actually this is an interesting problem

since there is no real objective logical criteria based on which any given text can be decisively labeled as ider "word of God/s" or "not word of God/s" any text or other carier of information can be called the "word of God/s" if only it has the pretension of being that

so basically anyone at any time can write a few cards of text and claim same text is the word of a god
and for all intents and purposes it is, all it takes is that the author or other party claims so
for whatewer words of god are worth

theres no objective logical way to disprove it, its all a big absurdity consensus, kind of like art

 

Become an alterboy...

 

Dude seriously, get informed before you try to talk that bullshit.

The Catholic Church didn't write the Bible. They weren't even around when the Bible was written. The Catholic Church only came to be when the Church of Christ(Christianity) split in half due to conflicts between them.

No, sorry dude, but as usual, you Dawkinites types are wrong.

You're not fucking scientific so quit claiming it. If you aren't objective and HUMBLE, then you're not scientific. If you were scientific, you would consider everything before it's been disproven.

Seriously, you people never even think before you speak of things you have no clue about. You never even open your mind enough to understand that quite possibly, shit isn't how a Church(which is a way of expressing your beliefs, not the beliefs themself) claims it is. If you would read the Bible with the intelligence enough to understand the people it was originally written for and told orally to, you'd understand that.

Not to mention the many translations. Unless you know Greek and Aramaic, you'll never know what the original Bible said.

Wow, shocker, another dumb Anti-religious comment

Wrong.

For real, quit using the same terms over again(like logical) cus most of you really aren't.

Did you ever think that maybe God isn't the way you've been forcefed him, and that maybe it's a mistranslation, or maybe it stands for something else? If you would understand things with an open, scientific(like you all constantly claim) mind, you'd understand that the stuff in the Bible when not taken literally like only an idiot would do, is probably mostly true, and that Christ was probably somebody wayyyy ahead of his time(if he wasn't actually some kind of divine being, for all I know he might've been) so he had to know his people and how to get them to understand certain things. He was probably trying to warn them where their actions towards each other would lead them later on, because he was an extremely intelligent person who understood things centuries ahead of his time, and a lot of what he talked about is simple, and is gonna come true, just not how you or the Fundamentalist or literalist Christians think.

You'd also know that every single religion has the same basic points, and they don't contradict each other until people take advantage of the religions and use it for their own selfish needs.

Sorry to derail(sort of, since it was already in this direction) your thread OP, but it had to be said somewhere.

 

you have said all i possibly could say +1

 

Oh, I know that's not what you were trying to say.

It's just a shame that so many churches do believe they have the infallible word of God, that their version is the right one.

 

I agree. As if where the message comes from even matters.

 

While you may be this progressive and far-thinking, many outspoken proponents of the Christian faith are not. Not by any means.

It is hardly suprising that people form arguments against the common incarnations of Christianity that are presented to them - by people who are adamant that they are right, and that the KJV is the definitive word of God.

 

Why, then, does the Catholic Church proclaim itself the "one true church", tracing it's roots to Peter and Paul?

 

Oh I know, and it took me a long time to get this way.

And I know. People on both sides are the problem, not just the atheists and not just the Christians. Then again, like I said in another thread, when it comes down to it, they're just trying to distract you from the fact that the only "war" is between good and bad people.

Honestly, sometimes it's just been one of those "Aha moment" things that happens out of nowhere, where you see things ways you couldn't see before, and new possibilities come into play.

 

That's the Christian Church, not just the Catholic Church. The only differences between Roman Catholic and Orthodox came when the two were in conflict, and both decided to go their seperate ways because their many conflicting beliefs/ideals/etc were too different.

 

HornyTeen....you're not "supposed" to be anything but who you are. You may have been brought up to be a Christian by your parents, but you have a choice as to what you think and what you believe. It's time you began to think for yourself, and to question the things you have been told. Good luck!

 

Yeah, but each one is right, remember?

According to themselves.

 

Be that as it may, the Catholic Church considers itself the "one true church", traceable to Jesus and his followers, all others being false. Tell me, then, the differences between the Catholic Church and the "Christian Church".

 

All hail to the great big argument ... lol

First off, to the op, If you feel comfortable with your sexuality then you do what makes you feel comfortable. If anyone tries to tell you it is wrong because of some ancient overly translated and altered texts then just turn away from them and walk with your head held high. It is not against the laws of man to be bisexual in britain or america (I'm guessing you are from one of them) so crack on dude. I personally am straight. Though I do like anal, both giving and taking, with a woman, I do not find males attractive.

Secondly, Religion is a way of controlling the masses where their is no police force in operation. "Don't do this or you will burn for ever in hell" "Do this and you will live in paradise for the rest of eternity" Please. If you believe in god, ask yourself what your god represents. If it is love (modern day christian type of god) then why would he punish you for loving. If it is the wrathful bastard of ancient times then fuck him off cos no matter what you do you will upset him in some way.

Thirdly, I am an atheist, and as such I live a very happy life knowing I live by my own moral and ethical compass. I do what I think is right and live with whatever consequences I bring on myself. If I decide to fuck a girl without a condom and catch HIV then I would live with the fact that it was my own fault for not donning a rubber. If I was raped and caught HIV that way the it would not be my fault and I would do what I could in revenge. I don't take away someone else's thunder by saying it was "Gods Will" or the such like.

In conclusion, religion is an out dated, man made product of social control and should be scrapped, belief is a personal thing, and sex is no ones business but those you wish to involve.

 

These responses are exactly what I expected, and honestly what you should have expected too when you created this forum.

You're going to get a heavy dose of "God is a fairy tale" answers here, just like you would get a heavy dose of "You're a sinner and you're going to hell" answers if you posted this same question in a Christian forum.

Let me give you a bit of advice from the perspective of someone who is both a devout Christian but also a writer of erotica. I have no gay leanings myself, but I do understand that my church would frown upon my hobbies.

First, I don't believe God would condemn someone for their urges. Everyone is tempted in different ways. So being a bisexual is not a sin.

However, acting upon those urges very well may be. You have an advantage over someone who's 100% homosexual, because you're also attracted to the opposite sex. Maybe if you got into a loving and caring relationship with someone of the opposite sex, that would be enough and you wouldn't have to act on your homosexual desires. Or maybe not. I can't make that decision for you.

I consider myself a bit of a hypocrite posting erotic sex stories (and yes, some of them involve lesbians) and visiting these forums while at the same time being strong in my Christian beliefs and actions, but I try to live my life in such a way that it makes up for whatever sins I may be committing here on XNXX. In the end, being a good and honest person is the most important thing. And that's good advice whether you're a Christian or an atheist.

On a personal note, if I ever had to choose between my church and my stories, I would choose my church, so if I vanish from these forums one day, it just might be because of that. But at the moment, I'm not planning on going anywhere.

One day you may have to make a similar choice. I'm not going to tell you what your decision should be; just be prepared to make that decision when the time comes.

And understand that you're not alone; there are those of us out there in a similar moral dilemma.

 

Naah, women didn't have any status back then....not like now.

 

No, it doesn't. The Christian Church does, of which the Catholic Church is a part. The Catholic Church even teaches about how it came to be, when the two major parts of the Christian Church split.

And the Catholic Church is part of the Christian Church, along with every other Christian denomination. They all are a part of the Church that started when Jesus was put to death.

 

why?
no seriously why is this a dumb anti-religious comment?

how? can you objectively prove or disprove the validity of any claim of any individual or group that their preferred text or interpretation of same is "word of god"?

are you sure? you are certain that most of what was written above is in no way logically valid?

in the above quote there are, perhaps, examples of logically valid forms of thought
for instance, to say "God isn't the way you've been forcefed him" can hypothetically be logically valid
we have no way of proving it is logically invalid
weather it correlates with reality in any way, and so has any meaning, is a completely different question

basically you are saying that if one hypothetically would approach the bible in a specific way that you propose, one might see there is certain truth in it, and possibly appreciate certain qualities of the historical characters described in the new testament, such as one Jesus Christ

you also say that the interpretation of the bible by institutions such as churches is relative
agreed, interpretations of holy texts are relative

how does any of this support your comments on other "anti-religious" posts as you call them

all youre doing is telling people they are closeminded and should read the bible in a different way that you propose
not for a moment do you stop and consider that one might give as much religious value to the holy bible as he or she would give to the complete work of Ron Hubbard

and what does all this have to do with a person being bi?

 

The passage in the Bible that is most brought up in this debate is something along the lines of "Don't lay with a man as you would a woman." Which is still ambiguous. For the most part, liberal sects of Christianity won't really care about your sexual orientation. Forgiveness is a much more important in the long run. So it's perfectly fine to be both imo.

 

I'm not even bothering with the idiot who posted before you.

For the record, you're right. OH, and what more... it's from LEVITICUS! The OLD TESTAMENT.

Jesus never said it. God damn, for people who claim to know so much, they don't even read up on what they are so against.

Again, the insulting was not directed at you, cus you have sense in your head.