|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2009 11:16:06 AM · #3226 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
...it's reasonable to expect that you will meet resistance when you try and tell someone else that they're wrong because they don't share your beliefs. |
Funny, that's exactly what you, and several others, are doing to Johnny; he is, effectively, "witnessing" publicly, and y'all are debunking him because your beliefs are different. That's how I see it, anyway. I don't see him trying to force his beliefs on anyone, he's just expressing them. But that's not good enough for a bunch of people in here: if they don't agree with his beliefs, they are gonna tear him down. And to me, that's the ONLY coercion that's going on here.
Let me be clear about this; I don't share a lot of Johnny's beliefs â he's in a position viz the bible that I can't imagine myself occupying. But I wouldn't dream of taking any discussion of his beliefs to the personal level that a number of folks in here are reaching.
R. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 11:43:37 AM · #3227 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Did you know that old testament Jewish law forbade gay sex?...
Did you know that before Paul became a Christian he was a Jew? This means he would have known this command from the old testament very well. Did you know that Jesus was a Jew, and thus he would also have known that command very well? |
Then presumably he would know this one, too: "1 Corinthians 11:14â Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?," yet I've never seen a picture of Jesus with a buzz cut. It also flies in the face of your earlier argument that Old Testament laws no longer apply.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
the authors of the four gospel books were not present at the tomb (only the two Mary's were) and so they heard what happened second hand. Also, the gospels were not actually written down for a few decades after the events actually happened. The gospels are believed to have been written between 55 and 70 AD. There are minor discrepancies throughout the gospels. Instead of looking at the few minor discrepancies (none of which have the slightest relevancy regarding how Christians should live) why don't you look at the fact that four different authors wrote the same story on their own, 20-40 years after the events happened (when the authors were probably in their 70s), and the stories are 99% the same. |
Well so much for the "word of God." Apparently none of the actual witnesses experienced any events important enough to write down (the only contemporary, Paul, doesn't attribute a single miracle or supernatural event to Jesus), and the authors recorded folk tales handed down- and altered- for decades. "The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes." Moreover, we're not just talking about minor discrepancies or how to live. God himself says that houses can contract leprosy, and the cure involves bird blood and incantations. At least some of the gospels used prior versions as source material, so "different authors" is no more relevant to fact than all the different versions of Robin Hood. Interesting how you assume the authors were in their 70's when the works were anonymous.
"While Biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical problem that can be uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book."
Message edited by author 2009-12-20 11:45:07. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 11:56:17 AM · #3228 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Let me be clear about this; I don't share a lot of Johnny's beliefs â he's in a position viz the bible that I can't imagine myself occupying. But I wouldn't dream of taking any discussion of his beliefs to the personal level that a number of folks in here are reaching. |
We are questioning the specific claims. Is that not fair game? Moreover, I don't think any of us would deny others the right to believe [privately] that gays, minorities, women or other groups are lesser humans or abominations... IF it stopped there. When that belief forms the foundation of legislation to inflict suffering on such groups, however, there is a human responsibility to intervene just as I presume YOU would if you discovered that a neighbor believed God wanted her to kill her children. Those who thumped the Bible as justification to oppress blacks no doubt faced similar scrutiny of those beliefs. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 12:51:19 PM · #3229 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
yet I've never seen a picture of Jesus with a buzz cut. |
Dude! You didn't vote on my last Religion challenge entry?!?
 |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 12:53:45 PM · #3230 |
| If that's a picture of Jesus then it was taken outside of the challenge timeframe ... ;-) |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 12:58:11 PM · #3231 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I don't think any of us would deny others the right to believe [privately] that gays, minorities, women or other groups are lesser humans or abominations... IF it stopped there. When that belief forms the foundation of legislation to inflict suffering on such groups, however, there is a human responsibility to intervene just as I presume YOU would if you discovered that a neighbor believed God wanted her to kill her children. Those who thumped the Bible as justification to oppress blacks no doubt faced similar scrutiny of those beliefs. |
But Johnny's not in favor of legislation against gays. He doesn't think gay marriage (the ostensible topic of this thread) is a threat to his concept of Christian marriage. I don't see anywhere that he is advocating that his "belief forms the foundation of legislation to inflict suffering on such groups", so I don't see any need for intervention here. Why are you conflating him with "opporessors of blacks" etc? I'm not surprised he is wondering what hit him.
I thought this was a country (USA) and a society (generally) that encourages free expression of religious beliefs. I don't understand why so many of us are just gut-check-slamming Christians, apparently on the basic principle that their beliefs are too ridiculous to exist unchallenged. That's just BS. What happened to live-and-let-live?
R. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 02:00:26 PM · #3232 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I don't see anywhere that he is advocating that his "belief forms the foundation of legislation to inflict suffering on such groups", so I don't see any need for intervention here. Why are you conflating him with "opporessors of blacks" etc. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Did you know that old testament Jewish law forbade gay sex?... |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
"Marriage" as defined by God is a covenant between one man, one woman, and God. |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
There is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with, actually. |
He posited only two possible justifications for discrimination against gays, both based upon interpretations of the Bible and the further assumption that the Bible is absolutely true. While his personal "live and let live" policy is to be commended, it is PRECISELY these two concepts that remain the sticking point in public policy. This is directly comparable to past treatment of minorities and women, and questioning the validity of such concepts goes to the root of the problem. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 02:22:06 PM · #3233 |
Just so Johnny and Jeb can stop arguing about translations and whether people are cherry-picking. Here's a post from 7/7/09 that speaks to the I Cor. passage...
Some words are harder to translate to english. The word there is potentially one made up by Paul as a gemisch of two words and literally means "man bedder". The Oxford Bible Commentary, a purely scholarly approach to the Bible (and provided as a wonderful gift from Louis) has no agenda or interesting in taking one side or the other. It says, "The two terms translated (NRSV) as "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (v.9) have been the subject of some debate. The first (lit. soft people) could refer to "womanizers" (ie.e those involved in heterosexual profligacy) but could also mean the passive partner in male homosexual acts; the second is a rare term (lit. sleeper with males) which probably designates the penetrating partner in male-with-male sex. However, the Bible certainly has other more clear passages (both OT and NT) speaking to homosexuality and has a STRONG theme of sexual purity.
Of all the arguments between Christianity and homosexuality, one of the weakest is to try to claim that the Bible doesn't actually speak against it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 03:19:08 PM · #3234 |
The cherry picking was a minor thing, and as to what the Bible specifically says about it wasn't my point at any time.
I guess truly I don't much care any more, especially after looking over the site that Shannon linked yesterday pertaining to Bible absurdities.
I just don't get it when biblical folks are adamant about certain things where they decide it's the literal word, and then conveniently forget how there are so many contradicitions, and points that are just plain flat wrong.
To me, it's irresponsible, and in some cases destructive, and it has proven on all too many occasions to fall short of being "The Word".
There is much that can be learned from the Bible, on multiple counts, but as soon as I hear "Because it's the word of God" or "This is EXACTLY what is meant.", I'm pretty much done.
Anyone has the right to believe what they want, but when they try to pass off pretty much anything as fact from the Bible, at least in my case, you better have some form of verifiable support, or as far as I'm concerned, it's merely a belief, and/or an opinion.
To apply it to life, especially as a basis for legislation, or how people are treated, is just irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2009 06:22:07 PM · #3235 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
But Johnny's not in favor of legislation against gays. He doesn't think gay marriage (the ostensible topic of this thread) is a threat to his concept of Christian marriage. I don't see anywhere that he is advocating that his "belief forms the foundation of legislation to inflict suffering on such groups", so I don't see any need for intervention here. Why are you conflating him with "opporessors of blacks" etc? I'm not surprised he is wondering what hit him.
I thought this was a country (USA) and a society (generally) that encourages free expression of religious beliefs. I don't understand why so many of us are just gut-check-slamming Christians, apparently on the basic principle that their beliefs are too ridiculous to exist unchallenged. That's just BS. What happened to live-and-let-live? |
So some of us don't have the lightest touch. So what? Think of it from the other side. Johnny's position is as follows: I don't hate gay people, and I don't have anything against secular gay marriage. But homosexuality offends my religious beliefs and my god, and homosexuals will have to answer with their immortal souls once they come be judged by my god. Their individuality and personhood is moot, because the expression of their sexuality is an affront to the creator of the universe. It is impossible for them to be actually "married", because my god has forbad it. If they love, they do so sinfully.
Or some such.
If he or some other literalist softens the blows with "buts" and "althoughs" and "it's not my place to judge" and other hackneyed back-peddling, that doesn't take away from the core message: The sexual expression of your love for someone of your own sex -- if that's indeed what you are capable of -- is wrong. It's simply Wrong, forever, and that's straight from the almighty creator of the universe himself.
Oh yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. Perfectly fine. Just a lovely expression of faith. Just some innocent witnessing. Just another show of "live and let live". Full of compassion and sympathy and love for humanity.
I'm up to here with it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 06:32:49 PM · #3236 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Seriously though, some of your comments shockingly offensive as I said above. I've enjoyed the discussion so far, but it's been getting really personal lately, and I don't appreciate all the assumptions you've been making about me and the accusations. I'd love to keep the discussion going but I'm not going to stick around if I'm going to be judged like that. |
I would recommend ignoring one or two of the posters who fail to recognise a debate for what it is. There is rarely a good reason to resort to personal attacks. I'm fairly sure that we're all fairly normal and likable in reality.
However, recognise that you are asserting views that condemn other people utterly according to your belief system. You will prompt some emotive responses.
Also, if you make egregious mistakes in your claims (eg claiming that no-one knew the earth was spherical until the modern era) then expect to be called out.
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I don't claim to have "my own" type of Christianity. My faith is based 100% on the Bible and I will continue to adjust my life according to the Bible until the day I die. Like I just said, there is not a single verse of the Bible that I disagree with.
In other words, I don't manipulate the Bible to fit myself, I manipulate myself to fit the Bible. |
How do you reconcile these statements with the facts that:
(1) there are many Christian sects â they cannot agree after hundreds of years what the bible instructs, so how can you claim that there is only one message?
(2) choosing to base your faith â100%â on the bible text is itself an act of interpretation. Many Christian sects also rely upon other sources of guidance. I bet that in reality you adopt many extra-biblical influences (interpreting all the way which to adopt or reject).
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You can't express a passionate belief in Christianity/the Bible in here and NOT get attacked. Don't ask me why, that's just the way it is. |
In a debating forum, faith based claims don't stack up very well â statements like âGod said soâ and âGod moves in mysterious waysâ might work well to divert the attention of the congregation but they elicit an angry response from someone who is posing a logical argument.
Also, there is some international element in DPC/Rant: the US seems to be fast becoming Christian fundamentalist, and I suspect that criticism of Christianity is relatively rare (and probably seems harsher as a result) compared to most of the rest of the developed world. I find it fascinating for the opposite reason: I know very few or no people who are so devout as those I encounter here.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2009 06:50:36 PM · #3237 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
In a debating forum, faith based claims don't stack up very well â statements like âGod said soâ and âGod moves in mysterious waysâ might work well to divert the attention of the congregation but they elicit an angry response from someone who is posing a logical argument. |
How would a reader distinguish between personal attack and acceptable debate in response to a faith-based declaration of fact? The very nature of the claim makes any response at all personal.
If someone says that a freak snowstorm on this date in 1964 miraculously helped put out a fire in Boise, Idaho, we can look it up and see that it was 57 degrees on that date, so the claim is false. Even if half a dozen people respond to such claims repeatedly, it's not a personal attackâ it's a direct response to the claim. Likewise, if someone claims every verse of the Bible is true or that every prediction came to pass, we can look that up and see that those are clearly false as well. However as a matter of faith or personal belief, there's no easy way to disassociate the claim from the person making it, so a half dozen people repeatedly pointing out errors in fact or logic will also be a de facto gang assault on that person's beliefs, even if they're only addressing the specific claims made. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 07:02:32 PM · #3238 |
Originally posted by Louis:
So some of us don't have the lightest touch. So what? Think of it from the other side. Johnny's position is as follows: I don't hate gay people, and I don't have anything against secular gay marriage. But homosexuality offends my religious beliefs and my god, and homosexuals will have to answer with their immortal souls once they come be judged by my god. Their individuality and personhood is moot, because the expression of their sexuality is an affront to the creator of the universe. It is impossible for them to be actually "married", because my god has forbad it. If they love, they do so sinfully.
Or some such.
If he or some other literalist softens the blows with "buts" and "althoughs" and "it's not my place to judge" and other hackneyed back-peddling, that doesn't take away from the core message: The sexual expression of your love for someone of your own sex -- if that's indeed what you are capable of -- is wrong. It's simply Wrong, forever, and that's straight from the almighty creator of the universe himself.
Oh yeah, there's nothing wrong with that. Perfectly fine. Just a lovely expression of faith. Just some innocent witnessing. Just another show of "live and let live". Full of compassion and sympathy and love for humanity.
I'm up to here with it. |
I couldn't agree with you more.
Originally posted by Matthew:
How do you reconcile these statements with the facts that:
(1) there are many Christian sects â they cannot agree after hundreds of years what the bible instructs, so how can you claim that there is only one message?
(2) choosing to base your faith â100%â on the bible text is itself an act of interpretation. Many Christian sects also rely upon other sources of guidance. I bet that in reality you adopt many extra-biblical influences (interpreting all the way which to adopt or reject). |
I was going to make this point, but you said it so much better than I could have. I would add that it is within everyone's power to choose the way in which they believe, the road or direction their faith takes them. If your faith is leading to conclusions or actions that obviously are not compassionate to your fellow human beings, then I think you must conclude that the faith you have chosen is a false ideology; or, there is something wrong in the way you have chosen to interpret it. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 07:06:55 PM · #3239 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There is much that can be learned from the Bible, on multiple counts |
Like what?
The bible is useless. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 07:12:43 PM · #3240 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There is much that can be learned from the Bible, on multiple counts |
Like what?
The bible is useless. |
Like it or not JH, the vast majority of your Western Cultural beliefs and moral framework are rooted in the Bible. Just sayin'. |
|
|
|
12/20/2009 07:32:09 PM · #3241 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
There is much that can be learned from the Bible, on multiple counts |
Like what?
The bible is useless. |
Like it or not JH, the vast majority of your Western Cultural beliefs and moral framework are rooted in the Bible. Just sayin'. |
*My* moral framework? I hope not.
I want nothing to do with that book or its deluded followers. I have more respect for LOTR fanatics; at least they can tell the difference between fact and fiction.
So, what can I learn from the bible? How much suffering and hatred it's caused?
|
|
|
|
12/21/2009 12:20:15 AM · #3242 |
| You put up a brave front JH, but the truth of the matter is the Bible is the undisputed most important book in Western Culture. I mean this from a completely secular point of view. I doubt many scholars would disagree. To say it is "useless" and that you can learn nothing from it is either hyperbolic bravado or insane ignorance. |
|
|
|
12/21/2009 12:25:17 AM · #3243 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You put up a brave front JH, but the truth of the matter is the Bible is the undisputed most important book in Western Culture. I mean this from a completely secular point of view. I doubt many scholars would disagree. To say it is "useless" and that you can learn nothing from it is either hyperbolic bravado or insane ignorance. |
Well, let's just agree that the Bible is an important part of Western culture -and spare us another dispute. |
|
|
|
12/21/2009 12:28:11 AM · #3244 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You put up a brave front JH, but the truth of the matter is the Bible is the undisputed most important book in Western Culture. I mean this from a completely secular point of view. I doubt many scholars would disagree. To say it is "useless" and that you can learn nothing from it is either hyperbolic bravado or insane ignorance. |
Well, let's just agree that the Bible is an important part of Western culture -and spare us another dispute. |
Sounds like a plan. I'm off to see Avatar anyway. :) |
|
|
|
12/21/2009 08:32:32 PM · #3245 |
Prepare for an insanely long post. I was busy yesterday so I have a lot to respond to today. This all took me about 2 hours to write. Read away!
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Of course it does! How else can you reconcile the slavery aspects, the indiscriminate killings, the polygamy, and the myriad of other completely unacceptable ways of being that are intolerable in this day and age. |
Slavery, indiscriminate killings, polygamy, etc... were all byproducts of the fall of man and sin entering the world. Again, if you want to properly understand the Bible and the original author's intent (and God's intent) you have to consider the cultural, historical, and geographical contexts. The Bible does not condemn slavery. Wow! That must mean God allows slavery! Wrong! You're are incorrectly assuming that slavery, as it has existed for the past few centuries, is the same as slavery today. That's absurd! Just because the word "slavery" is the same in the Bible and modern day language, does not mean that the practice of slavery is the same. Actually, in Biblical times, many people sold themselves into slavery in order to pay off debts, or perhaps they couldn't make a sufficient living for themselves. In many cases, slavery was often a choice, not something a person was forced into. In addition, slaves usually had the opportunity to buy back their freedom from their owners. Now, forced slavery did exist in ancient times. Forced slavery was a common and acceptable practice in ancient Rome, and the Israelites were also slaves of the Egyptians in the Bible. However, God punished the Egyptians severely with nasty plagues, which demonstrates how he feels about racial slavery. Also, the Bible does condemn stealing people and selling them as merchandise, which is essentially what modern slavery was and is. Exodus 21:16, "Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death." And 1 Timothy 1:8-10 says, "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurersâand for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (I added the bold italics for clarity).
I'm not sure what indiscriminate killings you're referring to. However, the Bible tells us that God doesn't owe us anything, even life itself. It says that God is the giver of life. God is loving and merciful, but he is also just. In the old testament, when someone sinned against God without remorse and repentance, God sometimes put them to death as punishment for their sins if they didn't reconcile with him. If God didn't kill them, and he allowed the unrepentant people to sin against him without punishment, then God would be contradicting himself because he would not be upholding his justice. When Jesus Christ died on the cross he received the punishment of death that we all deserve, and he satisfied God's wrath (which old testament folks were still prone to) against humanity.
As for polygamy, God allowed it to take place at certain times in the Bible to carry out his plans. God told people in the old testament to have many offspring, so it made sense to have multiple wives so that the size of the nations could increase. Also, in ancient times as is true today, there were more women on earth then there were men. In those times it was shameful for a woman if she did not produce children, so God most likely wanted women to feel some sense of purpose in live, and to have the protection and provision that a husband could provide. These are just a few examples, but I can think of more. Obviously, in the modern world, there is no need for polygamy. Women do not need men to provide for them or protect them, and a woman's purpose goes far, far beyond having children. Was God sexist? No! That's just how the ancient world was! Anyways, the Bible makes clear that God's original intent before the fall was that one man marry one woman. The new testament also makes it clear that this was God's command after Christ's death.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Yeah, that's the story you're preaching, but it's hearsay, and unprovable. Not to mention that you're automatically taking the stance that your religion is better than Judaism, the Islamic faith, Catholicism, Buddhism, and the rest of the world's faiths, and yet you have no proof that yours is any better. If my friend Mohammed tries to live his life by adhering to his teachings as well as you, what makes you any more right than he? And I'm not just asking for your view, can you prove that your way is the right way? |
I don't believe that the Christian religion is better than other religions. If I said that somewhere that was my mistake. Christ did not create a religion, he simply told us to have faith in him. The Christian religion is just a product of humanity. Parts of the Christian religion are commanded in the Bible, but parts of it are just human ideas. Some forms of Christianity have strayed from the Bible. I personally believe that God is the only god, so naturally I think other religions are wrong, but I certainly don't believe that I'm a better person than any other person regardless of their faith.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
You might feel differently if you were to actually have social interaction with some good and decent people who have the same trials and tribulations in life as you......going to work, making the house payment, paying their bills, getting their car worked on......but they just happen to be gay. This does NOT affect you, or your life, so how is this any issue for concern?
|
Well, my point from the very beginning is that gay marriage in secular society should not really be an issue of concern for Christians.
Like I said in my first post:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
In my opinion Christian marriage is different from the legal social contractual marriage that is recognized by the government. I don't really care if the government allows gay marriage because I believe that a Christian heterosexual marriage is different from a gay marriage, or a Christian gay marriage, or a secular heterosexual marriage, etc... Marriage is just a word. All Christians should accept that just because the government or secular society calls something "marriage", that doesn't change the definition or meaning of Christian marriage. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Don't assume anything, or extrapolate what you want to attach some kind of hatred to me. I don't dislike the Bible, I *do* dislike the way Christians use it to suit their needs to pass judgement on others, all the while saying they're not judgemental, BUT......"You're doing it wrong, that's against The Word, and your an immoral sinner.".
What is that if not judgemental?
I have not yet stated that you are judgemental or hate and lie, I merely propose that you perpetuate that of Christians by your rigorous adherence to archaic and unsuitable concepts that have no place in modern life. Dislike you? I don't even know you, but I do not care for your ideals as it pertains to people I love and care about. |
That's fair. But I will say this. Any Christian who uses the Bible as an excuse for discrimination or hatred is probably not a true Christian. If you really have put your faith in Jesus Christ you wouldn't do that. In addition, you might not like how "Christians" (or those that call themselves such) use the Bible to suit their needs to pass judgment on others, I similarly don't like it when non-Christians who don't even understand the Bible, try to manipulate it and use it as a weapon against Christians. The whole slavery issue is a perfect example of that. Non-Christians have manipulated the Bible to support slavery, and then other non-Christians criticize Christians for supporting slavery when in fact it is not the Christians who support it, but the other non-Christians who manipulated the Bible in the first place. The real Christians just get the criticism because the Bible has been abused so badly by non-Christians.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
By that last passage, you state yourself that literal isn't a valid word to use when talking about the Bible.
There's that slight issue with interpretation......since there was no direct contact, there is absolutely no way that the subtleties and nuances that personal contact could have been passed on. Do you propose to tell us that "The Word" was passed along verbatim and unerringly? Surely you're not that foolish. So then it MUST be assumed that there were differences. Just as you assume that the main intent was passed on.
See that's the problem when you go into your explanations of translation and interpretation. You have to have whomever you're discussing it with take as a given what you want them to accept as interpretation, and that which you want them to accept as literal.
It just doesn't work that way.......since you can prove neither, it isn't logical to accept your viewpoints, nor is it accurate.
Another of the points that you glossed over was this one:
If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be obviously superlative in every respect--accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout--as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.
There are just so many things about the Bible that have made it the controversial work that it is for centuries. Why would you NOT expect anyone who would look at it logically and historically to question it, especially when the glaring inconsistencies arise? |
Originally posted by JH:
I don't get this part - If the books of the bible were written by human authors at some stage in history, then how can it be declared the 'work of god'? - I hear that a lot, and don't fully understand it.
|
You cannot accept the notion that the Bible is accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout. I get that. If you believed in God, and believed that the Bible is God's word and truth revealed to humanity, then you would also believe that, "all scripture is God breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16). This is what I believe: God is real, God spoke his word to humanity through human authors, and God's word (the Bible), was inerrant in its original form as it was written by the original authors, and God has made sure through history that all the critical parts of the Bible (the ones essential to his plan being fulfilled) survived through the centuries. Once you become a Christian, you receive the Holy Spirit and become not just a biological being, but a biological being with the spirit of Christ in you. I know it sounds absurd to you, just like the Bible does. But the Holy Spirit enables you to read and understand the Bible through a new lens, your spiritual eyes if you will, which makes everything much more clear. Remember, the main difference between you and I Jeb, is that God is truth to me and everything that I can consider as truth must make sense with the Bible, while to you, God is not truth. In other words, I completely understand how you think and feel about Christianity because I used to believe the same exact things. So, I don't judge you or think less of you (or anyone for that matter) because you see the Bible differently. I'm not trying to defend my God or my faith because he is fully capable of defending himself (and he will defend himself). All I'm trying to do here is speak my mind about gay marriage, and try to help you understand the true meaning of the Bible rather than the misinformation you've heard in the process.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The bottom line is.......stand up for what is right and do not blindly follow something that just doesn't wash. Nobody's asking you to give up your faith, or to suddenly become a gay rights activist. But perhaps look at what has come to be known as not sinful, not harmful, and what all too many loving, decent, and caring PEOPLE have to live with because of the hate and lies that have been perpetuated on them for centuries.
If you're the good, decent, and caring individual that you profess to be, then go out into the world, be not afraid to keep your eyes and ears open to this world around you, and make up your own mind based on what you experience in actual interaction with these fine people rather than adhere rigorously to teachings that will be proven to be as wrong as the pork, seafood, polygamy, and slavery issues.
From the general impression that you've given me, I don't expect that you'll change, but I do hope that a glimmer of doubt will have been instilled as to your concept of the decency and humanity of so many of our gay brethren. Maybe you'll have the chance to learn that possibly what you know today in your heart and mind will not withstand the test of actual love, compassion, and the decent and right thing to do. |
You have a good heart Jeb. I can tell that you're not selfish and that you honestly want discrimination to come to an end. I hope that you can read my words as they are, and not pass them through the filter of your perception of the Bible and Christianity. I am a Christian. I live according to God's word which commands me to love others, to be humble, to consider others more highly than myself, to not judge or condemn, to show compassion and kindness to others, to not oppress others, etc...
You are perhaps missing one of the most important lessons of the Bible. Romans 5:8, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Christ died for us while we were still sinners. All of us are sinners including myself, not just gays. Christ died for those who sinned against him, hurt him deeply, and deserved his punishment rather than his love. Christ loved sinners and died for sinners. We are commanded to love sinners and even possibly die for sinners. Gay or straight, we are all sinners and God commands that I love them as he loves them. I am commanded to love as God loves, unconditionally. God loves without regard for any human condition, and I do my very best day after day to love all people regardless of any human condition, because I believe my life depends on it.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then presumably he would know this one, too: "1 Corinthians 11:14â Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?," yet I've never seen a picture of Jesus with a buzz cut. It also flies in the face of your earlier argument that Old Testament laws no longer apply. |
Once again, context, context, context...
Paul's point was that people should not try to confuse the differences between men and women. God intentionally created men and women to be very different from one another. Paul is telling the Corinthians that men should act and look like men, as God created them, and women should act and look like women, as God created them. In the Corinthian culture, women grew their hair very long and men kept their hair short. So, if a Corinthian man grew out his hair, the people of his culture would view that as a feminine feature. Jesus was a Nazarene. In the Nazarene culture, men grew their hair out, just like Jesus did. So, if a man cut his hair, that would be culturally unacceptable. Now, God doesn't want Christians to conform to the cultures around them, but he also doesn't want Christians to offend anybody, and he doesn't want men to effeminate themselves and he doesn't want women to emasculate themselves.
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, recognise that you are asserting views that condemn other people utterly according to your belief system. You will prompt some emotive responses.
Also, if you make egregious mistakes in your claims (eg claiming that no-one knew the earth was spherical until the modern era) then expect to be called out. |
Actually, according to my belief system all people, whether gay or straight, are condemned unless they put their faith in Christ.
This is what boggles my mind the most. First of all, many of you are telling me that my faith condemns gays. Who are you to tell me what my faith says? Second, if you don't believe my faith anyways, why do you care what it says and who it condemns? I just don't get it.
Originally posted by Matthew:
How do you reconcile these statements with the facts that:
(1) there are many Christian sects â they cannot agree after hundreds of years what the bible instructs, so how can you claim that there is only one message?
(2) choosing to base your faith â100%â on the bible text is itself an act of interpretation. Many Christian sects also rely upon other sources of guidance. I bet that in reality you adopt many extra-biblical influences (interpreting all the way which to adopt or reject). |
(1) I can claim that there is only one message because the Bible says that there is only one. The Bible also warns that others will try to teach false gospels other than the one true gospel.
1 Timothy 1:3-7
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's workâwhich is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
2 Peter 2:1-3
1But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought themâbringing swift destruction on themselves. 2Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. 3In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Galatians 1:6-9
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospelâ 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
(2) I read other books than the Bible and I listen to pastors preach, and those things do have impacts on how I live my life. But the Bible is what I base my faith on. If I hear something in a sermon or read something in a book that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, then I disregard it. |
|
|
|
12/21/2009 10:20:42 PM · #3246 |
Is there any chance we could get this Rant back on topic. I do believe we have another tread dedicated solely to the topic of religion... maybe this belongs there.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/21/2009 10:36:20 PM · #3247 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Is there any chance we could get this Rant back on topic. I do believe we have another tread dedicated solely to the topic of religion... maybe this belongs there.
Ray |
To sum up, at the beginning of the thread about half the people in the country were in favor of gay marriage. As of post 3269, about half the people in the country were in favor of gay marriage... ;) |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 12:19:51 AM · #3248 |
Originally posted by Johnnyphoto:
Now, God doesn't want Christians to conform to the cultures around them, but he also doesn't want Christians to offend anybody, and he doesn't want men to effeminate themselves and he doesn't want women to emasculate themselves. |
emphasis mine
I'm pretty sure this is not the word you want to use here.
Just sayin'... |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 12:33:59 AM · #3249 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Is there any chance we could get this Rant back on topic. I do believe we have another tread dedicated solely to the topic of religion... maybe this belongs there.
Ray |
To sum up, at the beginning of the thread about half the people in the country were in favor of gay marriage. As of post 3269, about half the people in the country were in favor of gay marriage... ;) |
You're like a goaltender keeping it even for the final minutes after your team has already blown a 5 nil lead. Those penalty kicks can't come soon enough... :) |
|
|
|
12/22/2009 12:38:34 AM · #3250 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by Johnnyphoto:
Now, God doesn't want Christians to conform to the cultures around them, but he also doesn't want Christians to offend anybody, and he doesn't want men to effeminate themselves and he doesn't want women to emasculate themselves. |
emphasis mine
I'm pretty sure this is not the word you want to use here.
Just sayin'... |
Oops! Masculinize is what I meant to say... however I'm pretty sure God doesn't want women to emasculate themselves either. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 01:41:15 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 01:41:15 PM EDT.
|
