).

Blackdog said:
As long as he repents, and asks forgiveness, he can still stay on the path according to the Bible. In the end though, it is between him and God alone.
Click to expand...

If it's between him and God, he should have let it stay there. Now that he abandoned privacey and brought his bedroom out into the public, it's everyone's buisness.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Dude. People are told that being gay is a choice, and that if they resist temptation, God will give them the victory. You call it hypocrisy for someone to do what the church told them to do and then finally realizing that no matter how much they resist temptation, God made them gay? Ridiculous.

I get even more tired of posts like yours.
Click to expand...

It's like, hey, I'm atracted to women, therefore I can disregard any consept of right and wrong and go **** whomever I can because I can't controle what sex I'm atracted to. Forget about doing the right thing by an objective standard. Forget about doing right by my famiey, what kind of chaos my parsed attention, verying atitudes of girfriends and shoud I get one or more pregnant what having a step-parent would do to their lives. I can't controle being atracted to women and so I should be able to do as I please.
 
Struggling with gay thoughts is one thing, but living openly gay is another. This pastor is a hypocrite if he's saying homosexuality is ok and he's living that lifestyle. He's deceived and should not be in a position of church leadership.
 
Jerry said:
The behavior is the sin, not the atraction. How could be he guilty for something which he has no controle over (retorical question).
Click to expand...

Not certain if this has anything to do with my comment, but I agree.

Jerry said:
If it's between him and God, he should have let it stay there. Now that he abandoned privacey and brought his bedroom out into the public, it's everyone's buisness.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the final judgment.

As a public figure and a leader in the church, you are correct.
 
CriticalThought said:
I like that. It tells you a lot about the nature of your God when he encodes sin into your DNA and then tells you to avoid it. That is the kind of absurdity that I find utterly delicious in this world.
Click to expand...

I think avoiding it is supposed to make a person stronger. The more effort you put forth, the closer you will be to God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom