Thank you for the respectful reply. Read on.

David Bandel wrote:

>

>I have considered not only content, but context, the times of the

>writings (what was/was not known and understood then, and much more.

>Two diametrically opposed versions. one true, the other a story, a

>parable, a fairy tale.

>

>

So how do you explain the difference, given that the author is the same? " 4 This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created....

>

>Ahh, the meat of the inconsistency. Here's where all of the

>hypocritical church-goers really rub me the wrong way.

>

>Love.

>

>First let's define it. Because to me, we're not talking puppy love,

>or even the love of one sister for another. Nor the love of a young

>man for his fiancé. When I hear God and Love I think of only one

>kind: the kind a mother has for her child. Uncompromising,

>unrequited, and completely non-judgemental. A mother does make rules

>for her children, and will punish them. But she will _always_ love

>them no matter what they do, and will support and protect them.

>

>

I prefer to define it as it is defined in the Bible, as I listed before, from I Corinthians 13:4-8. So far, however, we're talking roughly the same definition.

>Problem is, reading what you say, it sounds very much like many other

>born-again Christians that claim to have found God, but can't quite

>get this love thing. They (and you too) judge everyone according to

>your standards. It is ANNOYING. These are grown people who can make

>their own decisions (and have).

>

>

It ain't my standard. It just happens that I believe it. I'm sorry that you find it annoying that we "judge" the world, even as you judge everything. Actually, I prefer to call it "discernment", since it's not about enforcing a sentence on someone. That is left to God and the courts (which is yet another huge debate). Yet I must make decisions for my own life, which takes discernment. The fact that we call a spade a spade is which you seem to take offense to.

Again, Love doesn't involve acceptance of unacceptable behavior. And it's not unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to God, according the Bible, upon which I base my life. I'm not sure where you see the disconnect. It's not about hating and rejecting people. It is about identifying that which hurts and angers God. Sometimes we've not dealt well with the dichotomy of hate the sin, love the sinner. We are imperfect just like you... or do you dispute that as well?

>In fact, if you believe and follow this, you can only come to one

>conclusion (but I leave that for you, since almost no one agrees with

>me).

>

>

>

?

>I don't rant at Christians, or Muslims, or Hebrews, or Shamans, or

>anyone else. Not my place. But people who take it on themselves to

>"educate" the rest of us (while talking down to us) are really

>irritating. Most people's minds are made up, and you should stop

>trying to confuse them with your "facts".

>

>

It's easy to live and let live, it's like running Windows.... it's the path of least resistance but a living hell :)

"13 “Enter in by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter in by it. 14 How (TR reads “Because” instead of “How”) narrow is the gate, and restricted is the way that leads to life! Few are those who find it." Matthew 7:13-14.

But to care enough for people to prompt them to rethink things, even when it can mean rejection and hatred from them... That is the better way. And it is the way we have been commanded to take. Jesus said:

"19 Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen." Matthew 28:19-20.

I respect your right to choose, indeed God respects your free will to reject Him. Love is not valuable if it is forced. However, there are things which should be addressed in this world, and they are worth ranting about, like guesswork and lies being presented as fact.

>If asked, you have permission to volunteer your opinions. But I get

>bombarded all the time with Theological spam that I don't want, don't

>need, and according to my beliefs is wrong (and I certainly haven't

>solicited).

>

>

It's called "General" because nothing is OT. If you don't agree, simply delete the messages. If you are exceptionally opposed to opinions being spread which seem to differ from your own, unsub. I am only replying directly to you because you took this off list.

>I don't ask you to stop believing. Stop trying to convince me you're

>right and I'm wrong. And no matter how you twist it, when you start a

>theological debate, that is the bottom line.

>

>

The point is the sharing of thoughts. For me, the sharing of beliefs is as natural as communicating the value of Linux, with higher stakes. In fact, evangelizing both God and Linux are quite similar. But God and Linux are both worth evangelizing. It's nothing new for people speaking pro-God to be condemned and ridiculed, check out the prophets of the OT and the Apostles and Jesus himself. I expect nothing different, although I have been quite well taken care of by Him.

>

>

>>

>>I have, and they do not. I'm more than happy to discuss those which

>>you may have difficulty understanding. I don't have all the answers,

>>but I'm interested in the discussion.

>>

>>

>

>The only difficulty I have is I can't get my hands on the original

>author's original work, and even if I could, the language is so long

>dead, even the experts dispute exactly how to translate it into a

>current language that can be understood by me.

>

>

I understand that sentiment. It is why I have taken up studying with BibleTime. It allows me to compare the translations, as well as the original text, the meanings as laid out by Strong (as in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the Webster of the Hebrew and Greek), and frequently go word-for-word between different translations and the original text. The Greek is fun, since I recognize most of the letters and pronunciations. The Hebrew... that's a pain :) I'm considering taking up Hebrew and Greek someday. Yes, it's that important to me.

>

>>>I am _very_ comfortable in my belief system and welcome someone

>>>pointing out the holes.

>>>

>>>

>>Please share your belief's and any faith you may have. I may not

>>agree, but I don't necessarily think that we are on totally different

>>pages. You seem to feel that I have attacked your beliefs, but I

>>still do not even know what they are... just what you described as

>>"jaundiced and unbelieving".

>>

>>

I'm still unaware of your beliefs, just that I seem to be telling you that you are wrong. I know that we disagree, but I don't see you setting your belief's on the chopping block as I have. I simply see you picking my beliefs (and actions) apart. That's fine, but I'm continuing to feel this is a one way conversation with only rants and tears coming back. I don't mind hearing your rants, and even your tears give me insight into who you are and what you believe. I understand that there is a lot of "chemistry" (ie. the explosive kind) around spiritual things, and that there is a great deal of hurt -- some accidental, some incidental -- but that is not my goal. As I've stated before, you are important, and I'm interested in your thoughts. Yes, I may disagree and even point out specifics. But that's what sharing thoughts and beliefs is all about. A conversation where no common ground is found may seem pointless, but I value you enough to listen.

>>

>>

>>>What I don't like is someone screaming at me that I just have to

>>>believe the way they do (argument for it or not).

>>>

>>>

>>I'm sorry that someone has screamed at you, I assure you that is not

>>my typical method of discussing spiritual things. I also would not

>>tell you that you have to believe as I do. I do not believe exactly

>>the same as most common denominations of Christianity; I believe the

>>Bible is God's Word.

>>

>>

>

>Even given divine guidance, we're talking human authors, writing in

>long dead languages, with no understanding of science trying to

>explain the (likely still) unexplainable to even less knowledgeable

>people. The most amazing thing is that the Bible is still

>comprehensible. Although I am afraid the translations have done

>nothing to help convey the original meaning, obtuse as it is in parts.

>

>

Yes, divine guidance, yes, human authors, not quite dead languages, not unexplainable.

Greek is still spoken, and Hebrew is taught between Jewish parents and children (and schools) all over the world.

The Bible gives an explanation. Evolution gives a partial one. They seem to be the two most common approaches. Unexplainable? Perhaps unprovable. One day we'll all know. Either way, it takes faith to buy any story, back to my original point.

>

>>I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong. If my arguments

>>convicted you to that belief, feel free to reconsider you beliefs and

>>stance.

>>

>>

>>

>

>Quoting you (from above):

>

>

>

>>I believe that my friends living these lifestyles are suffering very

>>real present and future damage to themselves, both in their

>>relationships with God and with other people, not to mention

>>emotionally.

>>

>>

>

>The above is a _very_ judgemental statement. My personal belief is

>that neither you nor I have the right to judge. Society already does

>this enough. But I believe doing so flies in the face of what the

>Bible says (confused as it is through the ages in parts).

>

>

No? What do you define as judging? Determining what's right and wrong? Then how do we know what is? Or do you believe there is no such thing as right and wrong? What then would keep someone from killing me? Is that not wrong? If not, what is it then, inconvenient? scary? It's wrong.

>God created _all_ creatures. The normal, healty desire you and I feel

>for females (the opposite sex), these folks feel for folks of their

>own sex. I don't begin to understand, but it may be some type of

>protection mechanism that kicks in when potentially harmful genetic

>patterns might make reproduction either a dead end or a bad idea.

>

That's just it. It's a whole which cannot be answered through science. It lends credence to God willing it that way. That is what I believe. On a lighter note, I think that the drive to procreate is so powerful because otherwise we might simply not... anyone who's had infants might agree :)

Kinda like what kids are so cute... so that we don't kill them before they achieve double-digit ages. :)

>In

>some folks that come from regions of Africa that carry a mortal

>illness for children, we find that a fair percentage of these people

>carry a gene that fights this disease (a DNA immunity). On occasion,

>two people carrying this particular gene have a child that inherets

>the gene from both parents rather than only one (about a 1 in 10 or

>less probability) and that child gets sickle cell enemia.

>

>

And again we're talking theory... more specifically theorizing about a theory based on our inability to accept the Bible as truth and definite right and wrong.

>I don't begin to understand all this, and science can't yet explain

>it. And it may be that the even less understood tendency of some

>folks to prefer others of their own sex may also be some similar type

>mechanism. I don't know. But I do know I don't know enough to judge

>them for something most claim they have no control over.

>

>

I appreciate your honesty with "I don't know." It shows a bit of trust on your part. Thank you.

Back in the '50s a study was done which "proved" that homosexuality is genetic... It made huge amounts of press and uprooted the world. Only later were the studies torn apart on basis of scientific and moral issues, but nobody cared. The "Kinsey" research is now being made into a movie, which is causing a great deal of attention.

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/reisman.html

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/

'Kinsey was a "massive criminal" who cooked his statistical data and based many of his purported findings on interviews with convicted sex offenders, Reisman said in an interview. "He found pedophiles all over the country, sought them out and encouraged them to engage in sex with children and report on it to him."'

http://www.detnews.com/2004/religion/0412/12/A11-14730.htm

Further studies attempted to prove the tie between homosexuality and a genetic cause, but even the scientific community has rebutted this research as positive research with inaccurate conclusions.

http://www.bol.ucla.edu/~kmayeda/HC92/conclusion.html

http://dunamai.com/articles/Christian/is_homosexuality_genetic.htm

http://www.mission.org/jesuspeople/thegaygene.htm

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?690

An excerpt of the above (cornerstonemag) link:

"Gay items make the front page of the major urban newspapers. Such a flurry of journalistic interest in homosexuality is not new. On July 15th, 1993 National Public Radio reported the discovery of the gene that causes homosexuality. The next day's headline in the Wall Street Journal read: "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene" (July 16th) and in the New York Times: "Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes"(July 16th). This byline was based on a seven page article in the journal of Science by D. H. Hamer, Stella Hu, Victoria Magnuson, Nan Hu, and Angela Pattatucci entitled, "A Linkage between DNA Markers on the X-Chromosome and Male Sexual Orientation." [40] Gay activists and American journalists made the most of this news item.

However, four months later in the same journal, genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia, and Louisiana State Universities took issue with the assumptions and statistics that underlay the article's conclusions. [41] There was little or no media reporting. At the same time a review of 135 research studies appeared in the Archives of General Psychiatry, concluding that that there was no evidence to substantiate a biologic theory of homosexuality. [42] Once again, little or nothing was reported by the media. Media misinformation continues on a regular basis. Studies with findings on genetic links between homosexuality and DNA, [43] the size of the hypothalamus, [44] the size of the splenium of the corpus callosum, [45] the presence of prenatal feminine or masculine hormones, [46] central nervous system hermaphroditism, [47] finger-length, and left-handedness [48] -studies that have failed on replication to be substantiated--are often presented as fact by the media, thereby leading the public to the misinformed conclusion that homosexuality is genetically hard-wired and therefore immutable. [49]"

I'm not trying to make up your mind for you. I'm just ranting, perhaps in the hopes that you'll see, research, and possibly agree. Awareness is the main point. Since the media-leanings for said research is clear, it is up to plebians to make information (and admittedly, complaints) available to the populus.

>

>Proofs are difficult and require that we both agree on the foundation.

> If we can't agree to the basics (beyond there is a God, the Jews and

>Muslims agree that far), then it becomes pointless argument. There

>are certainly enough contradictory statements in the Bible to spawn

>hundreds of religions (not counting the Talmud and Koran from whence

>spring even more sects). But I do have my reasons. And I dislike

>being preached to. You can "spread the word" without being offensive,

>but most haven't figured out how.

Do share. I'd like very much to find what common ground we have.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts. Not necessarily in rebuttal, just your thoughts. Obviously I have my own opinions, and nobody else owns them but me. I know you to be a thinking, stubborn :) person as well. While I might not agree, I would like to hear them.

And if you have pointers on "spreading the Word" effectively without being offensive, please let me know. Even Jesus said that many will hate those who believe in Him.

That said, again I offer the olive branch. My opinions and beliefs are my own. I obviously have my reasons as well. But there is a foundation of faith in every person. That faith may be in the Bible, the Koran, the Constitution, "Science", or public opinion. But it is faith indeed. There are so many sources of conflicting information, we must choose which to place our faith in.

Respectfully,

Matt

--

Matthew Carpenter

matt@eisgr.com http://www.eisgr.com/

Enterprise Information Systems

* Network Server Appliances

* Security Consulting, Incident Handling & Forensics

* Network Consulting, Integration & Support

* Web Integration and E-Business