I'm seeing someone who is deeply religious, and he's having some trouble

[dhchitown1984]

Hi Al,

I haven't paid many visits to this particular Forum here on JUB, but I'm looking for some advice/guidance/insight.

I'm seeing this really really great guy. He has nearly all of the traits I'm looking for in someone to date, in hopes that things work out for a truly long-term relationship.

He's deeply religious, and for those who are familiar, he's a member of The Moody Church which as he has told me is one of the most conservative church's in the country. I'm not sure how accurate of a statement is, but I guess that's irrelevant.

I'm a religious person, and I'm connected to my Church, but now here near as deeply as he is to his. He's really struggling with his sexuality from the Religious & Spiritual perspective. We were talking about it last night, and I was sharing some of the conversations I've had with people about my sexuality as it relates to the Bible and I was telling him how there is a hypocracy that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, you're going straight to hell, etc etc and yet people who violate the 10 Commandments, the most important of God's rules, can be redeemed and saved (ie, Murderers and Thieves can be welcomed back to Heaven and they're not condemned to hell.... what gives?!) and his response was that the Church believes they can be saved because they can stop committing the crime.

He's having this struggle because he wants to be completely out of the closet, but he's afraid his Church family will abandon him. It's also important to note that "changing churches" isn't that easy of a solution because he grew up through Foster Parents who were in the Church and without having parents of his own, the leaders of this Church truly are the people who brought him and his younger brother and sisters in when they had no where to go almost 15 years ago. These people truly have been there for him and have helped support him for many many many many years.

I want to offer him advice and perspective, but I'm sort of at a loss because I'm not well versed from the religious angle enough to have the conversation. Any advice? Personal experience?

 

[kallipolis]

Your friend's intimate life is not the business of his church community unless he wishes to make it so.

I will repost an offering which might assist your friend.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=325366

Jesus of Nazareth deliberately went out of his way to break the conventions of the day, by daring to place the humanitarian needs of people before the letter of the Mosaic Laws. Thus, Jesus established the precedent that the spirit of the law, must always take priority over the letter of the law.

Jesus socialised with prostitutes, tax collectors, the sick and infirm — in short all those who by virtue of their state were marginalised by the Mosaic Law.

Jesus' well demonstrated appreciation of his neighbour, that all human life is worthy of his respect, and friendship would certainly have included we gays, if only because he understood that we are also marginalised, by the self righteous for being no more than true to who we are.

This practice of Jesus welcoming those who lived on the wrong side of the rail road tracks to the table demonstrates the loving embrace of God for the human being rejected by those who believe that they represent the heights of virtuous behaviour.

The image of banquet was one that was quite common in apocalyptic visions of God's reign, and Jesus appropriates it here to subvert the notions of the self righteous, that only the self-consciously virtuous would be invited to sit at his table.

Jesus also befriended the wealthy (Martha, Mary and Lazarus) and Simon the Pharisee. Jesus drew no distinctions on the basis of wealth or status — in his view all would be welcomed into God's kingdom. In keeping with his open approach to all human beings, Jesus seems to have been particularly fond of a good party, and never turned down an invitation, which provided him with opportunities to illustrate the inclusiveness of God's kingdom when entertaining his hosts with stories.

Jesus used parables to tease his audience and knock the cock sure detractor, off balance by forcing them to reassess their presumptions and assumptions about God, the Mosaic Law and ethical behaviour. By his teaching, Jesus wanted to shock and subvert his hearers' expectations about the coming kingdom. Like all good jokes, Jesus parables were simple, and they contained only one straightforward meaning, which was always encapsulated in the "punchline".

All our earliest sources agree that the call for mercy and compassion towards our neighbour, was the clarion call of Jesus' teaching, with this Gospel of God's mercy flowing from his vision of the coming reign of God.

Jesus healed the sick and forgave the sinner and, in doing so, he apparently usurped the role of The Temple as the one place where one could go to make reparation for sin and be cleansed of sin.

Jesus claimed to have the power to forgive sin, and he claimed to know directly, intuitively without the usual organs of mediation (the Temple bureaucrats, Pharisaic rabbis, scribes and lawyers) to know the will of God; to interpret scripture; and to speak with the authority of God. Not surprisingly, these aspects of his message and mission brought him into conflict with the power brokers of both Jewish, and the Roman establishment that ultimately marked him out as a dangerous revolutionary, whose conduct was contrary to the self serving interests of The Sanhedrin.

The revolutionary, Jesus of Nazareth appears to have been aware that his growing popularity, and influence among the masses would inevitably bring him into a serious confrontation with the religious authorities, which would lead to his crucifixion.

The other significant aspect of Jesus' realised eschatology was his commitment to the physical and emotional well being of all he encountered. As part of his proclamation of the kingdom, Jesus healed the sick, especially those considered possessed by demons. Jesus was not alone in this — we know from Josephus that several other popular preachers of his day exercised healing ministry, and healing societies were also known in Greco-Roman society (e.g. Asclepius' cult). While some scholars have been inclined to dismiss the veracity of the claim that Jesus healed the sick, other sources provide ample contrary evidence. Jesus' power to heal was never denied in antiquity - not even by his enemies. For his enemies feared him, and the powers that he exercised to assist those in need of practical help to heal them from their ailments, and illnesses.

Were we to characterise Jesus' good news it would be to say that his words, and actions amounted to a radical reappraisal of the Mosaic Law — a reassessment that emphasised mercy and compassion over judgement and condemnation.Jesus' heart triumphed over the cold, and indifferent responses of a society which failed to recognise that all human life is flawed; especially those who believe that they deserve God's special gifts, as a result of their devotion to the letter of the Mosaic Laws.


end

 

[kallipolis]

I'll add a second post understanding that your friend is probably using The Bible as a rule book - which it is not - rather than a source of divine inspiration to enable the reader to use the wisdom of ages to assist them.

http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=326174

Reason is the human person's use of rational thinking which encourages man to question all that the senses are providing for our understanding. Reason is a faculty of the human condition that enables man to determine the veracity of everything that he experiences.

Reason liberates the human being from prejudices that infiltrate human life through the matrix of social engineering.

Descartes understood that it is sufficient to establish the authority of reason, and to demonstrate that reason contains within itself the elemental truths, of everything that can be examined to determine its reality.

Reason should always be constructive in its determination to avoid establishing a prejudicial approach to examination of faith. Thus we may say that the atheist position, towards faith should not demonstrate a preconceived conclusion, that faith is by its very concept contrary to reason.

The portals of the temples of ancient Greece were inscribed with the admonition know thyself, and become that person as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings,” that is as those who “know themselves.”

The human person's quest for meaning is always on display in human life when we witness to man's quest for self affirmation through the life that we live. Thus in so doing we identify our selves as the reason for questioning our purpose for being who we are. For being alive.

Certitude, or security in the full, and certain knowledge that we are the product of our own choices, revealed in our actions is the awareness that human life is entirely responsible for its decisions. Those choices reflect man's attempts to create certitude in our search to understand why we are who we are. That fullness of truth is an objective that we recognise through our daily struggle to reveal more of our emerging self. Thus today we are wiser, than we were yesterday, or last year. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Experience is the teacher that encourages the student to continue their journey of self discovery, through our growing awareness that we are becoming the result of our experiences, moulding us into a much more aware student of our life's journey.

The Greek etymology of the word philosophy is love of wisdom. Asking questions about the reason for things, and their purpose is a desire to reveal the truth, that we may better know our self.

“Wisdom knows all and understands all” (Wisdom 9:11). “Happy the man who meditates on wisdom and reasons intelligently, who reflects in his heart on her ways and ponders her secrets. He pursues her like a hunter and lies in wait on her paths. He peers through her windows and listens at her doors. He camps near her house and fastens his tent-peg to her walls; he pitches his tent near her and so finds an excellent resting-place; he places his children under her protection and lodges under her boughs; by her he is sheltered from the heat and he dwells in the shade of her glory” (Sirach 14:20-27).

“Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding” (Proverbs 4:5)
Faith is the awareness that behind every question there lies an answer that will encourage the searching mind to continue to question all, and everything that presents itself as a puzzle in need of our fullest understanding.

The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does life have a meaning? Where is my life leading me?We return to the age old question of the insecurity of the human person, in his determination to create certitude in our life.

To the cynical frame of mind, at first sight, personal existence may seem completely meaningless. Yet, through the experience of living, the cynic learns that it is in the living of our experiences that we grow in wisdom. Thus our life's journey becomes the medium by which we enter more deeply into the mysteries of life.

The first absolutely certain truth of our life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. This truth is one that we can all agree upon. Our life's journey reveals the rest of the story, be it that the mysteries of life are waiting to be revealed to us, when understanding that the pages of our life's novel existence are being written by us to better know why the authorship of our life's purpose is entirely in our hands.

Without our freedom to make our own choices we cease to be the self aware person, that human life reveals in the decisions, and actions reflecting the person we are becoming by learning from our choices, that our next decision should be the result of having learnt that the wisest of all students, is the one who knows that he knows nothing.


end

 

[shainski]

Kallipolis gives a great answer.

Jesus did indeed surround himself with sinners. We are to take stock in our own lives so that we can improve ourselves, but it is wrong to judge others.

He cannot change what others may think. But by being compassionate himself, he may encourage compassion.

I can't tell from your post - is his adoptive family leaders in the church? I would encourage him to come forward to his immediate family. He probably already knows how they would react. He doesn't need to come out to everyone at the same time. Hopefully, he can build support with those who would be understanding to him, and then use their support and advice on how to approach others (if at all)

 

[dhchitown1984]

Kallipolis: Thank you so very very very much. What you have shared is invaluable!

Shainski: I don't want to post too much of his story here, but no, there is no legal bind between him and the Church. It's a more figurative "adoptive" family for various reasons. He took legal custody of his sibilings when he was 18 years old and his Church has been the most stable/loving/welcoming element of his life for the past near-decade.

 

[MoltenRock III]

How cults rewire the brain, by a former Moonie.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ex_moonie_diane_benscoter_how_cults_think.html

 

[MoltenRock III]

Kallipolis: Thank you so very very very much. What you have shared is invaluable!

Shainski: I don't want to post too much of his story here, but no, there is no legal bind between him and the Church. It's a more figurative "adoptive" family for various reasons. He took legal custody of his sibilings when he was 18 years old and his Church has been the most stable/loving/welcoming element of his life for the past near-decade.

It's called love-bombing, and is a trademark of all high-control cults.

 

[cocksucker4use]

Your boyfriend is not a sinner; he is gay. That he cannot be an out gay Moody is a no brainer. Gay Moody = Oxymoron. The love and support of the Moody community is contingent on conformity if not outright obedience, as is the case with most all conservative religious groups (think, Taliban). To keep the Moodys' Christian "love", not only does he need to believe like them and worship like them, but also live like them and fuck like them. Fucking like them is very critical. This is ironic, because they don't want to talk about fucking, see fucking, share fucking. They are filled with self-loathing for even thinking about fucking, but they are obsessed with nobody else getting off, either. If he can't do that, and even worse tells them he can't, then they will shun him. AMF. Finito.

The good news is that membership is voluntary. You have to choose to be a sheep in the Moody flock. They can not make you hate yourself. You have to want to.

Boyfriend feels indebted to the church for what they did for him and his family. More good news. He need not. They got as much if not more out of their good deeds as he did. They got points on their Heaven Gold Card and at the same time, gained several little converts who couldn't say "no". They were repaid the first day he met them.

Parting from them will be painful, and boyfriend should seek counseling to support him through it. It is a deep change, but change he must. It will hurt. It is sad. In six months, he will no longer dwell on it. In a year he will wonder what the fuck he was thinking that he did not leave Moody years earlier. He will have a life of his own.

 

[sixthson]

How cults rewire the brain, by a former Moonie.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ex_moonie_diane_benscoter_how_cults_think.html

Moody Church of Chicago is not a cult. It is a mainstream, evangelical church. The church is named for Dwight L. Moody, famous pastor and evangelist of years gone by.
Just because a church disagrees with homosexuality does not make it a cult.

To the OP: first, I would suggest that you not try to convince your friend that his church is wrong or that the Bible does not say what it says. It doesn't sound like you are doing that anyway. He has two powerful forces pulling at him. One is the draw his sexuality has on him. The other is that he is drawn to a faith in God. There is the conflict. It is not really about the church, I believe. The church has taught him about God and most likely he then placed his faith in Him and not just the church. So he is wrestling with his faith in God and his desire to love a man. This is his journey and you should interfer with it as little as possible. It could lead to him ultimately resenting you.

BTW, according to traditional Christianity, no one was ever saved by stopping some sin i.e. murder, thievery, lying, etc. They are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Ceasing sin follows salavation.
Just ask your bf about that.

 

[Ganoderma]

OP, I would like to suggest you that you tell your friend that he realizes himself that any denomination of the christian religion (so including his own denomination) is just a matter of so-called 'aquired behaviour'. Similar like, eg, the type of his mother language.

On the other hand, you might suggest him that his sexual preference is something totally different. Similar to, eg, his current size and the colour of the iris of his eyes.


Besides that, I would like to suggest him that he will face ongoing problems when he goes on by using the bible on a selective way. Your friend may like it or not, but its totally clear that the bible allows people to buy and sell slaves, and to own slaves as well.

Good luck.

 

[benram]

I did'nt even bother to read any of the other responses to your dilema, but my first thoughts were, before anything else, I've learned that God's first rule is, love him before any one else, God's second rule is, love & treat anyone else as you would love & treat yourself. All the other interpretations of what is right & wrong are based on just that, others interpretations." Love is never wrong & homosexuality is found in all species of life." God bless & don't burden youself with others ideals.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your boyfriend is not a sinner; he is gay. That he cannot be an out gay Moody is a no brainer. Gay Moody = Oxymoron. The love and support of the Moody community is contingent on conformity if not outright obedience, as is the case with most all conservative religious groups (think, Taliban). To keep the Moodys' Christian "love", not only does he need to believe like them and worship like them, but also live like them and fuck like them. Fucking like them is very critical. ....

The good news is that membership is voluntary. You have to choose to be a sheep in the Moody flock. They can not make you hate yourself. You have to want to.

Given that the church grew from Dwight Moody -- yes. While he was called an evangelist, he dragged an awful lot of legalism along with him.

Parting from them will be painful, and boyfriend should seek counseling to support him through it. It is a deep change, but change he must. It will hurt. It is sad. In six months, he will no longer dwell on it. In a year he will wonder what the fuck he was thinking that he did not leave Moody years earlier. He will have a life of his own.

Yes.

Direct him to Genesis: Abraham left his home, his family, his own country, in order to live the life to which God called him. He left in faith, trusting God.

Though your schedule of events is incredibly optimistic.




Direct him also to one of the most important statements the Apostle Paul ever made:

ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL

Yes, he's quoting someone else -- but he does not dispute the truth of the statement.

Ask him to think about what that means: that whoever or whatever he is and/or does as a gay man... is lawful. It is irrelevant what Leviticus or anything else says; the Apostle says it's lawful.

Paul goes on to say "but not all things are profitable". In his case, I'd say that staying at Moody, repressing his real identity, hiding out of fear and shame, are what's not profitable. "There is no fear in love, for perfect love casts out all fear", the Bible says -- a verse he should be familiar with. If his relationship with Moody inspires fear, then love is missing somewhere -- and probably it's from them, because those who do not really love are those who instill fear. If they cause him to feel condemnation, remind him of this, also by Paul: "There is now, therefore, no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". If he feels condemnation, that is not of Christ, not of the Gospel. If they condemn him, they are not of Christ, and not of the Gospel, insofar as they condemn him.

Living with that church, he is not living in freedom -- and that is not the life Jesus died to give: "It is for freedom that Christ set us free", Paul tells the Galatians, "so do not submit to any yoke of bondage". If to be free he has to leave, then that is not just a choice, it is God's call for his life.

Whether he believes God made him gay doesn't matter; God allowed him to be gay, at the very least, and does not expect him to live in shame for something beyond his control. Shame is a tool of oppression, and Christ did not come to oppress, but to love, and to set free. No one can love someone else truly unless he loves himself, and no one can love himself so long as he keeps himself in chains -- and so long as he hides, he is in chains, self-forged chains. He doesn't have to proclaim it to the world, but he has to proclaim it to himself: this is who I am! this is the will of God! and I will celebrate it!

If he accepts the condemnation, he accepts slavery. The Bible has no room for slavery; it was once tolerated, but that which is made in the image of God cannot be owned. If he cannot stand for himself, as himself, he makes himself a slave -- and that is an insult to God, the God who says, "Come to Me, all who are weary; I will give you rest."


Probably the majority of the people at Moody Church suffer from blindness on this; they are still stuck in Moses, in Law... in condemnation, not in the Gospel. But he can't let their blindness stop his spiritual life with God. They may cite the Old Testament Law, but God has spoken on that: it does not apply to Gentile Christians (see Acts), and anyway, "All things are lawful". He should cite back, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart", and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" -- these two are the Law, and are the Prophets.

Christ bought his freedom -- he just needs to step out and take it.

 

[Ganoderma]

I'll add a second post understanding that your friend is probably using The Bible as a rule book - which it is not - rather than a source of divine inspiration to enable the reader to use the wisdom of ages to assist them.

Reason is the human person's use of rational thinking which encourages man to question all that the senses are providing for our understanding. Reason is a faculty of the human condition that enables man to determine the veracity of everything that he experiences.

Reason liberates the human being from prejudices that infiltrate human life through the matrix of social engineering.

Descartes understood that it is sufficient to establish the authority of reason, and to demonstrate that reason contains within itself the elemental truths, of everything that can be examined to determine its reality.

Reason should always be constructive in its determination to avoid establishing a prejudicial approach to examination of faith. Thus we may say that the atheist position, towards faith should not demonstrate a preconceived conclusion, that faith is by its very concept contrary to reason.

The portals of the temples of ancient Greece were inscribed with the admonition know thyself, and become that person as testimony to a basic truth to be adopted as a minimal norm by those who seek to set themselves apart from the rest of creation as “human beings,” that is as those who “know themselves.”

The human person's quest for meaning is always on display in human life when we witness to man's quest for self affirmation through the life that we live. Thus in so doing we identify our selves as the reason for questioning our purpose for being who we are. For being alive.

Certitude, or security in the full, and certain knowledge that we are the product of our own choices, revealed in our actions is the awareness that human life is entirely responsible for its decisions. Those choices reflect man's attempts to create certitude in our search to understand why we are who we are. That fullness of truth is an objective that we recognise through our daily struggle to reveal more of our emerging self. Thus today we are wiser, than we were yesterday, or last year. “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Experience is the teacher that encourages the student to continue their journey of self discovery, through our growing awareness that we are becoming the result of our experiences, moulding us into a much more aware student of our life's journey.

The Greek etymology of the word philosophy is love of wisdom. Asking questions about the reason for things, and their purpose is a desire to reveal the truth, that we may better know our self.

“Wisdom knows all and understands all” (Wisdom 9:11). “Happy the man who meditates on wisdom and reasons intelligently, who reflects in his heart on her ways and ponders her secrets. He pursues her like a hunter and lies in wait on her paths. He peers through her windows and listens at her doors. He camps near her house and fastens his tent-peg to her walls; he pitches his tent near her and so finds an excellent resting-place; he places his children under her protection and lodges under her boughs; by her he is sheltered from the heat and he dwells in the shade of her glory” (Sirach 14:20-27).

“Acquire wisdom, acquire understanding” (Proverbs 4:5)
Faith is the awareness that behind every question there lies an answer that will encourage the searching mind to continue to question all, and everything that presents itself as a puzzle in need of our fullest understanding.

The truth comes initially to the human being as a question: Does life have a meaning? Where is my life leading me?We return to the age old question of the insecurity of the human person, in his determination to create certitude in our life.

To the cynical frame of mind, at first sight, personal existence may seem completely meaningless. Yet, through the experience of living, the cynic learns that it is in the living of our experiences that we grow in wisdom. Thus our life's journey becomes the medium by which we enter more deeply into the mysteries of life.

The first absolutely certain truth of our life, beyond the fact that we exist, is the inevitability of our death. This truth is one that we can all agree upon. Our life's journey reveals the rest of the story, be it that the mysteries of life are waiting to be revealed to us, when understanding that the pages of our life's novel existence are being written by us to better know why the authorship of our life's purpose is entirely in our hands.

Without our freedom to make our own choices we cease to be the self aware person, that human life reveals in the decisions, and actions reflecting the person we are becoming by learning from our choices, that our next decision should be the result of having learnt that the wisest of all students, is the one who knows that he knows nothing.end

Hi Kallipolis,

I would like to point out that you should make a choice:

(1): either use the bible as a rule book. And use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

(2): or use the bible as 'a source of divine inspiration to enable the reader to use the wisdom of ages to assist them'. In this case you should not use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

Currently, you are doing both, and that's not a logic way of argueing with people over here.

Thanks in advance for a reply.

 

[kallipolis]

Hi Kallipolis,

I would like to point out that you should make a choice:

(1): either use the bible as a rule book. And use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

(2): or use the bible as 'a source of divine inspiration to enable the reader to use the wisdom of ages to assist them'. In this case you should not use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

Currently, you are doing both, and that's not a logic way of argueing with people over here.

Thanks in advance for a reply.

I never use Holy Scripture as book(s) of rules, regulations or, laws.

I always use Holy Scripture as a source of inspiration.

I cite Holy Scripture to support my opinion or, to offer advice drawn from Biblical narrative.

I invite you to read my many offerings posted on this forum and understand that I live by faith and not my laws.

 

[Ganoderma]

I cite holy scripture to support my opinion or, to offer advice drawn from biblical narrative.

hi Kallipolis,

Thanks alot for your quick reply. Towards my opinion, the above quote will lead to nothing when I will start a debate with you.

You will know much better then me, that the bible (called 'holy scripture' by you) is packed with such a huge amounts of text, that any viewpoint can be either underlined and contradicted by anything what's in the bible.

An example.

A = true or false. 'True' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and 'false' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and there is no way why 'true' or 'false' should be the best option, as all of these can again be supported by any citation from the bible, and so on and so on and so on, etc.

So, in the end, this debate will end with nothing.

You agree? Or should we first start with a debate about which edition of the bible we must use (eg, Statenbijbel vertaling 1666) when we start our debate?

Thanks in advance for a reply.

 

[kallipolis]

hi Kallipolis,

Thanks alot for your quick reply. Towards my opinion, the above quote will lead to nothing when I will start a debate with you.

You will know much better then me, that the bible (called 'holy scripture' by you) is packed with such a huge amounts of text, that any viewpoint can be either underlined and contradicted by anything what's in the bible.

An example.

A = true or false. 'True' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and 'false' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and there is no way why 'true' or 'false' should be the best option, as all of these can again be supported by any citation from the bible, and so on and so on and so on, etc.

So, in the end, this debate will end with nothing.

You agree? Or should we first start with a debate about which edition of the bible we must use (eg, Statenbijbel vertaling 1666) when we start our debate?

Thanks in advance for a reply.

Essentially you are correct when the discussion is purely academic.

All versions of Holy Scripture provide us with the necessary text to support our opinion.

A willingness to release our self from our prejudices assists us to learn something worthwhile from the other person. I apply this to my own willingness to learn from others.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hi Kallipolis,

I would like to point out that you should make a choice:

(1): either use the bible as a rule book. And use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

(2): or use the bible as 'a source of divine inspiration to enable the reader to use the wisdom of ages to assist them'. In this case you should not use quotes from the bible when you are argueing over here.

Currently, you are doing both, and that's not a logic way of argueing with people over here.

Thanks in advance for a reply.

There's no logical inconsistency involved, because he's not citing the Bible as rules, but as illustration and guidance.

 

[Kulindahr]

hi Kallipolis,

Thanks alot for your quick reply. Towards my opinion, the above quote will lead to nothing when I will start a debate with you.

You will know much better then me, that the bible (called 'holy scripture' by you) is packed with such a huge amounts of text, that any viewpoint can be either underlined and contradicted by anything what's in the bible.

An example.

A = true or false. 'True' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and 'false' can be supported by a citation from the bible, and there is no way why 'true' or 'false' should be the best option, as all of these can again be supported by any citation from the bible, and so on and so on and so on, etc.

So, in the end, this debate will end with nothing.

You agree? Or should we first start with a debate about which edition of the bible we must use (eg, Statenbijbel vertaling 1666) when we start our debate?

Thanks in advance for a reply.

Doesn't work that way. By way of illustration, consider a mystery novel. What you're doing is saying that quoting a conclusion about who did it from chapter four is as valid as quoting one from the closing episode where the whole thing is revealed and set forth clearly.

The Bible has to be treated more like a mystery novel than a train schedule or a mechanic's handbook. Picking and choosing parts that on the face of it support your view is like picking and choosing from blueprints for a house and arguing over the purpose of the house, because you can't divine the purpose without looking at the whole thing.

It's looking at the whole thing that shows it isn't a rule book; indeed it shows that the entire Old Testament batch of rules were never "rules" in the sense of regulations in the first place, and that either way they are not applicable these days (except possibly to converts from Judaism, arguably).