Homosexuality and the Bible - Thumpers welcome

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
See this is what's wrong with this new testament, Protestant Christianity... I wasn't born into sin, and I don't need a savior. The whole idea is repulsing. God created us into a world of sin where we are guilty until proven innocent? Dirty until cleansed? Sinful until saved? It's all a bunch of bullcrap. It's silly notions like this that drive fundmentalism in the world. Islam isn't the only religion that gets twisted to serve some selfish psychotic end.

Well, first of all, you have the idea wrong. God created us in a good world and created us "very good." It is the human race that sinned causing the predicament whereby God determined to save the world from that sin through Jesus.

And, second of all, you made the following post in another thread on human nature:

Originally posted by Sava
Like it or not, human beings are selfish, violent animals.

Seems to me you agree that humanity is sinful.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Ethelred, pherhaps you want to take a look at my earlier post in this thread as well.

I did. I read them all.

the original sin is the cause of ALL DEATH, including the death of animals.

That doesn't answer the question. It doesn't because it makes no sense at all. Original sin was the ation of two people. You are saying that Jehovah is so monstrously unjust that he not only condemned all mankind but all the animals as well.

"You can't deny something till you believe in it."

you deny it happened.

I don't see any evidence for it and I see megatons of evidence against it. The entire world denies Genesis.

As for the New Testament I just have the world of one set of books. No physical evidence and no corroboration from other authors. Thats not denying a god. Thats asking for some evidence. I can't even deny the things in the New Testament happened. I can only say that I see no reason at all to think that they all did. To punish me for asking for evidence is not in any way just.

But let's say that *if* it would be proven this would be the case to you, would you be happy and thank Jesus for saving you by taking the punishment himself? Would you follow him in that case?

if you think it's a good thing to be connected to Jesus it's obviously pretty dumb to chose against it.

Its only a good thing if the claims are true. I see no reason to think they are. Its pretty dumb to believe something without evidence. Thats how con artists get away with Ponzi schemes.

I adressed that in an earlier post in this thread.

I read them all. You haven't addressed it. You may have faked it though.

I cannot deny something untill I believe it enough to think its real.

That's true. But do you think it's good that it happens that way in Mexico and Utah?
If not, than you can't expect God to do the same, thus you will agree with the concept.

No. I don't agree with a concept that demands that I accept it without reason.

Everything I say about God and Jesus Christ is open to question. I know that. But right now we wonder if the concept makes sence or not.

So far. NOT.

disobedience and the hunt for independancy are closely related in this. Remember what 'the snake' said to them: "Eat it, and you will be like God"

You must have a different version.

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Not the same as in general. Not even Jehovah since it says gods. The key point is knowing good and evil. This is strengthened in Jehovah's reaction to the Adam and Eve covering themselves. Jehovah seems outraged either that they tried thinking or they disobeyed him. I suspect Jehovah didn't like thinking considering as how thinking rationally tends to result in thoughts the Bible deems Hellworthy.

God knew what would happen if humanity would decide on good and evil themselves. (that is the actual meaning of the tree, the tree of the decision over good and evil)

I don't care if there was a tree and a snake and all that, the concept is clear.

Yes. Thinking is forbidden. Despite Jehovah giving us minds to think with. Still I note that is still the actions two individuals yet all life is punished. Maybe noticing these tiny little bits of injustice is why Jehovah doesn't want us thinking about reality.

God did not do anything on humanity but giving them a choise.

He gave two people a choice AND denied them the knowledge needed to understand that there was a choice as the knowledge needed was forbidden to them. Then punished without cause all other life.

They wanted to be like god.

I said HERE not in some mythical nonexistent never-never land.

That says it all. They had it all, but they wanted more.
Why does a child want to be an adult? To be independant of their parents. To make their own decisions over good and evil.

Such a terrible thing surely demands that all life on Earth must be punished untill the end of time.

If you aggreed with that statement you are have some issues with the concept of justice and even the idea of the Golden Rule.



"things that are clearly false like the Adam and Eve story."

If you say it's open to question, I agree.
But if you state that it's factually wrong....... you make your argumentation sound foolish.

Well one of us sounds foolish then. It sure isn't me as the evidence is all on my side. Its NOT open to question. There was no Adam and Eve. The whole story doesn't even make a drop of sense internally without bothering to look at the physical evidence. As in where did Cain find a wife? Why isn't there a shred of evidence that mankind had only two ancestors such a short time ago. Even the Eve hypotheisis which is dubious at best has it as maybe women or there abouts 100,000 years ago.

But again, I don't care if adam and eve were actually there, or if it's a result of mythical history. I care mostly about the concept of independancy and the choise God gave to humanity. And even the resque plan he created in case they failed to choise right.

Resulting in a story of unjust punishment of all life for the actions of two. Not a nice story.

we've been here before.

Yes and you made up my position that time as well.

I will give you the same answer, even if God would ben standing on your toes staring you straight into the eyes you will still not believe.

Thats bull. Of course if was just the version of Jehovah that precedes the Sodom and Gomorah story then I still wouldn't have any evidence of divinity. He had to walk to Sodom and Gomorah according to that.

I have said the IF the Bible's claims of fantastic events could be shown real then I would be a christian. Well maybe a Jew as the showing the Old Testament real does not show the New Testament real.

Yet in your infinite unwillingness to see reason you INVENTED A COMPLETELY bogus response to accuse me of. That wasn't even dubious the first time and since I called you on it its now just plain dishonest of you.

Will you burn for that?

There is the universe, you say it's caused by the big bang

No. I say the evidence supports that concept. So far the evidence fits it quite well.

there's the earth and all the habitation, you say it's caused by evolution

Again there is an enormous amount of evidence for it and none against it.

there are the books of the bible, you say it's mythical
there are witness,

Where? There are no non-biblical witnesses.

you say they imaginated all they say
there are fullfilled prophecies, you say it's pure luck, self fullfilling or you point at (yet) unfilled prophecies (Which is a valid thing of course)

No I didn't. I said there is no evidence to support the extraordinary claims. I never said that everything was imaginary. Some parts are clearly real history. Other parts simply don't fit reality and therefor look exactly like myth. Myths are not quite the same as imaginary. Close though.

There are FEW fulfilled prophecies. There ARE failed prophecies. Some of what you call unfulfilled prophecies require a second coming which seems unlikely considering the failed prophecies.

Most of the prophecies however are NOT prophecies. They are the result of later men looking at many parts of the Bible and saying Oh Jesus had no broken bones (not certain though as most of his life remains completely unknown but the claim is made anyway) and the passover lambs were not to have any bones broken so that must have been a prophecy. Others are taken from Psalms and not prophecies.

If God would be standing on your toes, facing you straight into the eyes, you would claim to be dreaming.

Hypocrite. How dare you complain when people think your a creationist or a fundamentalist when you just plain LIE about me.

I called you on that before but I didn't call you a liar. I gave you a chance. Now you repeated the same lie.

Our argumentations won't "convert" you because you don't want to be converted. You want to be independant and you want to live your own life. You don't want anyone to interfere with you and make your own decisions over good and evil.

Well that may be partly true. I see nothing wrong in a person making up their own mind. I am not going to pretend that killing all but eight people is a good thing as the Bible does. So you do have a point there. Still if the flood had been a real event I would at least believe that there was a supernatural being. Possibley even going by something like Jehovah as a name. An unjust being perhaps but then again in that case there might also be some evidence to support the idea that the action was just. We will never know though because the Flood was not a real event.

Would you mind terribly actually dealing with things I actually say instead of making things up to accuse me off. I pointed out your egrigious behaviour and instead of acting like a principled human being you have chose to repeat the same lies about me.

This is twice now. There is no excuseing a third repetition of this egregious behaviour.

I leave that up to you. But please don't state that God didn't provide enough evidence.

He didn't. There is only a set of books and those books have passages in them about events that HAD TO LEAVE evidence yet did not.

I have asked you for evidence. Real physical evidence. You haven't shown any.

People saw Jesus on earth, they saw all the miracles, but they still did not believe. Of course you will say those are mythical stories that did never happen. There is evidence, but you don't want to see it.

What evidence? A claim that someone long ago saw somthing is not evidence. Its just a claim.

Claiming there is evidence is not enough. Show it.

Ethelred, I really hope that God one day will open your eyes.
And if that doesn't happen, I hope he'll take your good deeds, or whatever for good enough! Because I hope you will be happy, and live a happy life for eternally.

That would be nice. Some evidence would be nice as well. You claim it exists. How come you have produced it? How come you feel the need to make things up about me instead of producing it?

But above all I hope you will one day give credit to God for all he has done to you.

Why? Why would god need that. I certainly wouldn't be so small minded to demand credit for something I went out of my way to hide.

I can't prove it, but I can tell you how it works in my life.
I can't prove my contact with God, you have to believe me.
I can't force it or shove it through your troat. Fortunately. I might do it, as failable as I am.

You could prove it IF your claim that there was evidence was something you were able to back up.

Its amazing how you claim evidence yet refuse to show it. Indeed I think you were one of many that said I had no right to ask for evidence from Jehovah. Of course you are not Jehovah so even with that sort of attitude you are still the one claiming there is evidence.

Don't claim it exists. Show it exists.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ckweb

Moving away from the religious for moment . . . have you ever watched those Star Trek or other Sci-Fi shows that inevitably have storylines about changing one small action in history? They always appeal to that illustration about how a stone causes a ripple effect.

However they don't say that punishment to all the ripple hits is justifiable. That is what the Bible has.

This is how the sin of one begins to effect others and the surroundings; continued sin only compounds the effect. In the end, everything suffers as a result; even God in the person of Jesus on the Cross.

Even when you try to spread the blame it still comes down to the basic concept of Original Sin and ALL life being intentionally punished for it. Its either a fairy story as written and thus I see nothing to differentiate it from anyother just so story or its a tale of an action that cannot in good conscience be called just.

The Bible says we are "very good" too (Gen 1 and elsewhere). We are evil by what we do not by who we are.

Thank you for posting another contradiction in the Bible. I know you have a different concept but I pointed it out for the the thumpers.

The Bible DOES say we are evil. Hunting down contradictions won't make the claim go away. Its still there in all its questionable inglory.

To use your inaccurate term, "Jehovah"

It gets the point accross. I have asked for one think more accurate. Preferably one that others will recognize. God will not do as it implies belief in one single god and I see no reason to believe in such. Its not a name. Allah is a name.

made humanity very good. Any corruption that exists in humanity and creation is the result of the entrance of sin and evil into the world made possible by "Jehovah's" allowance that humanity ought to have a will.

Or more likely because we evolved to have self interest and people like to call some one elses self interest evil. If Jehovah is an all powerfull all knowing god then he could have made us actualy good instead of prone to evil which of course we are not. We simply have self-interest. Self interest can lead to corruption but not a perfectly designed entity. You are putting quite a limit on your all powerfull god when you claim it couldn't do that.

Now if you want to give up on the claim of all-knowing, all-powerfull, even benificent than I will let you get away with claiming its not jehovah's fault he is bad designer. Evil is not inherent in free will. Its just a dodge.

Your system of statements do not follow.

As is normal when you don't like something I say you just make a bald statement without supporting it. You are wrong. They do follow.

Revelation comes in all sort of different ways and forms and I will not presume to know when, where, and how God will reveal himself to you. He may have done so already and you have refused to accept what you have seen or heard. I am not the judge.

Well he didn't. Saying he may have is pretty close to judging since it entails saying I must have refused to acdept are real revelation.

In the meantime

Tick Tock.

Hints are not revelation and I havn't any of them yet in any case. An eight hundred foot Jesus wouldn't be a good iea either all things considered but I am sure that an all-powerful, all-knowing god could manage to come up with something that was at least provisionally convincing. I don't claim Einstein got things perfect either and for his theories there is a lot evidence.

Also, why aren't witnesses of any value to you? You have rejected the statements of many witnesses in your lifetime; that much I can determine just from this forum.

What witnesses? You aren't one. Neither is anyone else here unless they are keeping it a secret.

However if I was in a court case on the jury I would want something more reliable than the say so of a witness. Innocent people have been executed on that sort of thing. Physical evidnce is needed not a witness to something that may or may not have happened. If I was to take the word of a witnesses without evidence I still wouldn't know what was the real god.

You know as well as I do that I did not say that.

What you said:

For whatever reason, God has chosen to meet with humanity through faith rather than logic or reason (although a Christian is not required to eject these two faculties either).

Since logic and reason shows no cause for belief then what I said was correct even if you didn't like the conclusion that results from your statement.

You are misusing my statement to serve your ends and it comes out as an attempt to ridicule me and my faith in the process. This is what I meant awhile back by "slight ad hominen attacks."

Then you need to look up ad hominym again because reaching the logical conclusion from what you say does not qualify for one.

If your logic is faulty its your problem. If you don't like me disagreeing with what you say thats too bad. I will not pretend that disagreeing with you and your religion amounts to ridicule.

That you don't function on faith doesn't preclude that you can.

Would you care to rephrase that so I can figure it out. As written the sentence has no meaning. Which is hard on the rest of the paragraph.

So, it was not a false statement. There are people who simply can not function on logic or reason.

That part I think I get but its not related to what I said. I said I can't go on faith. YOU said:

But, I think, one of the main reasons faith is God's preferred approach is that faith is the great equalizer; all people are capable of it, regardless of their intellect.

Which is false. I didn't say it was false of the heck of it. I said because I CANNOT GO ON FAITH. Yet you claim all can. Since I cannot and I know that others are in the same position it is clearly false to claim that all can go on faith. That there are people that incapable of logic and reason does not in anyway show that ALL CAN GO ON FAITH as I definitly cannot do so.

Also, I am not implying that he rejects you for using your mind. Again, you are clearly making a negative statement out of my affirmative and your negative does not equal my affirmative. I said God accepts people on faith. That does NOT mean he rejects people on reason or logic.

Sure it does since reason and logic shows that a belief in Jehovah isn't logical. Since we are required in the Bible to believe in both Jehovah and Jesus or be punished I can't see anyway to call that anything but a rejection of people that want reason instead of faith.

When Jehovah decides to supply evidence that will be different. In the meantime there is only faith and I don't go on it.

You read what you read . . . a forum is not my test for how well Christianity holds up. And, your discussion does not prove what you think it does. It makes opinions.

You said it holds up remarkably well. It doesn't. It depends on faith and not reason. Thats not holding up thats hanging on. The discussion on evil does show a problem for christianity. You even to go hunt a contradiction to evade the very clear statement in the Bible that humans are evil.

[Aeson]

Gen 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

So the original sin was making a choice in the absence of a knowlege of good and evil? Doesn't this contradict the notion that the innocent (babies, mentally handicapped) aren't capable of sin? The don't have the knowlege necessary to choose good from evil, and thus can't be blamed if their actions are evil.

Adam and Eve were supposed to obey Jehovah, and not eat from the tree. Why would they have reason to obey Jehovah if they had no concept of whether He was good or evil, whether eating from the tree was good or evil, whether obeying was good or evil, or whether the snake was good or evil. Seems to me like a 'random' choice set up to occur by Jehovah. Adam and Eve really had no part, they were just unwitting pawns.

Not very good planning on Jehovah's part. Unless of course he meant for the original sin to have happened, in which case he committed the sin if it is a sin at all.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
However they don't say that punishment to all the ripple hits is justifiable. That is what the Bible has.

Even when you try to spread the blame it still comes down to the basic concept of Original Sin and ALL life being intentionally punished for it. Its either a fairy story as written and thus I see nothing to differentiate it from anyother just so story or its a tale of an action that cannot in good conscience be called just.

I hope you are not lumping in my perspective on this issue with CyberShy. I know he used the word, "Our," as if to indicate that all Christians agreed with his take on this argument.

My concept is not really the concept that CyberShy is presenting and I don't think it is the one you assume that I am taking.

Sin has consequences. . . the consequences have been individual and corporate. But, there is no sense that the sin is the result of an inability to do otherwise. Although perhaps one might argue that sin has had a degenerative affect on humanity over the course of history. But, you'd have a tough time with that idea in light of evolution and the notion of progress inherent in modernity.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Thank you for posting another contradiction in the Bible. I know you have a different concept but I pointed it out for the the thumpers.

The Bible DOES say we are evil. Hunting down contradictions won't make the claim go away. Its still there in all its questionable inglory.

You have no ability to hold competing ideas in tension, do you? Are you familiar with binary oppositions in Structuralist literary theory?

The Bible observes we are evil and makes that description. It does not prescribe that condition. Big difference!

Originally posted by Ethelred
It gets the point accross. I have asked for one think more accurate. Preferably one that others will recognize. God will not do as it implies belief in one single god and I see no reason to believe in such. Its not a name. Allah is a name.

The most I can do is writing the divine name with asteriks because I don't want to offend any Orthodox Jews that might be involved in this forum. The name is Y**H. The missing letters are HW. The vowels to vocalize it are "a" between Y and H and "e" between "W" and "H". That is the correct divine name. Jehovah is a poor bastardization and certainly doesn't reflect the Hebrew.

Originally posted by Ethelred
Or more likely because we evolved to have self interest and people like to call some one elses self interest evil. If Jehovah is an all powerfull all knowing god then he could have made us actualy good instead of prone to evil which of course we are not. We simply have self-interest. Self interest can lead to corruption but not a perfectly designed entity. You are putting quite a limit on your all powerfull god when you claim it couldn't do that.

Now if you want to give up on the claim of all-knowing, all-powerfull, even benificent than I will let you get away with claiming its not jehovah's fault he is bad designer. Evil is not inherent in free will. Its just a dodge.

Evil is inherent to the knowledge of Good.

Choice is inherent to Will.
(No will is completely free, except God's will; all our actions are contingent upon the will of others. The latter you should agree is self-evident. Anyways, that's why I don't use the term "free will").

No dodge. No limits.

Originally posted by Ethelred

Quote:

Your system of statements do not follow.

As is normal when you don't like something I say you just make a bald statement without supporting it. You are wrong. They do follow.

I thought the reason they do not follow would be obvious in the rest of my post but here I will make my argument more explicit:

We are born sinful.

No. We are born into sin.

We are inherently sinful

No. We have a predisposition towards sin.

The world is sinful

No. The world is enslaved by sin. The world is good.

Jehovah created us

Yes.

Jehovah created the world

Well, I think he did this before he created us but who needs to be picky.

Whose fault is all that evil then, the creator or us?

Your statements did not follow so the rhetorical question does not yield the answer you want based on the statements you provided.

Originally posted by Ethelred Sure it does since reason and logic shows that a belief in Jehovah isn't logical.

It does no such thing. The results of logic and reason are indeterminate. It does not prove "Jehovah" is logical or illogical.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Ethelred
That part I think I get but its not related to what I said. I said I can't go on faith. YOU said:

Quote:

But, I think, one of the main reasons faith is God's preferred approach is that faith is the great equalizer; all people are capable of it, regardless of their intellect.

Which is false. I didn't say it was false of the heck of it. I said because I CANNOT GO ON FAITH. Yet you claim all can. Since I cannot and I know that others are in the same position it is clearly false to claim that all can go on faith. That there are people that incapable of logic and reason does not in anyway show that ALL CAN GO ON FAITH as I definitly cannot do so.

I'll be frank. I think you are not reflecting honestly on your mode of existence. I think you proceed on faith (perhaps of a different kind) every day. I think there are many things you do, say, and think that arise out of something you could not prove to me in an objective, scientific way. I think you are capable of faith; you simply choose not to rely on it with respect to the metaphysical questions at issue here. But, of course, I also expect that you will rail against my presumptuousness and arrogance--and whatever other word you feel is appropriate--in making this statement, which is why I set this apart from my longer post above.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The only people that Jesus really criticises in the New Testament is people who judge and condemn other people. He has no time for people like that. In fact he says whenever you judge and condemn another person in God's eyes the only person you judge or condemn is yourself.

Some of you so-called Christians should think about that.

The Jesus that I know spent his whole life lifting people up, healing them, helping them, inspiring them and making them feel good about themselves. I just don't see any way Jesus would be into condemning homosexuals or homosexuality.

Some very good statements . . . of course, you have conveniently left out that Jesus preached repentance, holiness, and ethics. The Sermon on the Mount is just the beginning.

It is one thing to heap condemnation on someone, which is not the place or right of the Christian under any circumstance. It is quite another to articulate one's ethics and standards. I do not condemn homosexuals nor would I ever invite hatred against them. They are equal in worth as my fellow human beings. I oppose any attempt to suggest otherwise.

"I believe practicing homosexuality is a sin" is an ethical statement in the same vein as "I believe premarital relations or adultery is a sin" is an ethical statement. It draws no condemnation upon the one who does these things; it only makes an evaluation of the action itself.

[Robert Plomp]

Ethelred:

You are saying that Jehovah is so monstrously unjust that he not only condemned all mankind but all the animals as well.

death is not so bad if you get into paradise after that.

To punish me for asking for evidence is not in any way just.

you won't be punished for asking for evidence.
But, you missed the next question:

CyberShy: But let's say that *if* it would be proven this would be the case to you, would you be happy and thank Jesus for saving you by taking the punishment himself? Would you follow him in that case?

CS: I adressed that in an earlier post in this thread.

Ethelred: I read them all. You haven't addressed it. You may have faked it though.

try harder. I wouldn't lie about it.

CS: That's true. But do you think it's good that it happens that way in Mexico and Utah?
If not, than you can't expect God to do the same, thus you will agree with the concept.

Ethelred: No. I don't agree with a concept that demands that I accept it without reason.

you either missed the point or you agree with forced mariages..........

Not the same as in general. Not even Jehovah since it says gods. The key point is knowing good and evil.

you're right, it says as gods, not as God.
But the right translation is not 'knowing' good and evil, but 'deciding' over good and evil.

This is strengthened in Jehovah's reaction to the Adam and Eve covering themselves. Jehovah seems outraged either that they tried thinking or they disobeyed him.

he's not outraged.
It's more like "look what you've done to yourselves"

I suspect Jehovah didn't like thinking considering as how thinking rationally tends to result in thoughts the Bible deems Hellworthy.

you *suspect* that, but it's not true.
Much of the people in the bible were great thinkers, most wise of all of them was Salomon.

Yes. Thinking is forbidden. Despite Jehovah giving us minds to think with. Still I note that is still the actions two individuals yet all life is punished. Maybe noticing these tiny little bits of injustice is why Jehovah doesn't want us thinking about reality.

this is not a reaction to my argument at all.

He gave two people a choice AND denied them the knowledge needed to understand that there was a choice as the knowledge needed was forbidden to them. Then punished without cause all other life.

The knowledge was obvious: "Don't eat it, you will die"
The biggest idiot must understand that line.

*I'm not going to react to "yes no yes no yes no" kinds of argumentation. You're that sure that adam and eve never existed that I must conclude that you witnessed their absence.

No. I say the evidence supports that concept. So far the evidence fits it quite well.

sounds better than your usual "IT's A FACT IT'S A FACT" reaction.

Again there is an enormous amount of evidence for it and none against it.

there is an enormous amount of evidence against it, but you guys just say "it's wrong evidence"

Where? There are no non-biblical witnesses.

I am.

No I didn't. I said there is no evidence to support the extraordinary claims. I never said that everything was imaginary. Some parts are clearly real history. Other parts simply don't fit reality and therefor look exactly like myth. Myths are not quite the same as imaginary. Close though.

take the flood, there are about 200 flood stories around the entire world.

Take the disciples, why would the claim the resurection of Jesus, if they knew it had not happened, and they knew they would be killed if they kept on claiming it.

We have no witnesses of evolution, we have witnesses of Jesus' ressurection.

There are FEW fulfilled prophecies. There ARE failed prophecies. Some of what you call unfulfilled prophecies require a second coming which seems unlikely considering the failed prophecies.

I would never claim there are no unfullfilled prophecies, and I would never claim that I doubt some of them will ever be filled, but it's really an odd claim to say that there are only a few fullfilled. Most of them are fullfilled.

And indeed, much aren't, but the biggest part of those are about the end of time.

But you guys just claim that those fullfilled prophecies were made 'afterwards' without any evidence. Just because that fits you better. (and making up evidence is no problem)

Most of the prophecies however are NOT prophecies. They are the result of later men looking at many parts of the Bible and saying Oh Jesus had no broken bones (not certain though as most of his life remains completely unknown but the claim is made anyway) and the passover lambs were not to have any bones broken so that must have been a prophecy. Others are taken from Psalms and not prophecies.

why not?
The question is if Jesus fits into the old testament.
You can call that prophecies or something else, but he completely fits into it.

Hypocrite. How dare you complain when people think your a creationist or a fundamentalist when you just plain LIE about me.

I called you on that before but I didn't call you a liar. I gave you a chance. Now you repeated the same lie.

my claim was not a lie nor hypocrit,
it was indeed a very strange and silly claim, I will admit that. but I still have the feeling that I'm right on that.

Anyway, it is figurative speaking. I say more or less that nothing will count as evidence to you.

and I know that you like it to break the rules of debating by calling names.

I am not going to pretend that killing all but eight people is a good thing as the Bible does.

Justice is a good thing.
so is rightiousness.
'good' cannot exist if there is no 'justice' and 'rightiousness'.

We will never know though because the Flood was not a real event.

It doesn't matter if the flood happened or not.
The bible never says "If you believe in Jesus and the flood you will be saved" forget about the flood, focus on Jesus.

is there anything wrong with God himself, who comes down to earth to take your punishment? Should he not have done that?

I pointed out your egrigious behaviour and instead of acting like a principled human being you have chose to repeat the same lies about me.

those are not lies. And compared to your name calling, I'm at most a silly person who doesn't understand you good enough.

But I see you become pretty angry if I claim that nothing will convince you. I've always been teached that if people who become angry over something it is obviously true. But pherhaps this will make you even mroe angry. Which is very missplaced again, for sure compared with all the name calling from your side.

My claim is not a lie, it's my idea about you.
I surely think that nothing will convince you. That's ok, you might believe whatever you want to believe, but just call yourself an atheist. You're not an agnost. These discussions show how much you care, and all that.

I have asked you for evidence. Real physical evidence. You haven't shown any.

the world and the universe aren't physical enough?

What evidence? A claim that someone long ago saw somthing is not evidence. Its just a claim.

why not?
Why do you believe a scientists who saw something, but not Petrus who saw something.

Why? Why would god need that. I certainly wouldn't be so small minded to demand credit for something I went out of my way to hide.

because he created you as a person, he cares about you, and thus he cares about what you think about him.

Its amazing how you claim evidence yet refuse to show it.

why do you say that while I just said "I can't prove it" twice?

this is what I said:

CyberShy: I can't prove it, but I can tell you how it works in my life.
I can't prove my contact with God, you have to believe me.

still you say that. I'm stuned.
(and you will never admit you're wrong on this. like you never ever have admitted to be wrong on anything in any debate we had, not on the smallest detail. You must be either allways right or covering your mistakes. If it's the latter, it truly shows again how not open you are for evidence. But pherhaps it's the first, pherhaps you're just allways right.)

Indeed I think you were one of many that said I had no right to ask for evidence from Jehovah.

if I would say something like this about you, you would be mad at me and all that. But I'll just reply that I never said something like that. You can ask for evidence.

I morely say you just won't accept any evidence.
(but that just makes you pissed off again *sigh*)

Don't claim it exists. Show it exists.

I can't show it. If I could I would already have posted a scanned picture of God. So far I wait for your scanned picture of the big bang.

CyberShy

[Robert Plomp]

ckweb:

can you please not take Ethelred's word for what I am claiming? Don't fall in his traps about me will you?

this is about the 5th time that you publicly say that you very well do not share my ideas about that and that and that while "that and that and that" are not my ideas at all.

it really starts to bother me,
because it's all very nice for people like ethelred to see christians publicly disagree and take distance from each other. I did not claim that, and there's no reason for you to save your own person all the time by acting like there is a disagreement.

I would have pm this to you, but you don't want to receive any.

[Sava]

I don't agree with you, in fact, that human beings are sinful. Human beings are animals. They are naturally greedy, selfish, and violent. But that doesn't mean everybody is born into sin and have to prove their faith.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

But what sets a human apart from an animal? The ability to fight the primal urges of greed and the tendancy to violence, which is what we are judged on.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by ckweb


Some very good statements . . . of course, you have conveniently left out that Jesus preached repentance, holiness, and ethics. The Sermon on the Mount is just the beginning.

It is one thing to heap condemnation on someone, which is not the place or right of the Christian under any circumstance. It is quite another to articulate one's ethics and standards. I do not condemn homosexuals nor would I ever invite hatred against them. They are equal in worth as my fellow human beings. I oppose any attempt to suggest otherwise.

"I believe practicing homosexuality is a sin" is an ethical statement in the same vein as "I believe premarital relations or adultery is a sin" is an ethical statement. It draws no condemnation upon the one who does these things; it only makes an evaluation of the action itself.

Yes - it is your opinion. You won't find Jesus agreeing with it anywhere.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in the first century AD. If Jesus had a problem with it, strange he didn't say anything about it.

[finkian]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Ethelred:


he's not outraged.
It's more like "look what you've done to yourselves"

Then I would really hope never to see God outraged. What do you do when a deity is slow to anger, yet overly heavy handed?

Quote:

Where? There are no non-biblical witnesses.

I am.

Ha, unless you've witnessed babies being born of virgin mothers, heard a booming voice from the sky, are old enough to have been there when God flooded the earth, or been healed by Jesus laying hands on you, you haven't witnessed anything to support the existence of God.

is there anything wrong with God himself, who comes down to earth to take your punishment? Should he not have done that?

assuming that a man who says he is the son of God getting himself nailed to a cross actually absolves man from sin.

the world and the universe aren't physical enough?

Yeah they ARE physical evidence... unfortunately for God, of such sinful, newfangled ideas such as evolution and the Big Bang. Too bad for the universe-- I guess it's going to hell for lying.

Quote:

What evidence? A claim that someone long ago saw somthing is not evidence. Its just a claim.

why not?
Why do you believe a scientists who saw something, but not Petrus who saw something.

Yes... because these results can be demonstrated and measured-- a man healing another man with godlike powers? Walking on water with no scientific assisstance? Demonstrate, please. Oh, you can't? Forget it then.

I can't prove it, but I can tell you how it works in my life.
I can't prove my contact with God, you have to believe me.

Then stop saying there is evidence.

Quote:

Don't claim it exists. Show it exists.

I can't show it. If I could I would already have posted a scanned picture of God. So far I wait for your scanned picture of the big bang.

The Big Bang agrees with accepted laws of physics. Which one says that one can create the universe by saying words into a void?

[ckweb]

Originally posted by CyberShy
ckweb:

can you please not take Ethelred's word for what I am claiming? Don't fall in his traps about me will you?

this is about the 5th time that you publicly say that you very well do not share my ideas about that and that and that while "that and that and that" are not my ideas at all.

it really starts to bother me,
because it's all very nice for people like ethelred to see christians publicly disagree and take distance from each other. I did not claim that, and there's no reason for you to save your own person all the time by acting like there is a disagreement.

I would have pm this to you, but you don't want to receive any.

I'm not taking Ethelred's word on what you are saying. I am reading your posts myself. What I can see is that there are differences between you and I on we approach the biblical text. I would not consider you a fundamentalist but you are certainly more conservative in your interpretations than I and also, in your discussions with Ethelred you often use inflammatory sorts of comments like "God will open your eyes" and others, which I try to avoid. So, I'm sorry if you have a problem with my occasional choice to distance myself from you but it is simply a reflection of genuine differences that exist between us, which is not to say that I don't think we are brothers in Christ. I am, at least as far as I can rely on the discussions of this forum, relatively assured that we are brothers in Christ. But, even brothers disagree as Peter and Paul frequently did.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Sava
I don't agree with you, in fact, that human beings are sinful. Human beings are animals. They are naturally greedy, selfish, and violent. But that doesn't mean everybody is born into sin and have to prove their faith.

I don't see the essential difference. Do you simply not like the term "sin" to describe the characteristics of "greedy, selfish, and violent"?

Also, many Christians, including myself, do not believe that you have prove your faith. Faith is simply what saves you. You either choose to have it or not.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Yes - it is your opinion. You won't find Jesus agreeing with it anywhere.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in the first century AD. If Jesus had a problem with it, strange he didn't say anything about it.

Remember Jesus was ministering in a cultural and religious setting that already regarded the practice of homosexuality as sinful. Why talk about something agreed upon by your listeners? The question you should be asking is if Jesus didn't have a problem with homosexuality (as you seem to want to suggest), why didn't he correct the Jews on this point?

More to the point, who knows if he ever said anything about it? The Gospel writers simply choose not to discuss it, which is not strange given that the point of the Gospels is to reflect on the identity and significance of Jesus rather than to provide a comprehensive compendium of his teachings. On the other hand, Paul mentions it because he preached in settings where homosexuality was practiced (and even accepted) and Paul did regard the practice of it as sin.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by finkian
Too bad for the universe-- I guess it's going to hell for lying.

Y'know, I'm not a Creation Scientist; in fact, my tendency is to support evolutionary theory in so much as I understand it. Having said that though, your comment here is disingenuous . . .

The universe is only lying if you assume that it was not created in an advanced stage. If God created a fully grown human being or tree or animal or whatever, of course it would appear to be older than it really is -- much like a Star Wars clone would. The only reason this is so, however, is because you assume the fully grown creation must have come to its present state exactly the same way it does now. If you accept, however, just for the sake of argument, that something were created at an advanced stage than the dilemma dissolves. That your assumptions lead you to overlook this possibility does not mean the universe is lying.

Even so, let me reiterate that I am not a Creation Scientist.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Hey man, lay off the horse...can't you see its dead?

[Robert Plomp]

ckweb: "God will open your eyes"

I've said that once indeed,
but not for some kind of argumentation, but morely to explain my feeling about things. I agree with you that it's not a good thing to use something like that as an argument.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Hey man, lay off the horse...can't you see its dead?

Somebody's just going to start another thread like it in a couple of weeks so why not just keep this one alive. Besides, it has been a couple of weeks since I last checked the forum and I wanted to respond to posts that were new to me.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
In my opinion, homosexuality is wrong. It distorts society.

Justify that statement, because it looks like a load of crap to me.

Anyway, you are all well aware of my views on religion and the bible. I think that everyone has to lead their own life in their own lifestyle. I think it is a disgrace that all those biblebashers have this hatred for homosexuals and despise it. It seems very 'unchristian'...

[Jon Miller]

why do you say that biblebashers hate homosexuals?

Jon Miller

[Alexander's Horse]

[ckweb]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think it is a disgrace that all those biblebashers have this hatred for homosexuals and despise it. It seems very 'unchristian'...

Isn't a biblebasher somebody who denigrates the Bible? Don't you mean bible-thumpers?

And, yes, it is a disgrace that there are Christians who hate homosexuals. Not all Christians hate homosexuals, though. Some even support homosexuals. Heck, there are gay and lesbian Christian pastors out there.

But, notwithstanding, just because one thinks the practice of homosexuality is wrong, does not mean one hates homosexuals. One does not automatically equal the other. I can disapprove of a practice without being prejudiced, bigoted, hate-mongering, etc. Incidentally, I also think adultery is wrong. It doesn't mean I hate adulterers. In the same vein, I also think pre-marital sex is wrong. Again, it doesn't mean I hate people that practice pre-marital sex.

[Robert Plomp]

I don't hate gay people.

And I think they should make their own decisions about what they do. In fact every human should do that, within the law of the country they're living in of course.

[JCG]

Don't know if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting, at the very least...

"Some of the most obvious mistranslations occur in passages related to:

-Homosexuality, which is used in the Bible to refer to a broad range of mostly criminal activities: homosexual rape, same-sex temple prostitution, group orgies, and child abuse of boys, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities. None of the passages seem to refer to gay and lesbian sex between consenting adults or committed partners.

-Same-sex emotional relationships that Ruth, David and Daniel were involved in."

Of course, this requires you NOT to be an extremely fundamentalist Christian who ignores reason and argumentation....

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

(the site has a few extra pages on this and on other subjects of interest, btw. )

[Jon Miller]

there is no where in the bible where it even suggests (or could be read that way) that ruth was in a same sex relationship

I have no clue who started that rediculous interpretation, but it is one of the stupidest that I have ever heard (and there are a lot of stupid ones out there)

the interpretation where Jesus and John were lovers makes more sense than that one

Jon Miller

[ckweb]

Originally posted by JCG
Don't know if this has been posted before, but I found it interesting, at the very least...

"Some of the most obvious mistranslations occur in passages related to:

-Homosexuality, which is used in the Bible to refer to a broad range of mostly criminal activities: homosexual rape, same-sex temple prostitution, group orgies, and child abuse of boys, heterosexuals engaging in homosexual activities. None of the passages seem to refer to gay and lesbian sex between consenting adults or committed partners.

-Same-sex emotional relationships that Ruth, David and Daniel were involved in."

Of course, this requires you NOT to be an extremely fundamentalist Christian who ignores reason and argumentation....

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm

(the site has a few extra pages on this and on other subjects of interest, btw. )

The first point is something to take into consideration. However, it does not bear out in all the passages of the Bible that speak to the issue of homosexuality.

The second point is wishful thinking on the part of queer theorists. There is simply no real substance to the arguments, especially in the case of Ruth and Daniel (But, even the references about David's love for Jonathan do not imply a homosexual relationship). Yet, even if examples of homosexual relationships existed in the Bible, it would not prove that the Bible condones the practice of homosexuality.

BTW, "Queer theory" is an active field in biblical studies and the label is their own so I'm not employing the term "queer theorists" in a derogatory sense.

Also, about the site . . . it makes the mistake of delineating just two views: Conservative and Liberal. I would add a third (at least): moderates. These fall in between the two and recognize that not all references to homosexuality in the Bible are applicable to the present-day issue of consensual and monogamous homosexual relationships. Nevertheless, moderates would still assert that the Bible remains clear on its point that the practice of homosexuality is a sin.