Page 15 of 17 [ 259 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:34 am

01001011 wrote:
donnie_darko wrote:
I am not a religious person, more of a Deist than anything, but I think atheists tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They think that just because the Bible is pretty easy to debunk, means that the Universe is just a random accident. They think because Yahweh doesn't exist, or Allah, that means there is no God at all.

'God' is just meaningless utterance.


In the empirical sense, but not in the psychological sense. Many people need their sky-daddy to relieve their fear of dying.

ruveyn



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 42,587
Location: Houston, Texas

08 Feb 2012, 10:49 am

I can't say why people have them at all, I just want to know why they believe what they believe.


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 10:53 am

Tim_Tex wrote:
I can't say why people have them at all, I just want to know why they believe what they believe.


I keep telling you. They are afraid of dying. It is as simple as that.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,273
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 11:50 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
doesn't matter if the bible advocates it -

Yes it does. The tenets of Christian faith are defined by the words of Jesus.


AngelRho wrote:
Christ taught that He Himself was the fulfillment of the Law and that through His death, burial, and resurrection "everything is accomplished." That effectively frees the believer from the demands of the Law.


Ok, so Christian faith is defined by the words of Jesus. The Mosaic law does no longer apply. That's great imho, because Jesus taught a lot of nice things.

The Mosaic law (Torah) was "given" by God to the Israelites. Paul wrote that the Gentiles have no excuse, either, since despite Torah not having been given to them, the Law was written on their hearts. Morality is the responsibility of all humanity, not just God's "chosen."

CrazyCatLord wrote:
And yet, in another thread (link) you wrote:

AngelRho wrote:
I just happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral and would support societies that hold that it is a criminal activity.


Can you please point to the gospel verse where Jesus says that? Did he ever say something like "don't judge others, except for gays" or "love your neighbor like yourself, unless he's gay?" Let's see some gospel quotes.

What, I can't make up my own mind about things? I'm not allowed to hold my own opinions apart from the Bible? If your attitude is such that you are hateful towards people who have differing opinions from you and you support bullying those people in an open forum such as this one, that makes you a bigot, too. Playing the "bigot" card against someone is something I prefer not to do and avoid doing. If I suspect I am personally being attacked in a discussion, especially with a mod making a point of saying he won't ban me as though I'd done something to be banned for, is it not a smart idea to quietly leave the discussion?

I suspect this is an attempt to change the subject. Here is my response in my usual tl;dr kind of way (I say that for those who want to save themselves the trouble if they aren't really interested). It is all I care to say on the matter, and if you want the last word on the topic of homosexuality, then it's all yours. I'm more concerned about topics related to abacacus' attempt to show, well, whatever it is he's trying to show. So far I've seen no compelling evidence that I should reject my faith or adopt a different one.

[tl;dr]

The short answer is Jesus affirmed the sanctity of male-female relationships in Matthew 19. This reflects OT law (He quoted Genesis), which emphasizes the importance of male-female bonds. Jesus emphasized also the importance that we love God with all our being above all else. If Jesus presupposes OT morality, which in turn exposes homosexuality as a pagan worship practice out of sync with proper worship of Yahweh, then Jesus is saying that homosexuality is immoral. Furthermore, John 16:12-15 indicates that the Holy Spirit would pick up where Jesus left off. Since the Holy Spirit acts under Jesus' authority, it won't reveal the Father's heart in a way inconsistent with scripture. The writers of the epistles (under direction of the Holy Spirit) corroborate the standard of behavior for Christians to include that homosexuality is improper for Christians.

If it offends that I go beyond the gospels, consider whether Paul or any of the other early Christian writers in the NT canon advocated a physical, bloody "holy war" in the name of Jesus. You won't find it there, either. Moving on...

As far as Biblical support for the immorality of homosexuality: Jesus' teachings presuppose OT law and the Biblically prescribed morality of the time. As long as Jesus endorses the law of Moses, and that law has strong words regarding homosexuality, then Jesus is affirming that OT morality holds. Note also that Jesus considers that so much as THINKING about sin with the intention of committing sin is equal to physically committing that sin. All who sin are guilty of sin no matter what--and any sex outside marriage is even considered immoral for HETEROSEXUAL couples. When Jesus spoke about the difficulties of traditional marriage and the role of legalized divorce, one of the disciples figured out that it's better to live a celibate life and never get married in the first place if one intends to keep Christ's teachings. I unwittingly used the logic of Matthew 19:19-20 to break off an engagement to someone I'd known for years, genuinely loved, and had to come to the awful conclusion that she'd ultimately be an impossible woman to live with. If divorce isn't an option, it's better to just not make a promise if you have even the slightest reason to suspect you can't keep that promise. The point here is that immorality is not restricted to homosexuality alone, but also extends to relationships among heterosexuals and even the relationships of married couples.

What most people do when they use the Bible to denounce homosexuality is they point to the one-man/one-woman model in the garden of Eden and the initial state of all animals being created male and female. They will point to homosexuality being "unnatural."

However, the first and most important point of the Bible is in guiding humankind towards the right relationship with God. "Natural" relationships among humans and other creatures is a secondary point since that falls under "love your neighbor" commandments. In the OT, homosexuality was a public practice associated with pagan worship. As such, it represented a break from the Greatest Commandment to love God above all else. In a theocracy devoted to Yahweh worship, associated acts of pagan worship could not be tolerated as it would have been equivalent to treason. Because of that association and its continued practice in other cultures, there's no way you can "make" homosexuality acceptable if you hold to any Biblical standard.

You can't even claim that homosexuality in the modern context is Biblically acceptable as long as it is not pagan worship because it still remains that it was a pagan practice that God disapproved. Besides that, homosexuality displays human dissatisfaction with the one-man/one-woman male/female model God instituted from the beginning. It is arrogant for a human being to assert he knows better than God, and that arrogance was prominently displayed in Eden. It is out-of-place for a creation to say to its Creator, "not good enough."

Also, the first Christians were Jews and many held that in order to become a Christian you had to first be a Jew. Jesus laid the groundwork for Christianity with His teachings. It was up to the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to decide what to do with it. The Pauline and other epistles are a description of how the first Christians understood Christ's teachings, and they very carefully had to weigh the arguments of the "Judaizers" against the objections of the Greeks. While under Hebraic law, for example, circumcision was a requirement intended to set the Hebrews apart as God's chosen. It's an outward display of a Jewish man's trust in God. In Greek culture, the "naked" penis was a symbol of shame. I imagine that to the Greeks, Judaizer requirements might have looked like a way to shame and manipulate them. Since bringing together all believers as a brotherhood was Jesus' intent rather than the domination of a group of religious elite, the earliest councils held by the church in Jerusalem determined that Gentiles were free from laws concerning JEWISH identity and custom and should follow their own laws and customs. It was very carefully expressed what Christian morality meant and what behaviors Christians were to avoid. Homosexuality was among those behaviors.

The last thing has to do with "judging." When Jesus said, "Judge not..." He was making a symbolic reference to OT commandments that people engaging in trade use honest weights and measures. This is a model for dispensing justice. Jesus' command is not "Don't judge" but rather be fair when you do judge. God will measure out justice to you the way you measure out justice to others. "Eye for an eye..." If someone make a joke about your mother, it's probably best to just let it go. At worst you could probably bring someone up on some kind of misdemeanor slander charge, or whatever best applies to the case. But you don't get to burn someone's house down just because they cracked a bad joke. It's also unfair to be critical of someone if you don't understand their circumstances. The whole "judge not" passage includes a lot of other things, such as "don't try to remove the speck from someone's eye if you have a beam in your own." You can't fix someone else's issues if there is something in your way that keeps you from understanding those issues. What "judge not" DOESN'T mean is for people to refrain from discerning right from wrong. "Judge not" is often used by those unfamiliar with scripture to get Christians to leave people alone to do whatever it is they want to do. Using that as an attack against Christians is itself a judgmental act. The sad part is many Christians fall for it rather than actually examining what it means.

In relation to homosexuality, that would mean first understanding the behavior and associated thoughts and feelings before trying to "fix" it. What Christians have tended to do is jump to the "it's immoral, you're going to hell" rather than actually listening to the person who is facing a moral crisis. It's no surprise that gays leave Christianity when they find love and support from a community that embraces immoral behavior. There are, however, Christian-based organizations that do maintain Christian moral values and provide loving support for those facing unwanted same-sex attraction, such as Exodus International. While EI can't report a 100% "success" rate, it does show that most of those who haven't "converted" to heterosexuality are at least trying. It's easy to condemn sinful behavior, and what you see a lot of the time with Christians is they don't understand how to see past the sin and relate to what it is the sinner is going through. Christian or not, we are ALL sinners.

To use an example we might agree on, take murder. It's easy to say to anyone who has killed another human being that they should be put to death as soon as possible. What the victim of a death (i.e. a surviving member of the deceased person's family or a friend who was close to the deceased) can't objectively see is there might have been extenuating circumstances--an accident in which the alleged just happened to be in the wrong place/wrong time, a fight broke out and the defendant was acting in self-defense, or the defendant was insane/impaired through no fault of his own. The court system takes into account all evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and even has to determine a number of factors to show that the cause of death was a deliberate, malicious action on the part of the suspect. "Removing the beam from your own eye."

Homosexuality is no different in that it requires the understanding of those who want to point fingers. It is wrong to unfairly judge someone if you don't understand the problem itself and if you aren't prepared to do anything about it.

[/tl;dr]



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 12:34 pm

AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
doesn't matter if the bible advocates it -

Yes it does. The tenets of Christian faith are defined by the words of Jesus.

you conveniently skipped half of what i wrote. i was basically saying that the bible or any other book can say _X_, but if its members do _Y_ in the name of the religion then it makes no sense to say that the religion is only composed of _X_. the religion must also be composed of _Y_.

if a teacher uses corporal punishment as part of their practices (even though it is NOT specifically advocated by their original university education or by their school guide to best practices), it cannot be argued that the teacher was not acting as a teacher when he used the strap in classroom (for example). same as for christianity.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Last edited by hyperlexian on 08 Feb 2012, 3:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Feb 2012, 2:16 pm

AngelRho wrote:
OK, but that's only your opinion. The bit about "barbaric laws" is as well. OT laws were much more fair and certainly less barbaric than the Israelites' neighbors. Even if they really were barbaric, which I doubt, that doesn't take into account the historical time period in which they were written. I fail to see the logic of blaming a culture for living in a certain time period.


Raw Original Hebraic law was the best available in the Bronze Age. Later on the Rabbis and Sages refined it.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,273
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 2:39 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
doesn't matter if the bible advocates it -

Yes it does. The tenets of Christian faith are defined by the words of Jesus.

you conveniently skipped half of what i wrote. i was basically saying that the bible or any other book can say _X_, but if its members do _Y_ in the name of the religion then it makes no sense to say that the religion is only composed of _X_. the religion must also be composed of _Y_.

if a teacher uses corporal punishment as part of their practices (even though it is NOT specifically advocated by their original university education or by their school guide to best practices), it cannot be argued that the teacher was not acting as a teacher when he used the strap in classroom (for example). same as for christianity.

It's not mere convenience. I don't care what someone calls himself. If there is a clear definition of what a Christian IS, then that is what a Christian is. Comparison with a teacher is not really justified here.

I suppose another way of looking at it with your teacher analogy is if being a teacher hinges on compliance with acceptable discipline methods in the classroom, corporal punishment is clearly understood as being against policy, and a teachers carries out corporal punishment, then as far as that school system is concerned that teacher (behaving unprofessionally) is not a teacher and has no business being in the classroom. IF that is what a teacher is, of course. You might argue that it's a "no true Scotsman fallacy," but that only really applies if there is no clear-cut definition of what a "Scotsman" is. Self-professing Christians that carry out non-Biblical behaviors and call it Christ fall into one of two categories: 1. Those who have no intention of knowing Jesus and will say anything to sway others in their favor for ill-gotten political or commercial gain; 2. Those who mean well but have yet to come to a full understanding of what it means to follow Christ and behave accordingly. One really is a Christian who just needs a lot of growing up in the faith. The other is an enemy of Christ. People-groups who have committed atrocious offenses in the name of Christ over time have either found different ways of accomplishing their goals or they have been forced to take a long hard look at reality. There are a few pseudo-Christian groups that are obviously false Christians; but by far most people who claim Christ at least TRY to follow His teachings.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 3:00 pm

AngelRho wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
The tenets of Christian faith are defined by the words of Jesus.


AngelRho wrote:
Christ taught that He Himself was the fulfillment of the Law and that through His death, burial, and resurrection "everything is accomplished." That effectively frees the believer from the demands of the Law.


Ok, so Christian faith is defined by the words of Jesus. The Mosaic law does no longer apply. That's great imho, because Jesus taught a lot of nice things.

The Mosaic law (Torah) was "given" by God to the Israelites. Paul wrote that the Gentiles have no excuse, either, since despite Torah not having been given to them, the Law was written on their hearts. Morality is the responsibility of all humanity, not just God's "chosen."


You said that Christian faith is defined by Jesus. Now you're trying to squeeze the Mosaic law back into Christian dogma. It is ironic that you use Paul for that purpose, because many Christians use Paul to justify their repudiation of the old law.

No matter what Paul said, Jesus made it very clear which parts of the law Christians are supposed to follow. He was asked exactly that question in Matthew 19 and answered "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."

He added "sell your possessions and give to the poor", but Christians don't seem very keen on following that law. "Love your neighbor" seems to be a problem for many Christians as well. Anyway, there is nothing in there about homosexuality. And like you previously said yourself, Christians are free from the demands of the Mosaic law.

Quote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
And yet, in another thread (link) you wrote:

AngelRho wrote:
I just happen to believe that homosexuality is immoral and would support societies that hold that it is a criminal activity.


Can you please point to the gospel verse where Jesus says that? Did he ever say something like "don't judge others, except for gays" or "love your neighbor like yourself, unless he's gay?" Let's see some gospel quotes.

What, I can't make up my own mind about things? I'm not allowed to hold my own opinions apart from the Bible? If your attitude is such that you are hateful towards people who have differing opinions from you and you support bullying those people in an open forum such as this one, that makes you a bigot, too. Playing the "bigot" card against someone is something I prefer not to do and avoid doing. If I suspect I am personally being attacked in a discussion, especially with a mod making a point of saying he won't ban me as though I'd done something to be banned for, is it not a smart idea to quietly leave the discussion?


I don't see how my question was hateful or bullying, and I have no idea what happened between you and the moderators. I only asked you to substantiate your opinion about homosexuality with a gospel quote. If that part of your beliefs (which is at odds with the teachings of Jesus) is not based on the Bible, fine. But since you nonetheless made an attempt to justify it with scripture, let's have a look at that:

Quote:
The short answer is Jesus affirmed the sanctity of male-female relationships in Matthew 19. This reflects OT law (He quoted Genesis), which emphasizes the importance of male-female bonds. Jesus emphasized also the importance that we love God with all our being above all else. If Jesus presupposes OT morality, which in turn exposes homosexuality as a pagan worship practice out of sync with proper worship of Yahweh, then Jesus is saying that homosexuality is immoral.


Jesus condemns divorce and adultery in Matthew 19. He doesn't say anything about gays, neither in Matt. 19 nor elsewhere, and modern day homosexuality has nothing to do with pagan worship. As for OT morality, you said that OT laws don't apply to Christians, so that ship has sailed.

Quote:
Furthermore, John 16:12-15 indicates that the Holy Spirit would pick up where Jesus left off. Since the Holy Spirit acts under Jesus' authority, it won't reveal the Father's heart in a way inconsistent with scripture. The writers of the epistles (under direction of the Holy Spirit) corroborate the standard of behavior for Christians to include that homosexuality is improper for Christians.


Only Paul wrote that. Paul also forbade women to teach men, demanded that women cover their hair, and said that people who don't work shall not eat. And yet we have female teachers, Western women rarely ever wear headscarfs (and are not subservient to men, as Paul demanded), and we feed homeless people in soup kitchens. If you condemn homosexuality based on Paul's writings, you should also have a problem with charity and gender equality.

These examples also show that Paul did not speak for Jesus, who reminded his followers to give to the poor and allowed women to speak in his presence.

Quote:
As far as Biblical support for the immorality of homosexuality: Jesus' teachings presuppose OT law and the Biblically prescribed morality of the time. As long as Jesus endorses the law of Moses, and that law has strong words regarding homosexuality, then Jesus is affirming that OT morality holds. Note also that Jesus considers that so much as THINKING about sin with the intention of committing sin is equal to physically committing that sin. All who sin are guilty of sin no matter what--and any sex outside marriage is even considered immoral for HETEROSEXUAL couples. When Jesus spoke about the difficulties of traditional marriage and the role of legalized divorce, one of the disciples figured out that it's better to live a celibate life and never get married in the first place if one intends to keep Christ's teachings. I unwittingly used the logic of Matthew 19:19-20 to break off an engagement to someone I'd known for years, genuinely loved, and had to come to the awful conclusion that she'd ultimately be an impossible woman to live with. If divorce isn't an option, it's better to just not make a promise if you have even the slightest reason to suspect you can't keep that promise. The point here is that immorality is not restricted to homosexuality alone, but also extends to relationships among heterosexuals and even the relationships of married couples.


Now you're pointing at OT law again. It doesn't apply to Christians, remember? Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to eat shellfish or mow your lawn on a Saturday, and you'd have to go around and kill Wiccans and fortune tellers. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
What most people do when they use the Bible to denounce homosexuality is they point to the one-man/one-woman model in the garden of Eden and the initial state of all animals being created male and female. They will point to homosexuality being "unnatural."


According to Genesis 2, the natural state in the garden of Eden was to be naked and not feel any shame. This means that your clothes and your feelings of shame when you're not wearing them are just as unnatural as homosexuality. Talking snakes, on the other hand, are completely natural according to your argument. I don't know about you, but I haven't met any talking snakes lately.

Quote:
However, the first and most important point of the Bible is in guiding humankind towards the right relationship with God. "Natural" relationships among humans and other creatures is a secondary point since that falls under "love your neighbor" commandments. In the OT, homosexuality was a public practice associated with pagan worship. As such, it represented a break from the Greatest Commandment to love God above all else. In a theocracy devoted to Yahweh worship, associated acts of pagan worship could not be tolerated as it would have been equivalent to treason. Because of that association and its continued practice in other cultures, there's no way you can "make" homosexuality acceptable if you hold to any Biblical standard.


There you go again with the OT and pagan worship. Both of that has no relevance for modern day Christians. And gays are not a pagan cult.

The rest of your post is just more of the same. You are desperately trying to somehow reattach OT law to the Christian faith. That's exactly what I expected, because there is nothing about homosexuality in the gospels. Jesus taught his followers to love everyone. He reminded them not to judge others and leave the judgement to god. I think you should listen to him rather than to Paul and the authors of Leviticus.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 3:07 pm

TM wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
I agree with that, and yet I'll happily accept when people tell me that they only follow Jesus' teachings and not the Mosaic law. That means they won't go around and judge their fellow citizens.

Instead, they will support charity, oppose war-mongering and hate speech, and try their best to love their neighbors and even their enemies. They would never pull out Leviticus and start bashing gays. Or would they?


They only hold that position in a discussion or debate, once they are done debating Mosaic law is back in business and Christians are all to happy to take care of it.


You called it :D



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

08 Feb 2012, 3:14 pm

AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
doesn't matter if the bible advocates it -

Yes it does. The tenets of Christian faith are defined by the words of Jesus.

you conveniently skipped half of what i wrote. i was basically saying that the bible or any other book can say _X_, but if its members do _Y_ in the name of the religion then it makes no sense to say that the religion is only composed of _X_. the religion must also be composed of _Y_.

if a teacher uses corporal punishment as part of their practices (even though it is NOT specifically advocated by their original university education or by their school guide to best practices), it cannot be argued that the teacher was not acting as a teacher when he used the strap in classroom (for example). same as for christianity.

It's not mere convenience. I don't care what someone calls himself. If there is a clear definition of what a Christian IS, then that is what a Christian is. Comparison with a teacher is not really justified here.

I suppose another way of looking at it with your teacher analogy is if being a teacher hinges on compliance with acceptable discipline methods in the classroom, corporal punishment is clearly understood as being against policy, and a teachers carries out corporal punishment, then as far as that school system is concerned that teacher (behaving unprofessionally) is not a teacher and has no business being in the classroom. IF that is what a teacher is, of course. You might argue that it's a "no true Scotsman fallacy," but that only really applies if there is no clear-cut definition of what a "Scotsman" is. Self-professing Christians that carry out non-Biblical behaviors and call it Christ fall into one of two categories: 1. Those who have no intention of knowing Jesus and will say anything to sway others in their favor for ill-gotten political or commercial gain; 2. Those who mean well but have yet to come to a full understanding of what it means to follow Christ and behave accordingly. One really is a Christian who just needs a lot of growing up in the faith. The other is an enemy of Christ. People-groups who have committed atrocious offenses in the name of Christ over time have either found different ways of accomplishing their goals or they have been forced to take a long hard look at reality. There are a few pseudo-Christian groups that are obviously false Christians; but by far most people who claim Christ at least TRY to follow His teachings.

you've tried to slip out sideways, but it won't work. teachers don't become non-teachers just because they break policy, just like christians didn't become non-christians just because they forced conversion on pagans. really, if that were the case then every time someone violated the bible's teachings they would not be considered christian anymore.... and clearly that is not the case.

further, if an action is sanctioned and supported by a christian church, it cannot really be argued to be non-christian.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

08 Feb 2012, 3:15 pm

and thats before we talk of all the different interpretations of any one particular faith there is,


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,282
Location: Stendec

08 Feb 2012, 3:25 pm

Oodain wrote:
and thats before we talk of all the different interpretations of any one particular faith there is,

That's where Religion and Theology come in.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,273
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

08 Feb 2012, 3:31 pm

@CrazyCatLord: I'm not going to pursue the issue of homosexuality in this thread as it seems to me an attempt to change the subject and bait me into saying something the mods might find ban-worthy. Attack my beliefs and opinions, fine. I find it highly disturbing that puddingmouse would even bring up the idea of banning someone for merely expressing thoughts that happen to be unpopular with several people on this site. That makes it PERSONAL, and I'm appalled that a mod on WP would behave that way. I've NEVER had any reason to post anything negative about a mod. I was under the impression that we could openly discuss religion and personal beliefs or ideas here. Apparently expressing that particular view is tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you wish to continue mistakenly believing that homosexuality and Biblical Christianity are somehow compatible, then that is your choice. For the sake of civility, I'm choosing not to discuss it.

I'll be happy to look at evidence as to why I should give up my faith in favor of no faith or another faith as per comments you and abacacus have made.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

08 Feb 2012, 3:32 pm

AngelRho wrote:
abacacus wrote:
And this is why theistic arguments fail to convince people.


You are making assumptions, many of them illogical, and attempting to have them passed off as canon, irrefutable reality.

Can you find a biblical quote stating that through the human sacrifice of Jesus (Yahweh loves human sacrifice after all!) accomplished everything your pet psychopath wanted to do? As well as a quote stating that such barbaric laws didn't apply to anyone else, both then and now?

OK, but that's only your opinion. The bit about "barbaric laws" is as well. OT laws were much more fair and certainly less barbaric than the Israelites' neighbors. Even if they really were barbaric, which I doubt, that doesn't take into account the historical time period in which they were written. I fail to see the logic of blaming a culture for living in a certain time period.


"Just my opinion"?

No. No it is not just my opinion.

Stoning people to death is barbaric. Human sacrifice is barbaric. Burning people alive is barbaric. Destroying entire towns because a few people in it don't agree with you is barbaric. Slaughtering prisoners of war after the war is over is barbaric.

All of these are supported by Yahweh. If Yahweh exists, he is psychopathic and narcissistic in the extreme.

I'm waiting on those bible quotes explicitly telling Christians to ignore Old Testament laws... either provide evidence or admit to being wrong. There is no middle ground. You are either correct or incorrect and from what I can see you are incorrect.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

08 Feb 2012, 3:49 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
TM wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
I agree with that, and yet I'll happily accept when people tell me that they only follow Jesus' teachings and not the Mosaic law. That means they won't go around and judge their fellow citizens.

Instead, they will support charity, oppose war-mongering and hate speech, and try their best to love their neighbors and even their enemies. They would never pull out Leviticus and start bashing gays. Or would they?


They only hold that position in a discussion or debate, once they are done debating Mosaic law is back in business and Christians are all to happy to take care of it.


You called it :D


I have an evangelical relative, it's not the first time I've seen this line of argumentation. It's kind of how the EDL (English Defence League) is not really racist, they just hate people who aren't white because they aren't white.

I think the reason for this is that those of us who hold and defend the "anti-Christianity" position often focus on the Old Testament in our arguments. Holding a "Pauline-position" neutralizes many of our examples and possibly our arguments. The manner in which one refutes the Pauline-position is not as well known amongst debaters, nor is the immorality of Jesus Christ. Jesus was after all the first to threaten with eternal torture in hell, he preached a moral code where threats are fine to keep people in line, that stealing someone's donkey is fine as long as your reason is "the lord needs it", "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14 25-27).

Anyway before going off on more of a rant, I would like to say thanks for your before this one, I found this part especially entertaining "According to Genesis 2, the natural state in the garden of Eden was to be naked and not feel any shame. This means that your clothes and your feelings of shame when you're not wearing them are just as unnatural as homosexuality. Talking snakes, on the other hand, are completely natural according to your argument. I don't know about you, but I haven't met any talking snakes lately."



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

08 Feb 2012, 3:49 pm

AngelRho wrote:
@CrazyCatLord: I'm not going to pursue the issue of homosexuality in this thread as it seems to me an attempt to change the subject and bait me into saying something the mods might find ban-worthy. Attack my beliefs and opinions, fine. I find it highly disturbing that puddingmouse would even bring up the idea of banning someone for merely expressing thoughts that happen to be unpopular with several people on this site. That makes it PERSONAL, and I'm appalled that a mod on WP would behave that way. I've NEVER had any reason to post anything negative about a mod. I was under the impression that we could openly discuss religion and personal beliefs or ideas here. Apparently expressing that particular view is tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If you wish to continue mistakenly believing that homosexuality and Biblical Christianity are somehow compatible, then that is your choice. For the sake of civility, I'm choosing not to discuss it.

I'll be happy to look at evidence as to why I should give up my faith in favor of no faith or another faith as per comments you and abacacus have made.


In my opinion, it is very relevant to this topic. But I understand that you don't want to debate this issue if you have already been warned by a moderator. I can see why that happened, but I wasn't aware of it and I didn't report you. Anyway, I understand that it's better to drop this point, and I won't bring it up again unless you do.