NationStates Jolt Archive

No its not. The Bible is God's word. Some parts of it do not affect us today, some do, depending upon which parts God said do.
How do you know the commandments are Gods word. Were you up the mountain when he collected them. Please everyone stop saying they are Gods word until you have physical proof. How do we know the words on those tablets of stone weren't just Moses own words. Maybe the words he were just to keep the people travelling with him in line.
As to Gay marriages what a disgusting thought. The whole point of human life on this planet is to sustain human life. A woman cannot get another woman pregnant by using a piece of plastic or rubber on her. Nor can a man get another man pregnant by buggering him. Only a man having sex with a woman can life on this planet be sustained. Unless of course lesbians have an operation.

Can God hold opinions?

And no, in the OT, it is made very clear that women are dirtier and less important than men - in all cases, not on a case by case basis.

Please show me these scriptures in full context.

I meant dont say "Homosexual love is as good as hetrosexual love" because it is impossible to quantify. We dont know.

Those of us who know homosexuals do. Those who have felt said love do. The fact that you want to believe yourself somehow better and more capable of love than other people doesn't make it so.

"*less* credible to me than my own interpretation" if thats not arrogence I dont know what is.

My interpretation is based on careful study and prayer. I have no idea what someone else's interpretation is. Thus, unless God tells me differently, I'm going to go with what I get through study and prayer.

I dont know all the reasons for all the Mosaic laws, but this I do know, very few of them survive the comming of Jesus.

And when some of those laws make statements that are completely reversed by Jesus, we know that one of the two has to be wrong.

I do not believe it is a sin, nor do I believe people in this world today have a right to declare you are going to "hell" over your personal choice. If you read through the bible it also states no sin is bigger than another. So, if you have someone who steals, or has premarital sex then by the religious standard they would be right along side the homosexuals in todays definition of "hell". And, it also says one should not judge upon others... that is judging believe it or not.

By any other just racist standard I still think it is wrong to discriminate against homo/bisexuals. It is a person choice and it should stay at that. You do not see the gay orgin going around rallying against hetrosexuals. Why? Because they understand everyone has the freedom/right as a human to live the way they choose.

And, with the troubles in socity today you are only ignorant to be blindsided by something so minor. If you would pay attention to what things of more importance are going on around you then, you might see it is so important who is sex.

And, if this can all be concluded from the mind of a 15 yr. old (me) then it says alot for society today. No it isn't the fact "the youth is getting worse" but, more the fact we care and are becoming more open-minded and understanding to what the word "freedom" should actually stand for.

Please show me these scriptures in full context.

My Bible is currently at home, but most of them come from OT laws.

-For instance, a woman is considered unclean for 4 weeks after having a female child, but only for 2 weeks after having a male child.

-A Hebrew woman can be sold into slavery for life (unless her owner chooses to marry her) but a Hebrew man must be given the chance to go free after seven years.

-Man is allowed into certain parts of the temple, while woman is not.

-A woman can be forced to marry her rapist.

-A woman must *prove* she is a virgin (even though this is impossible) by bleeding on her marriage bed (even though not all virgins bleed). If she does not, she can be stoned. A male need offer no such proof.

There are others, but these are pretty clear all on their own.

You do have to remember that the Bible was written by a guy who took it upon himself to do so 30 years after Jesus' death. Even if you are a fundamental christian, you cannot deny that the Bible could be wrong or open to personal bias in some places.
If you then put on top the fact that the English version you are likely to be reading is a translation of a translation of a translation.

Maybe it is best that it is not always taken literally?

This statement is completely incompatible with the belief that the entire Bible is the word of God.

Your statement does not prove that nor does it support that it is not true.


It's obvious that your heart and mind is hardened for whatever reason. You have been shown the light, in fact you seem to know the Bible well. I pray that you will turn away from the darkness and to the light so that you may be spared from the wrath of God.

Please cosider this with an open mind and heart. We all deserve to suffer, but none have to.

I am indeed VERY wary of many of the old testament laws - WTF on the bleeding one? That's just wrong! I say that as a fervent Christian! It is quite obvious that lots of them were not written under God's true guidance, as Jesus refutes a lot - BUT he doesn't refute the one of homosexual acts!

I do not believe it is a sin, nor do I believe people in this world today have a right to declare you are going to "hell" over your personal choice. If you read through the bible it also states no sin is bigger than another. So, if you have someone who steals, or has premarital sex then by the religious standard they would be right along side the homosexuals in todays definition of "hell". And, it also says one should not judge upon others... that is judging believe it or not.

By any other just racist standard I still think it is wrong to discriminate against homo/bisexuals. It is a person choice and it should stay at that. You do not see the gay orgin going around rallying against hetrosexuals. Why? Because they understand everyone has the freedom/right as a human to live the way they choose.

And, with the troubles in socity today you are only ignorant to be blindsided by something so minor. If you would pay attention to what things of more importance are going on around you then, you might see it is so important who is sex.

And, if this can all be concluded from the mind of a 15 yr. old (me) then it says alot for society today. No it isn't the fact "the youth is getting worse" but, more the fact we care and are becoming more open-minded and understanding to what the word "freedom" should actually stand for.

If you had read the Bible, you would enderstand that it is not the sin the sends people to hell. We are born into sin and bound for hell, it is the saving grace of Christ on the cross and the repentance of sin that saves within the will of God.

If you had read the Bible, you would enderstand that it is not the sin the sends people to hell. We are born into sin and bound for hell, it is the saving grace of Christ on the cross and the repentance of sin that saves within the will of God.

But God would make special exceptions for unbaptised babies because he is benevolent. :)

Your statement does not prove that nor does it support that it is not true.

This is simple logic. Either women are inferior (as evidenced by the Old Testament) or they are not (as evidenced by most of the New Testament). Being a Christian, I am going to follow the teachings of Christ. If the teachings of Christ directly contradict something from the Old Testament, and Christ is God, then the only plausible explanation is that those laws did not come from God in the first place.

It's obvious that your heart and mind is hardened for whatever reason. You have been shown the light, in fact you seem to know the Bible well. I pray that you will turn away from the darkness and to the light so that you may be spared from the wrath of God.

I'm not the one in the dark here. God works in my life every day and I feel that happening. And, instead of relying solely on things written down and later translated and retranslated by fallible men, I study the Scriptures in light of what the Holy Spirit tells me and the teachings of Christ.

Please cosider this with an open mind and heart. We all deserve to suffer, but none have to.

Infants don't deserve to suffer, and neither do young children. However, those of us who have reached the point where we can make decisions for ourselves have all done things that are wrong, and thus deserve to suffer. Through Christ, we don't have to. But following Christ does not mean following every word of the Bible to the letter. In fact, following Christ means that there are many words in the Bible you *cannot* follow.

All I am pointing out is the absolute fallacy of stating that an all-good God can condone evil acts. Christ did not condone evil acts - and Christ was God. Where Christ's word contradicts Scripture, I am going to follow Christ's word. That is all.

But God would make special exceptions for unbaptised babies because he is benevolent. :)

Unless those babies are Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, etc.

How do you know the commandments are Gods word. Were you up the mountain when he collected them. Please everyone stop saying they are Gods word until you have physical proof. How do we know the words on those tablets of stone weren't just Moses own words.

Asking for physical proof of faith is like asking for metaphysical proof of science. And I have provided proof of which laws stand and which do not. See previous URL's I have posted.

Asking for physical proof of faith is like asking for metaphysical proof of science. And I have provided proof of which laws stand and which do not. See previous URL's I have posted.
How are you going to prove to me that God exists then if i don't already believe. Try and prove it any way you choose.

[QUOTE=Northern Gimpland]Why is homosexuality a sin?

Because the bible clearly states that homosexuality is an abomination!

Though this has no relevence to anything, all I can think about when enraged gay marriage protesters say that is Lilo and Stich. When Lilo says "well I usually give pudge the fish a peanut butter sandwich every tuesday, but this morning we were out of peanut butter. And when I asked my sister what I should give him instead she said tuna. Do you know what tuna is? IT'S FISH! I can't feed pudge fish, I'd be an abominmation!"

In any case, I love all... everybody is beautiful in different ways.

And this has been nice to read, now I feel informed.

Thank you, good citezens. <3

This is simple logic. Either women are inferior (as evidenced by the Old Testament) or they are not (as evidenced by most of the New Testament). Being a Christian, I am going to follow the teachings of Christ. If the teachings of Christ directly contradict something from the Old Testament, and Christ is God, then the only plausible explanation is that those laws did not come from God in the first place.


That is not the only conclusion. There are plenty of others to come to. The laws could be continued punishment for Eve's behaviour for example. Though I do agree with you. If Christ says one thing and the scriptures say something else then Christ is the one to listen to. BUT Christ said nothing on Homosexuality and the scriptures do.


I'm not the one in the dark here. God works in my life every day and I feel that happening. And, instead of relying solely on things written down and later translated and retranslated by fallible men, I study the Scriptures in light of what the Holy Spirit tells me and the teachings of Christ.


The Old testement should not be completely ignored. Else, why is it here.



Infants don't deserve to suffer, and neither do young children. However, those of us who have reached the point where we can make decisions for ourselves have all done things that are wrong, and thus deserve to suffer. Through Christ, we don't have to. But following Christ does not mean following every word of the Bible to the letter. In fact, following Christ means that there are many words in the Bible you *cannot* follow.

All I am pointing out is the absolute fallacy of stating that an all-good God can condone evil acts. Christ did not condone evil acts - and Christ was God. Where Christ's word contradicts Scripture, I am going to follow Christ's word. That is all.

God may have seemed to do evil things in the scripture, but he did them because there was no other choice or because the other choices would have resulted out worse for humans in general

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Are two websites that help and here

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/topix.html

Is a website dedicated to answering questions Christians are often bombarded with, I would take a look its very helpful

How are you going to prove to me that God exists then if i don't already believe. Try and prove it any way you choose.

Well lets see

1) Without God what is the world but an accident

The statistical probability of life forming by abogenisis (random cell creation) is comparable to a tornado flying through a scrapheep and the falling parts assembling a Harrier jump jet. It's near impossible. But if the random creation of a cell is the case, then what is so great about life? Why is it held in such high regard? Shouldnt we be like the animals solely living for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time. Why is life so special if it is just a random chance?

2) All three of the worlds major religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaisim) came from the same place

This is if not proof of some sort of God, then at least very interesting. The three most powerful and significent faiths in the world have all got their origins in the same spot and all point to one man as somehow connected with their origins, Abrabham.

3) The greatest act of love ever

Jesus's death is the greatest act of love shown to the human race. God was prepared to send his son to die for the sins of all humans throught all time. If you wish to ignore the grandur and shear amazingness of this its your decision but if you want to know more about why I feel this way, please ask.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/lproof.html

Again a web page to help

first of all: being queer, whether in your gender or your sexuality, is considered sinful and frightening and wrong, because so many institutions of power are built on it. sexism, male chauvenism and patriarchy rely on men, who stay men throughout their lives, who fuck women. any deviation from that threatens those who have historically held power, and so it's unacceptable.

Wow...I just fel obligated to reply, because the above statement is utter rubbish - a lot of powerful rulers have been gay, (and a lot of Romans, to catch up with some of the crowd here ;)

I think the main reason Christianity is accused of the "sin" issue is because it´s unique with it´s definition of sin and hereditary sin. A lot of other religions object to homosexualty (we have a lot of refugees in Sweden from Iran, an Islamic country, where they are being victimized for their sexual preference.

Hopefully, some day, people all over will grow up and stop bitching about their sexual preference, be it women, trees, squirrels or men or whatever and do whatever they like with whoever likes it back and shutting the hell up about the others around them. This shouldn´t be an issue.

first of all: being queer, whether in your gender or your sexuality, is considered sinful and frightening and wrong, because so many institutions of power are built on it. sexism, male chauvenism and patriarchy rely on men, who stay men throughout their lives, who fuck women. any deviation from that threatens those who have historically held power, and so it's unacceptable.

Damn it Bandanna. Tell it like it is sister (I assume you're female although you could just be a very enlightened guy).

You wouldn't happening to be studying sociology would you?

Care to prove this (Note hear, the burden of proof is on YOU since it is YOU who is making this claim)

In 1992, Simon LeVay did a study to prove that INAH3, a cluster of cells in the hypothalamus of the brain, would be larger in heterosexual males than in homosexual males or heterosexual females. I'm too lazy to type all the facts, but his results concluded that there was a correlation between the size of INAH3 and sexual orientation.

This isn't the best site, but it will do:
Click Here (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html)

Well lets see

1) Without God what is the world but an accident

The statistical probability of life forming by abogenisis (random cell creation) is comparable to a tornado flying through a scrapheep and the falling parts assembling a Harrier jump jet. It's near impossible. But if the random creation of a cell is the case, then what is so great about life? Why is it held in such high regard? Shouldnt we be like the animals solely living for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time. Why is life so special if it is just a random chance?


I've addressed this before, in this forum I am pretty sure. Low odds do not mean something cannot happen. Further, odds can only be used to predict something int he future, they cannot be used to analyzed things in the past, because by definition the odds of something that have already happened is 1 (its already happened and decided). As for why "random creation" as you call it is so special? Because all life is special by the virtue of being life. This means that we are really no better than an microbe and I'm sorry if this offends you. Of course, since I value even those microbes, its not lowering my opinion of humans any.


2) All three of the worlds major religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaisim) came from the same place

This is if not proof of some sort of God, then at least very interesting. The three most powerful and significent faiths in the world have all got their origins in the same spot and all point to one man as somehow connected with their origins, Abrabham.


And Christianity probably got its origins from a combination of Judaism and Mithrasism. Just because they became the most powerful religion does not mean they are inherantly right. It just means that the right people picked them up at the right time and spread them.


3) The greatest act of love ever

Jesus's death is the greatest act of love shown to the human race. God was prepared to send his son to die for the sins of all humans throught all time. If you wish to ignore the grandur and shear amazingness of this its your decision but if you want to know more about why I feel this way, please ask.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/lproof.html

Again a web page to help

So kind and loving. An all powerful God who didn't have to create sin to begin with and could change it at any time sends his son to suffer and die. Not particularly all that loving in my opinion. "I'm sorry son, I could've fixed the brakes in your car but I'm not going to because I think it will show my love if you die."

Neo cannen wrote.

Well lets see

1) Without God what is the world but an accident

The statistical probability of life forming by abogenisis (random cell creation) is comparable to a tornado flying through a scrapheep and the falling parts assembling a Harrier jump jet. It's near impossible. But if the random creation of a cell is the case, then what is so great about life? Why is it held in such high regard? Shouldnt we be like the animals solely living for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time. Why is life so special if it is just a random chance?

Statistics are notoriously unreliable.
Life evolved when certain elements came together and formed an organism, the way the organisms came together is certainly fantastic but considering the little we actually know about space, the universe and the way things work how can you possibly dismiss evolution so offhandedly?
Evolution isn't a wild guess, it's an on going thing and never static (unlike the "God made man" theory)
Life is great because it's unique, every single one of us is unique in our own way.
It is held in such high regard because we are (supposedly) intelligent enough to realise that we only get one chance at it, screw your life up and that's it! no second chance.

I can't think of any animal (wild animal, not domesticated cats or dogs) who live "solely for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time", many animals struggle from day to day just searching for food to survive, many animals have become extinct because a more intelligent(?) animal has destroyed their habitat.
Life was just a random chance at the moment of it's conception, since we have evolved into the beings we are now we have a duty to ourselves and our fellow human beings to act with dignity, compassion and love for each other (In an ideal world), unfortunately, mainly due to religion-fuelled bigotry and intolerance of different thinkers we have lost the chance to evolve into sociallly aware and compassionate creatures.

2) All three of the worlds major religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaisim) came from the same place

This is if not proof of some sort of God, then at least very interesting. The three most powerful and significent faiths in the world have all got their origins in the same spot and all point to one man as somehow connected with their origins, Abrabham.

Sure it's interesting, but many religions through the ages have come from elsewhere, the fact that three of them started in close proximity to each other is hardly startling, they are basically three branches of the same basic religion, they have just gone in different tangents and developed differently.




3) The greatest act of love ever

Jesus's death is the greatest act of love shown to the human race. God was prepared to send his son to die for the sins of all humans throught all time. If you wish to ignore the grandur and shear amazingness of this its your decision but if you want to know more about why I feel this way, please ask.

This is still only relevant if in fact you are a believer, I am not, I am an athiest so it's not a matter of me ignoring the "Grandeur and sheer amazingness" of some guy getting nailed to a cross, the story of Jesus is just that to me, a story, nothing more nothing less.
The greatest act of love ever would be *all* of mankind loving each other despite the many differences we may have.

In 1992, Simon LeVay did a study to prove that INAH3, a cluster of cells in the hypothalamus of the brain, would be larger in heterosexual males than in homosexual males or heterosexual females. I'm too lazy to type all the facts, but his results concluded that there was a correlation between the size of INAH3 and sexual orientation.

This isn't the best site, but it will do:
Click Here (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html)

Thank you, someone willing to research proof for their claim. I dont doubt that in some cases there is a genetic predispostion to sin for certain people, however this does not excuse them from sinning. God never puts us in a situation where it is beyond our means to not sin.

That is not the only conclusion. There are plenty of others to come to. The laws could be continued punishment for Eve's behaviour for example.

That only makes sense if you (a) believe in the Augustinian theology of original sin and (b) go against that theology, which states that said sin is passed on through the *male* seed.

Though I do agree with you. If Christ says one thing and the scriptures say something else then Christ is the one to listen to. BUT Christ said nothing on Homosexuality and the scriptures do.

You miss the point. If the Scriptures contradict Christ, they are wrong. If even one scripture is wrong, we know that they are not the literal word of God. Thus, we must interpret them all with a grain of salt and lots of prayer, *NOT* take them as absolute.

The Old testement should not be completely ignored. Else, why is it here.

I never said it should.

God may have seemed to do evil things in the scripture, but he did them because there was no other choice or because the other choices would have resulted out worse for humans in general

Wow, you underestimate God seriously here. An all-good god cannot condone evil and still be all-good. This is a fact. It doesn't matter what the *reason* for the evil is. If I reason that a man will lie to his wife, causing her to commit suicide in the near future, does that mean I can murder him now to prevent it? Of course not. Evil is evil.

And God has whatever choice God wants. Therefore, your "there were no other choices" limits God so that God ceases to be all-powerful. I doubt you really want to claim that.

Thank you, someone willing to research proof for their claim. I dont doubt that in some cases there is a genetic predispostion to sin for certain people, however this does not excuse them from sinning. God never puts us in a situation where it is beyond our means to not sin.

So you'll only acknowledge links that you think you can get around, eh?

What about the links provided to you demonstrating that sexuality is pretty much set well before you reach puberty? You couldn't argue your way around them and keep on refusing to question your faith (proving it weak faith indeed), so you just ignored them instead?

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.htmlOk, so the inhabitants of the land were given plenty of time to leave. But the ones who didn't were shown no mercy.

Romans 3: 23

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of GodYes, yes, all have sinned. But that isn't what I asked. I asked if everyone was "really that bad; that sinful, that it takes extreme mercy merely to let them live?". I can guess what Paul thinks, but what do you think?

Ah but in the UK there are more divorces per thousand than in the US. (Note this is from a sociology textbook. I can show you the book but at present I cant find the statics online)Thousand what? People? Marriages? Marriage ceremonies? It makes a big difference. I found some more statistics:
http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html
However, note that marriage rates vary significantly from country to country, and although this chart doesn't show it, divorce rates are suprisingly volatile. I've been completely unable to find what is probably the most relevant figure: divorces per 1000 married couples. (From the figures I'm sure "marriages" refers to ceremonies rather than couples).
To be honest, when looking closer at the figures, I can't see any clear relation between religion and divorce (or marriage for that matter), except that the divorce rate is much lower in Catholic countries (not that that says anything about the health of their families).

and we are the least reliogous country in Europe and have the highest divorce rateWhat do you mean by religious? The Czech republic is 40% atheist.

Originally all critters ate grass, they didn't eat each other.Uh, quite a few critters are not at all adapted to eat grass. My dog eats grass, but that's only to scour out (nonexistant) parisites; I doubt she gains any nutrition from it! Guess it's good for them that the fall occured as soon as it did.

Isn't it scary how the side arguing AGAINST the biblical interpretations that sponsor hate, know the scripture so much more thoroughly than the side that espouses persecution or inequality?Yeah. Even more scary is that they listen to Paul. Yeah he was one of the prime movers in bringing Christianity to the Gentiles, but the guy was frothing at the brain.

Romans Chapter 1
God's Wrath on Unrighteousness
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ... 32who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.Heh, this happens to be the very passage I was thinking of when I spoke of Paul frothing at the brain. Really, who fits this long list of slurs? Heck, even the Nazis were not all that.

I could explain myself if you wish but I do not wish do drag us off topic any furtherHowabout defining "link directly" and "sociological link". Problem with those words is that they can be used to mean either correlation or causation. The first is probably easy to prove, the second is not.

An omniscient being cannot change its mind.Oh? I'd say rather that an omniscient being cannot be wrong.

With no direct removal of sins the only thing to do was to impose strict laws on intermarriage to stop the sinful ideas of the other cultures comming in.Whatabout scapegoats to remove sins? (Leviticus 16:20-22).

If religion doesn't apply to you, then think scientifically.What people are meant to do is outside the purview of science.

How is it a sin to menstruate?It isn't, it's unclean. Eating something unclean is forbidden, but near as I can tell being unclean isn't. You do have a point when it comes to bleeding on the wedding night though.

Isn't the statement 'Women are inferior' an opinion rather than something true? Doesn't it depend on the person whether or not this is true?Hmm, an interesting question. It's an opinion certainly, but is "inferiority" a property of a being? I'd say yes. And I'd say women are not inferior. As a practical matter though, I may not have enough common ground with someone else to sensibly argue the matter.

I meant dont say "Homosexual love is as good as hetrosexual love" because it is impossible to quantify. We dont know.Don't say you are in love, because it is impossible to verify that what you experience is love.

Gays look like they experience the same thing straights do, and that's good enough for me.

Asking for physical proof of faith is like asking for metaphysical proof of science.Curious that. That physical proof is lacking.

And I have provided proof of which laws stand and which do not. See previous URL's I have posted.Problem is, by your method the misogynistic laws of the OT should stand.

An omniscient being cannot change its mind.
Oh? I'd say rather that an omniscient being cannot be wrong.

Same thing. Changing your mind on something is admitting that you were wrong the first time.

Well lets see

1) Without God what is the world but an accident

The statistical probability of life forming by abogenisis (random cell creation) is comparable to a tornado flying through a scrapheep and the falling parts assembling a Harrier jump jet. It's near impossible. But if the random creation of a cell is the case, then what is so great about life? Why is it held in such high regard? Shouldnt we be like the animals solely living for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time. Why is life so special if it is just a random chance?

2) All three of the worlds major religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaisim) came from the same place

This is if not proof of some sort of God, then at least very interesting. The three most powerful and significent faiths in the world have all got their origins in the same spot and all point to one man as somehow connected with their origins, Abrabham.

3) The greatest act of love ever

Jesus's death is the greatest act of love shown to the human race. God was prepared to send his son to die for the sins of all humans throught all time. If you wish to ignore the grandur and shear amazingness of this its your decision but if you want to know more about why I feel this way, please ask.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/lproof.html

Again a web page to help
1) Yes the world is an accident. A load of molecules floating around in space bumping into each other. And yes we are like animals but with a much more developed brain. Isn't that what we developed from.
2) What about Aborigini, Maori and Native American religions. Do they have their origins in the same place. I think you might find that their religions started long before any of the ones you have stated.
3) Jesus died on the cross because he was caught preaching against the then religion that was being used in that country.

I do believe in a God of some type but it is not the same as any religion can give me. I would rather believe in the spirits of the planet we are apart of.

I've addressed this before, in this forum I am pretty sure. Low odds do not mean something cannot happen. Further, odds can only be used to predict something int he future, they cannot be used to analyzed things in the past, because by definition the odds of something that have already happened is 1 (its already happened and decided). As for why "random creation" as you call it is so special? Because all life is special by the virtue of being life. This means that we are really no better than an microbe and I'm sorry if this offends you. Of course, since I value even those microbes, its not lowering my opinion of humans any.


1) Statics can be used in this case because no one was there to observe it and prove that it happened. Just saying "You cant use probability to observe something that has allready happened is stupid. If I were to close my eyes and toss a coin and it landed, the odds of me knowing wether it was heads or tails would still be 1/2. And that analgoy holds up because as far as evolution goes, we are blindfolded as we were not there when it happened. Remember, evolution is a theory NOT scientific fact.


So kind and loving. An all powerful God who didn't have to create sin to begin with and could change it at any time sends his son to suffer and die. Not particularly all that loving in my opinion. "I'm sorry son, I could've fixed the brakes in your car but I'm not going to because I think it will show my love if you die."

2) God did not 'create' sin. We did. We (Humans) are the ones who disobeyed God and that is sin. Ergo we are the creators of sin.

3) Maybe God "Could" have removed sin from us at any time. But if he did, what kind of father would he be. Every time we did something wrong, he tells us "Its ok" and ignores it. That would mean the entire world was full of sining people and nothing being done about it.

4) Why did Jesus have to come and die. A number of reasons

A) God had to know what Earth was like if he was to judge us (not the most important reason but still significent). He had to come and die to know what it was like to come and die. In hevan God leads a fairly sheltered life yes? But when he came to Earth he experainced all the hardships of the worst off.

B) God had to do something more perminant about the problem of sin. In reality the old covenant he had made with the Israelites was not enough. The problem of sin needed a new solution and God had promised it from day one. We were all going to spiritual a death unless God did something.

C) God had to show people how to lead the sinless life. He needed an envoy to explain to the human race what he had intended. The old covenenat did not satisfy this task.

http://www.auburn.edu/student_info/search_truth/basics/testaments2.htm

To explain old and new covenenats

Same thing. Changing your mind on something is admitting that you were wrong the first time.

Not nessecarly. Previously there could have been a circumstance that made you right on a ceriatin issue but when that circumstance has changed/gone away you change your position. An omnipotent being could do that.

Neo cannen wrote;

Remember, evolution is a theory NOT scientific fact.

And is God a "fact", has it been proven beyond all doubt that such a thing exists?

I think not.

Any takers for arguing this non-religiously...

Any at alll....?

It's getting awfully lonely down here in atheist land.

1) Statics can be used in this case because no one was there to observe it and prove that it happened. Just saying "You cant use probability to observe something that has allready happened is stupid. If I were to close my eyes and toss a coin and it landed, the odds of me knowing wether it was heads or tails would still be 1/2. And that analgoy holds up because as far as evolution goes, we are blindfolded as we were not there when it happened. Remember, evolution is a theory NOT scientific fact.

I think you mean statistics. However, your analogy is much too simple. Evolution vs. Creationism is not a 50-50 matter of flipping a coin. One has a vast amount of evidence to back it up, the other is (a) simply not science and (b) reliant on a single creation story in a book with two of them.

A better analogy would be if the coin was weighted so that it would usually land on heads. Then, if you said it was heads, your chances of being right would be much greater than 1/2.

4) Why did Jesus have to come and die. A number of reasons

A) God had to know what Earth was like if he was to judge us (not the most important reason but still significent). He had to come and die to know what it was like to come and die. In hevan God leads a fairly sheltered life yes? But when he came to Earth he experainced all the hardships of the worst off.

This reason makes no sense. An omniscient God would already know what it was like to be on Earth.

Any takers for arguing this non-religiously...

Any at alll....?

It's getting awfully lonely down here in atheist land.

Your not alone! but I think any chance of getting any of the god botherers here to stop quoting various biblical editions as if they were hard fact is pretty remote!

Not nessecarly. Previously there could have been a circumstance that made you right on a ceriatin issue but when that circumstance has changed/gone away you change your position. An omnipotent being could do that.

There are no "new circumstances" to an omnipotent, omniscient being.

It's a sin because a bunch of bible-thumping religious fundamentalist whack jobs have decided that they must preach to you the difference between right and wrong because you're an immoral asshole and they are the pious, perfect saint and messenger of God. :rolleyes:

So true. The whole point of the Bible was to see God fullfil his promises to the world. The bible also demonstrates how God always wanted to have a relationship with man forever. In the Bible we see how the knowledge of good and evil starts to get in the way of our relationship with God.

If you haven't read the bible, start with the New Testament. We are meant to walk in the footsteps of Jesus- thus we need to 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength' and 'Love thy neighbour and treat them the way we'd like to be treated'. If God loves everyone equally, so should Christians. Christians are above the *Law. Law was given to man so that Man wouldn't destroy itself. The Bible is full of Law and that's what makes the Bible attractive to Christians who love power.

They don't put Love first- they put their 'Knowledge of Good and Evil' first. You can see that when they try to tell the world to act on the 'Knowledge of Good', how they shatter the world. This is what the Pharisees were and this is what Jesus was against.

How we solve today's Christian 'We are right, you are wrong' attitude- I don't know. God does say that they do have no entry to heaven.

I see homosexuality as wrong, personally. But I aint going to tell anyone its wrong. It aint a sin unless that persons heart knows its wrong. Christians shouldn't be saying 'jump, don't do that- do this'. Instead they should be going out to the world and helping individuals with their problems. If their were Homosexuals out their who just want to convert many people to be gay as possible- than thats different. They have a negative motive and they know it. These should be the ones, Christians should be helping and keeping an eye on. But still there's a difference between saying 'don't do that, you're wrong' to saying 'can I help you with your problems'.

* Christians should be alove the Law in any country. Before you blast me for saying this- Jesus wanted his followers always to push themselves to their own capabilities in bringing the world love, joy, hope and honesty. Of course they'd sin but Jesus told them to serve the world- not dictate it. Things have changed.

i understand how u feel. however i may not totally feel the way you do because i am not gay. It is simply a question of morals. But from what i have been taught from the bible is that it is not a sin to be gay but rather the act of homosexuality. All humans have the lust and desire for another human. That is just being a human being. however, acting upon that lust is what determines an act of good will or a sinful action.

i understand how u feel. however i may not totally feel the way you do because i am not gay. It is simply a question of morals. But from what i have been taught from the bible is that it is not a sin to be gay but rather the act of homosexuality. All humans have the lust and desire for another human. That is just being a human being. however, acting upon that lust is what determines an act of good will or a sinful action.

Based on what you just said, sex itself is a sin, no matter under what circumstances you do it.

All human beings are not attracted to all human beings. And you don't choose which ones you are attracted to.

While you may believe that those who happen to be attracted to the same gender should never attempt to find a lasting relationship, I disagree. And I believe God does as well.

People consider homosexuality wrong because Sodomy is really fucking gross. You put penis in the pooper....how is that not gross? I mean, the Christian religion isnt fond of sodomy period, but its even grosser when men fuck men. So I am opposed to sodomy all around.

Also, dont blame this on whacked out Christians because I'm not a Christian. I'm a Deist bitches.

One more thing; the bible doesnt really like sex at all. It likes love, not fucking. This isnt hypocritical because it wants you to fuck only to make little kids...when your married.

So, fuck you homos.

People consider homosexuality wrong because Sodomy is really fucking gross. You put penis in the pooper....how is that not gross? I mean, the Christian religion isnt fond of sodomy period, but its even grosser when men fuck men. So I am opposed to sodomy all around.

Also, dont blame this on whacked out Christians because I'm not a Christian. I'm a Deist bitches.

A. Not all gay men have anal sex and lesbians certainly do not.
2. Some straight people do have anal sex but I dn't hear you saying they shouldn't get married or that they are wrong for existing.
III. No one said bigotry was exclusively Christian.

i understand how u feel. however i may not totally feel the way you do because i am not gay. It is simply a question of morals. But from what i have been taught from the bible is that it is not a sin to be gay but rather the act of homosexuality. All humans have the lust and desire for another human. That is just being a human being. however, acting upon that lust is what determines an act of good will or a sinful action.

Well let me explain to you- I'm not gay either. I see you just assumed that because I was defending them.

From what I'v been told from other people, gay couples are more faithful than heterosexual couples (proven in statistics). Their relationships are built on trust while most heterosexual relationships are built on lust. Aint that saying something about where gay peoples morals lie? Not all gay people choose to unite because they trust eachother- I'm sure some just unite just to please their desires. But it shouldn't be lust or desire that makes people unite. It should be trust not lust.
BTW, what are the verses you are getting this information on about 'the act of homosexuality being a sin'? Leviticus?

Or if you are Christian, and not close-minded or sheep-like, it's all good!

OR you are a "lukewarm christian" who knows better, yet attempts to make new rules on their own.
to belive in the bible you can't pick and choose.

Everyone from Italy is a pussy. I propose everyone has sex with each other anally, man or womyn. Then, you will all stop bitching long enough for me to destroy you. Petty humans.

Pretty sure, it isn't just christians that have issues with homosexuality, but other religions, and yes, even non-religious people take issue with it. So try not to lay it all ONLY on the feet of christians.

It is a perverse and hurtful lifestyle. Not just physically but emotionally as well. It seems many gays are very lonely, and they try to fill that void with the party lifestyle that permeates homosexuality.

1) Statics can be used in this case because no one was there to observe it and prove that it happened. Just saying "You cant use probability to observe something that has allready happened is stupid. If I were to close my eyes and toss a coin and it landed, the odds of me knowing wether it was heads or tails would still be 1/2. And that analgoy holds up because as far as evolution goes, we are blindfolded as we were not there when it happened. Remember, evolution is a theory NOT scientific fact.


I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking abou teh fact that we exist as we do. It doesn't matter what the odds of it happening are, the fact that we are here proves it can happen. p=1. And while your eyes are closed you have to use odds, but once you open them and see which way the coin faces, p=1. We can see that we are here. Therefore the probability of it happening the way it happened is 1. We don't have to know the way it happened to know that it did. Could there be a God? Sure. Coudl we have been by evolution? Sure. What I'd like to see are the odds of an omnipotent being simply existing from nothing compared to the odds of the universe randomly assembly. I bet the odds for a God simply existing are far less than the odds for the universe.


3) Maybe God "Could" have removed sin from us at any time. But if he did, what kind of father would he be. Every time we did something wrong, he tells us "Its ok" and ignores it. That would mean the entire world was full of sining people and nothing being done about it.


If he had removed sin, nothing would be wrong and nobody could do wrong. That would mean that there was an entire world of people not sinning and nothing would have to be done about it. As for the rest of stuff you put on here, I think its handlded by what I just say. An all-powerful God could easily have made it so there was no sin and therefore no need for a Messiah.

It is a perverse and hurtful lifestyle. Not just physically but emotionally as well. It seems many gays are very lonely, and they try to fill that void with the party lifestyle that permeates homosexuality.

What? heteros have fun too, right? filling voids and stuff!

Pretty sure, it isn't just christians that have issues with homosexuality, but other religions, and yes, even non-religious people take issue with it. So try not to lay it all ONLY on the feet of christians.

As Neo Cannen I am sure will point out, this thread is to discuss why its a sin. That involves religion. Since Christianity is the dominant religion here, of course its going to catch some flack.


It is a perverse and hurtful lifestyle. Not just physically but emotionally as well. It seems many gays are very lonely, and they try to fill that void with the party lifestyle that permeates homosexuality.

Being gay is not hurtful. At all. Not physically. Not emotionally. What is hurtful is having to hide yourself from society. There is nothing inherentky harmful in being homosexual, the harm comes from people around us. Are we lonely? Sure. And unlike most heterosexuals its often very hard for gay people (particularly teens and young adults) to find people to talk to about this. Those of us who do find a way are just as happy and well adjusted as anyways else.

And while there may be a party lifestyle that SOME homosexuals engage in, its hardly the predominant way we live our lives. It often seems that way because that is what is most visible. To say we are all that way would be like me saying "All Christians are evil intolerant people" just because Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson are the most visible or "all Christians hate women" just because the Southern Baptist Convention craps on them constantly. It wouldn't be true, but it would appear that way.

I believe Homosexuality is a sickness. To say why I'd be writing all day!

But come on peoples! These are people like you and me. Have mercy on them and their actions.
If someone killed 3 people, their sin would be just as bad as someone who broke a promise to someone who who performed a homosexual act. I'm quite sure that all sin is equal. So have mercy and grace on these people.

Its not your job to say that its wrong and jokes do not improve the circumstances- ones like: OMG! My best friend is trying to impregnate my FAECES!

Please give these people a break. They deserve equal opportunity like everyone else.

The issue of Sodom and Gemorrah (as I'm sure you're referring to) is not so cut-and-dried. There are many biblical scholars out there who believe that the downfall of these cities was due more to their peoples' hostility and inhospitality toward outsiders than any sexual activity.

Its because there were Nephilim and hybrids in the city. Thats also the reason god flooded the world. The Nephilim is the way Lucifer tried to piss off god by degrading humanity through their DNA. If there is no pure human left then god lost.

When the bible says that "They went after stranger flesh" then this means having sex with fallen angels, Nephilim or hybrids. Of course this is bad because in this story it means god loses and Lucifer wins.

It has nothing to do with homosexuality. The only anti-homosexual parts in the bible are quotes from people at that time, people more conservative than the Taliban, according to historians. God never says anything about homosexuals. In the end he created homosexual animals and that must also mean he created homosexual man.

I know christians are going to hate this but Jesus was a homosexual with a best friend that was a female ex-prostitute. Yes, Mary Magdalena was supposed to be Jesus succesor. Of course Jesus failed, resulting in Paulus creating the Christian church. And the rest is history.

What is hurtful is having to hide yourself from society.
There is nothing inherentky harmful in being homosexual, the harm comes from people around us. Are we lonely? Sure. And unlike most heterosexuals its often very hard for gay people (particularly teens and young adults) to find people to talk to about this. Those of us who do find a way are just as happy and well adjusted as anyways else.

Exactly! Homosexuals are a product of our society. We need to look at ourselves (especially the Christian Majority) and look how we treat people in society. We need to look at how we shape these people who become who they are. Its while you're young and susceptible to wanting to be accepted by others is the issue. Society isn't open to listening for distress signals and calls for help anymore.

1) Statics can be used in this case because no one was there to observe it and prove that it happened.We're not interested in the likelihood of a universe containing life naturalistically, we're interestested in the likelihood of a universe containing life naturalistically given that we know that life exists and everything else we know or suspect about the universe. But we can't even calculate the first likelihood.

And that analgoy holds up because as far as evolution goes, we are blindfolded as we were not there when it happened. Remember, evolution is a theory NOT scientific fact.abiogenesis != evolution. We've got tons of evidence for evolution, were in fact there for some evolution (canis familiaris has radiated into an enourmous variety of subspecies during recorded history), and we have a very cogent theory of evolution (evolution through natural selection) that explains all sorts of details about evolution. Abiogenesis may have occurred through supernatural means, but unless God lies through the fossil record, the Genesis accounts literally read are flat wrong.

wow, popular topic!

supernatural means, but unless God lies through the fossil record, the Genesis accounts literally read are flat wrong.

Wrong about the fossil record their friend. There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian Strata. All of a sudden we then see complex animals such as jellyfish and Trilobites appering at a very simmilar level. I'd say that supports Genesis.

I wasn't talking about evolution. I was talking abou teh fact that we exist as we do. It doesn't matter what the odds of it happening are, the fact that we are here proves it can happen. p=1. And while your eyes are closed you have to use odds, but once you open them and see which way the coin faces, p=1. We can see that we are here. Therefore the probability of it happening the way it happened is 1. We don't have to know the way it happened to know that it did. Could there be a God? Sure. Coudl we have been by evolution? Sure. What I'd like to see are the odds of an omnipotent being simply existing from nothing compared to the odds of the universe randomly assembly. I bet the odds for a God simply existing are far less than the odds for the universe.


We cant use satistics to prove God's existance because we dont understand him fully. If we could that would mean we are better than him or equal to him which we arnt.


If he had removed sin, nothing would be wrong and nobody could do wrong. That would mean that there was an entire world of people not sinning and nothing would have to be done about it. As for the rest of stuff you put on here, I think its handlded by what I just say. An all-powerful God could easily have made it so there was no sin and therefore no need for a Messiah.

That would involve breaching free will which as I have stated before, God does not do.

people have to take responsibility for their actions... if they do that, then they get respect...

if they cry and whine ("dont be mean") they will never get such respect!

Neo Cannen wrote;

We cant use satistics to prove God's existance because we dont understand him fully. If we could that would mean we are better than him or equal to him which we arnt.

Thats a cop out if ever I heard one!
What your basically saying here is that no matter what anyone says you will blindly go on believing in something like God no matter what proof may, or may not, appear in the future.
Evolution is as near fact as we can establish, like I said earlier we are *STILL* evolving, as is everything around us, whereas your religion is a static thing.
You believe a god exists because you were told it was true and chose to believe what you were told, there is no proof that a god exists, no concrete proof! everything about a God existing in one form or another is pure conjecture, at least with evolotion and science certain facts can be established.
Just by saying God exists doesn't make it so, it's like me saying that the tooth fairy exists because my mum and dad told me so and I have no reason to doubt my parents yet any proof of a tooth fairy's existance is sadly lacking in the real physical world.
The bible is not proof of gods existance, it's merely a book, written by man (well probably a good few men,and/or women), it doesn't, and cannot proove anything, all it can do is influence your thinking or harden your resolve to be a believer.

::ahem::

The Way Life Would Be if Scripture Were Followed Without Question

Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 also states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have neighbours who insist on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask he police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev.11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread(cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws?(Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
carpe diem, lash

I totally disagree with you. I'm christian, and I don't like same sex marriages, but I feel that canada and the usa are free countries and people have the right to do whatever they want.

If somebody swore and did everything against the bible, why should I care? That's his own dicision to make. and NOBODY needs to sacrifice an animal anymore. Heck, I'd think you would be crazy if you did that. and no matter what the bible says, slavery is TOTALLY forbidden and cannont be done. I don't care what you do with your hair, and you can approach the altar without 20/20 vision. heck, i have glasses. Dr Laura is a complete asshole, and is probably a quack. no, same se marriage is NOT an abomination, because some people just can't help there sexual orientation. therefore, it's not a crime.

See, not all christians are the same.:-)

p.s. if i repeated something somebody already said, don't blame me, because i don't have much time to read every post

I totally disagree with you. I'm christian, and I don't like same sex marriages, but I feel that canada and the usa are free countries and people have the right to do whatever they want.

If somebody swore and did everything against the bible, why should I care? That's his own dicision to make. and NOBODY needs to sacrifice an animal anymore. Heck, I'd think you would be crazy if you did that. and no matter what the bible says, slavery is TOTALLY forbidden and cannont be done. I don't care what you do with your hair, and you can approach the altar without 20/20 vision. heck, i have glasses. Dr Laura is a complete asshole, and is probably a quack. no, same se marriage is NOT an abomination, because some people just can't help there sexual orientation. therefore, it's not a crime.

See, not all christians are the same.:-)
p.s. if i repeated something somebody already said, don't blame me, because i don't have much time to read every post

Thank you for proving that what I've believed all along is true. Not all Christians are dill-weeds, just the majority that post here.

Thank you for proving that what I've believed all along is true. Not all Christians are dill-weeds, just the majority that post here.

I have noticed that the majority of "christian" posters on this thread have decidedly UN-Christian tendances towards their fellow man.

OR you are a "lukewarm christian" who knows better, yet attempts to make new rules on their own.
to belive in the bible you can't pick and choose.

I have yet to meet a single person, Christian or otherwise, who doesn't pick and choose. I'd be willing to bet money that this applies to you as well, unless you think slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all ok, unless you think creation happened twice, unless you think Christ was born twice in different years, etc.

Thats a cop out if ever I heard one!
What your basically saying here is that no matter what anyone says you will blindly go on believing in something like God no matter what proof may, or may not, appear in the future.
Evolution is as near fact as we can establish, like I said earlier we are *STILL* evolving, as is everything around us, whereas your religion is a static thing.
You believe a god exists because you were told it was true and chose to believe what you were told, there is no proof that a god exists, no concrete proof! everything about a God existing in one form or another is pure conjecture, at least with evolotion and science certain facts can be established.
Just by saying God exists doesn't make it so, it's like me saying that the tooth fairy exists because my mum and dad told me so and I have no reason to doubt my parents yet any proof of a tooth fairy's existance is sadly lacking in the real physical world.
The bible is not proof of gods existance, it's merely a book, written by man (well probably a good few men,and/or women), it doesn't, and cannot proove anything, all it can do is influence your thinking or harden your resolve to be a believer.

The existence or non-existence of God is by definition an axiomatic statement. It can neither be proven nor disproven.

abiogenesis != evolution. We've got tons of evidence for evolution, were in fact there for some evolution (canis familiaris has radiated into an enourmous variety of subspecies during recorded history), and we have a very cogent theory of evolution (evolution through natural selection) that explains all sorts of details about evolution. Abiogenesis may have occurred through supernatural means, but unless God lies through the fossil record, the Genesis accounts literally read are flat wrong.

We have 0 evidence for Abiogenesis. Zip, zilitch, nothing. There is nothing to prove that cells can in anyway simply come into existance as a result of a series of random chemical reactions. And the fossial records do not contridict Genesis, as I have said before. Nautral selection on the other hand can be proven but often not through mutation as some like to think. Random mutations are extremely rare and most of the time harmful. Abiogenesis cannot be scientificly proven since no one can do it in a lab or prove it by mathamatics or physics.

Just what is a "dill-weed"? It sounds unpleasant and possibly harmful to ingest ;) .

We must accept that some of the Bible was obviously written based on society laws - or perhaps e'en misinterpretation of even OLDER texts or divine orders.

I do believe same-sex marriage is an abomination. Howev'r, I don't believe that gays are abominable. It's only the act that is wrong - and even then, I don't have the sole right to condemn them, as that would be non-forgiveness and hypocrisy. I mean, Jesus ate with prostitutes - so there's no reason why we have to "burn them at the stake"!

I have yet to meet a single person, Christian or otherwise, who doesn't pick and choose. I'd be willing to bet money that this applies to you as well, unless you think slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all ok, unless you think creation happened twice, unless you think Christ was born twice in different years, etc.

Slavery in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

Genocide in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

Women in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html

And Women in the Bible again = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wbadboy1.html

And again = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/wcows.html

I do believe same-sex marriage is an abomination. Howev'r, I don't believe that gays are abominable. It's only the act that is wrong - and even then, I don't have the sole right to condemn them, as that would be non-forgiveness and hypocrisy. I mean, Jesus ate with prostitutes - so there's no reason why we have to "burn them at the stake"!

Here here

Dempublicents wrote;

The existence or non-existence of God is by definition an axiomatic statement. It can neither be proven nor disproven

Which was pretty much the point I was trying to make (albeit badly)

Christians and believers in other religions are asking us to take a huge leap of faith to believe in something which may or may not exist.
I prefer to deal with what I can see, touch, feel, taste or hear.

I am constantly having to defend my stance as an Athiest to my son and my wife, both of whom are religious types, they cannot, or will not understand why I cannot believe in a concept so fragile in facts and truths.
*If* there is an omnipitent being who created life and watches over us all I can say is he (or it) os doing an incredibly shoddy job of the whole thing.
Either that or he is just an evil entity having a laugh :P

Thats a cop out if ever I heard one!
What your basically saying here is that no matter what anyone says you will blindly go on believing in something like God no matter what proof may, or may not, appear in the future.
Evolution is as near fact as we can establish, like I said earlier we are *STILL* evolving, as is everything around us, whereas your religion is a static thing.
You believe a god exists because you were told it was true and chose to believe what you were told, there is no proof that a god exists, no concrete proof! everything about a God existing in one form or another is pure conjecture, at least with evolotion and science certain facts can be established.
Just by saying God exists doesn't make it so, it's like me saying that the tooth fairy exists because my mum and dad told me so and I have no reason to doubt my parents yet any proof of a tooth fairy's existance is sadly lacking in the real physical world.
The bible is not proof of gods existance, it's merely a book, written by man (well probably a good few men,and/or women), it doesn't, and cannot proove anything, all it can do is influence your thinking or harden your resolve to be a believer.

In the same way you cannot disprove God's existance as there is no proof for you to point to. Since you demand for proof so much, I'll give you the Bible and then you need to prove to me that God doesnt exist. How exactly can you do that? And here is another point, if humans cant prove the existance of God, how exactly can they disprove it?

*If* there is an omnipitent being who created life and watches over us all I can say is he (or it) os doing an incredibly shoddy job of the whole thing.
Either that or he is just an evil entity having a laugh :P

Who are you to say that God is doing a bad job. The problem is when people say "If I were God i would end all suffering/feed everyone/stop all war" is that to do any of those things would not make humans responsable for their own actions. Humans have to learn that we cannot point to the sky and blame God for the terrible state the world is in (Thats a cop out if ever I heard one). God will not run this world for us, we were given free will and we used it. And dont go saying to me "God created humans and therefore he caused the problem" because thats like saying the man who invented cars is solely responsable for all road acident deaths over the past centuary. In the same way a person is given a car and their misuse of it causes death (on occation) so we were given free will and our misuse of it caused death and all sorts of other stuff. Humans are responsable for the terrible state of the world NOT God.

Christians and believers in other religions are asking us to take a huge leap of faith to believe in something which may or may not exist.
I prefer to deal with what I can see, touch, feel, taste or hear.


The Matrix

"What is real? How do you define 'real' .If 'real' is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain"

Morpheous


I am constantly having to defend my stance as an Athiest to my son and my wife, both of whom are religious types, they cannot, or will not understand why I cannot believe in a concept so fragile in facts and truths.


Exactly why is the belief that their is no God any more solid than the beleif that there is one?

OR you are a "lukewarm christian" who knows better, yet attempts to make new rules on their own.
to belive in the bible you can't pick and choose.Ah, but what about believing in the Christ instead? To believe in the Bible without picking and choosing you can't read the Bible; for how can one believe in both sides of a contradiction? (Of which there are a number in the Bible).

Wrong about the fossil record their friend. There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian Strata. All of a sudden we then see complex animals such as jellyfish and Trilobites appering at a very simmilar level. I'd say that supports Genesis.Not a literal reading. What do you mean by "indisputable"? There are plenty of fossils of organisms below the Cambrian Strata, what there are not are indisputable fossils of animals (though there are plenty of fossil burrows). We don't have a fossil record of how the trobolites first evolved. But we do have a record of their subsequent speciation. We don't have a good record of the evolution of various phyla, but as you go more specific in the taxonomic tree, the fossil record becomes much better. We have a very good record of the evolution of mammals from reptiles for instance.

That would involve breaching free will which as I have stated before, God does not do.:cough: Hardening the heart of the pharaoh. Hardening the hearts of the kings in Caanen.

I have yet to meet a single person, Christian or otherwise, who doesn't pick and choose. I'd be willing to bet money that this applies to you as well, unless you think slavery, genocide, and the denigration of women are all ok, unless you think creation happened twice, unless you think Christ was born twice in different years, etc.Perhaps zie allows others to pick and choose for zir.

:cough: Hardening the heart of the pharaoh. Hardening the hearts of the kings in Caanen.


Yes? What? Is this breaking free will? No. The hardening of the heart describes pharohs life. What it means is that Pharaoh was a follower of the Egyptian religion and an iron fisted ruler. He was not going to let his slaves go without a fight. Here is a sight that explains it. When it says "Hardening of heart" it useally refers to the circumstances rahter than God somehow hypnotising them into being Iron Fists.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html

saying that God is breaking free will like this is like saying that God is hardening British peoples hearts to the plight of German's on remembrence day by making them born British

Not a literal reading. What do you mean by "indisputable"? There are plenty of fossils of organisms below the Cambrian Strata, what there are not are indisputable fossils of animals (though there are plenty of fossil burrows). We don't have a fossil record of how the trobolites first evolved. But we do have a record of their subsequent speciation. We don't have a good record of the evolution of various phyla, but as you go more specific in the taxonomic tree, the fossil record becomes much better. We have a very good record of the evolution of mammals from reptiles for instance.


Explain this to me. How come in the fossil record we find evidence of trees that stand up. Fossils are gradual things are they not. Surely a tree would not be standing up while it was burried year after slow year in sediment.

You don't necessarily know that it was not standing up when it was buried in sediment. Many things are possible, it just depends upon your acceptance.

Yes? What? Is this breaking free will? No. The hardening of the heart describes pharohs life. What it means is that Pharaoh was a follower of the Egyptian religion and an iron fisted ruler. He was not going to let his slaves go without a fight. Here is a sight that explains it. When it says "Hardening of heart" it useally refers to the circumstances rahter than God somehow hypnotising them into being Iron Fists.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html

saying that God is breaking free will like this is like saying that God is hardening British peoples hearts to the plight of German's on remembrence day by making them born British


Wro-o-ong. God hardened his heart. He even states that he planned to hardened pharoah's heart.

Ex. 7:1-5
The LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. When Pharaoh does not listen to you, I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my people the Israelites, company by company, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.”

Not meaning to be blasphemous to God, but what does that say about him that he purposefully hardens the heart of the pharoah so that the israelites can leave egypt? Now that I think about it, why would I want to believe in a God that manipulates people like that?

You don't necessarily know that it was not standing up when it was buried in sediment. Many things are possible, it just depends upon your acceptance.

If the tree has its tip pointed verticaly in the rock, chances are it was standing up.

Wro-o-ong. God hardened his heart. He even states that he planned to hardened pharoah's heart.

Ex. 7:1-5
The LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet. You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his land. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and I will multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt. When Pharaoh does not listen to you, I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring my people the Israelites, company by company, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring the Israelites out from among them.”

Please explain how this statement does not reconcile to my explination of what "Hardening heart" means?


Yes? What? Is this breaking free will? No. The hardening of the heart describes pharohs life. What it means is that Pharaoh was a follower of the Egyptian religion and an iron fisted ruler. He was not going to let his slaves go without a fight. Here is a sight that explains it. When it says "Hardening of heart" it useally refers to the circumstances rahter than God somehow hypnotising them into being Iron Fists.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/hharden.html

saying that God is breaking free will like this is like saying that God is hardening British peoples hearts to the plight of German's on remembrence day by making them born British

Not meaning to be blasphemous to God, but what does that say about him that he purposefully hardens the heart of the pharoah so that the israelites can leave egypt? Now that I think about it, why would I want to believe in a God that manipulates people like that?

Saying "God manipulated Pharaoh into refusing Moses's request for their release" is like saying "God manipulated Hitler into refusing a Jew's request for emmigration". Both Hitler and the Pharaoh were people who opposed the Jews anyway. In the context of the section, hardening heart simpley refers to Pharaoh's life. He was a devout believer in the Egyptian faith of the time and he had always known the Hebrews to be slaves. His heart was hardened to the plight of the Hebrews by his life experiance which God was in control of (that sounds like a contridiction of free will but its not and I will explain). In the same way that God was in control of the events of David's life while he was on the run from Saul, so he was in charge of every situation. God is in charge of every situation for a reason. While it may not always be clear there is a reason. It may not have been clear to David why he should go to Palistinain territory when he was on the run from the Isralites since he had killed the champion of the Palistinians, Goaliath and he was carrying Goliath's sword. Yet God provided for him in the same way he provided for the Isralites in this situation.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?

Matthew 6: 25 - 26

Nautral selection on the other hand can be proven but often not through mutation as some like to think. Random mutations are extremely rare and most of the time harmful."175 mutations per diploid genome per generation (http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297)". Most of which are thought to be without effect. Natural selection doesn't occur through mutations, it occurs through organisms being eating and a whole host of other mechanisms. It it evolution that occurs through the interaction of mutations (and/or preexisting genetic variation) with natural selection.
Yes mutations are rare. This is why macroevolution is slow. And why it takes time for antibiotic resistance to appear among bacteria even with very strong selective pressure, short generation times, and enourmous populations. But that just means you need a lot of generations. Remember my little experiment (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7345340&postcount=1017)? That took 100000 generations to get a recognizable Hamlet from completely random text? Yes it is a completely unrealistic model, but 100000 generations of humans is under 2 million years.

Women in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html
"And the proof of virginity is the same thing--a protection (see the syllabus for discussion on this one). "
Deuteronomy 22 (NSRV):
16The father of the young woman shall say to the elders: "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man but he dislikes her; 17now he has made up charges against her, saying, 'I did not find evidence of your daughter's virginity.' But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity." Then they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the town. 18The elders of that town shall take the man and punish him; 19they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver (which they shall give to the young woman's father) because he has slandered a virgin of Israel. She shall remain his wife; he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. 20If, however, this charge is true, that evidence of the young woman's virginity was not found, 21then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father's house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Some protection!

BTW, I notice you didn't address the two inconsistent creation accounts.
The hardening of the heart describes pharohs life.No, it describes events in the pharaoh's life. The pharaoh isn't described as having a hard heart (though that is undoubtedly the case), he is described as having his heart hardened. Sometimes by himself (a decision he made), and sometimes by God (how is that a decision by the pharaoh).
When it says "Hardening of heart" it useally refers to the circumstances rahter than God somehow hypnotising them into being Iron Fists.Sure, the pharaoh is described as hardening his own heart a number of times. But at other times it is God that is explicitly described as hardening his heart. The circumstances in either case are very similar. And hardening of the heart of a punishment, how is that still not an interference with free will? It sure sounds like God rigging the game so there is no possibility of peace.

Explain this to me. How come in the fossil record we find evidence of trees that stand up. Fossils are gradual things are they not. Surely a tree would not be standing up while it was burried year after slow year in sediment.Mineralization of fossils is a gradual thing, yes. Sedimentation isn't always. (That's a strawman). Fossils of trees standing up, are the fossils of trees that were buried quickly. Such things happen: A number of meters of pumice were droppen on the land around Mt. Vesuvious in a couple of days, and fossil remains (though not mineralized remains) of people were left in the pumice.

If the tree has its tip pointed verticaly in the rock, chances are it was standing up.Not necessarily; geologic processes to sometimes tip and even flip sedementary rocks. But there are indeed fossils of trees that were buried vertical.

Saying "God manipulated Pharaoh into refusing Moses's request for their release" is like saying "God manipulated Hitler into refusing a Jew's request for emmigration".Yes. Both would be evil acts if true. But the Bible doesn't say the latter. It does say the former. (although, unlike "manipulation", the english translation implies a direct change rather than via communication or events).

No its not. The Bible is God's word. Some parts of it do not affect us today, some do, depending upon which parts God said do.

Do you have a list?

It sounds, otherwise, like you are just making this up - you you can say "Yes, believe this part", when the comment agrees, and "No, that's not true anymore" about the parts you don't like.

One of my baptist 'acquaintances' says that the whole of the Old Testament is 'replaced' by the New Testament.... except for Genesis - which, I guess, he needs to believe, because he is a Young-Earth Creationist.

Do you have a list?

It sounds, otherwise, like you are just making this up - you you can say "Yes, believe this part", when the comment agrees, and "No, that's not true anymore" about the parts you don't like.


Its not about the parts I dont like. Its about the parts that God says are no longer nessecary. He wasnt saying "I was wrong before do this now" what he was saying was "Previously it was nessecary to do this but now it is not thanks to..". I have explained why the old ritualistic laws are irrelevent

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' " First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 10: 5 - 18

and why the cultural law is removed

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

Acts 10 : 9 - 16

(Note this does not only deal with food, it also deals with clothing as it means that no animals are unclean and thus any can be used as clothing)

What the new testement keeps is the following

"law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8)

See this web site for further understanding

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

It's not that I refuse to change, it's just certain things I will not budge on, such as gay marriage.The reason for not making laws less strict and easier to follow is the same reason that people don't lower their standards: because of those who do more than minimum requirements. If the law said don't steal, it applies to everything. It doesn't just mean don't steal cars; why is stealing one thing worse than stealing another? It is the act of stealing that is the problem.

It's a good job that you don't have the power to decide such issues, then. And, by the way "I refuse to budge" does mean pretty much the same as "I refuse to change".

You also make a fundamental error here. Theft is a crime against a person in terms of property, which has ownership.

Gay marriage has no 'ownership', since the concepts of slavery are no longer strongly favoured in most civilised nations.

So - even if homosexuality was a crime (which has not been proved, here), it is not of the same 'type' of crime as theft, nor those conventionally 'person-based; crimes as rape, murder, etc... since it is a CONSENSUAL act.

Neo Cannen wrote;

Who are you to say that God is doing a bad job. The problem is when people say "If I were God i would end all suffering/feed everyone/stop all war" is that to do any of those things would not make humans responsable for their own actions. Humans have to learn that we cannot point to the sky and blame God for the terrible state the world is in (Thats a cop out if ever I heard one). God will not run this world for us, we were given free will and we used it.

I don't think I ever said I blamed God for all the worlds problems, it would be silly for me to say that because I dont belive that a god exists! What I said was that *IF* a god existed and was responsible for the world and it's inhabitants then he did a pretty crap job of it.
I don't blame God for the state of the world either, so no "cop out" there!, what I was saying that those who do belive in a god seem to paper over the fact that the world *they* believe he created is such a crappy place.

The "God gave us free will" argument is the biggest "Cop out" that all you god botherers use, it's like Hitler saying "I only killed all those jews because god told me to"
It's also like the founder and managing director of a huge blue chip company blowing the company profits because he left the day to day running of the company to the cleaning lady!



And dont go saying to me "God created humans and therefore he caused the problem" because thats like saying the man who invented cars is solely responsable for all road acident deaths over the past centuary. In the same way a person is given a car and their misuse of it causes death (on occation) so we were given free will and our misuse of it caused death and all sorts of other stuff. Humans are responsable for the terrible state of the world NOT God.

Give that man a chocolate watch!
I would never dream of saying to you that "God created humans and therefore he caused the problem", mainly because, like I said earlier, I DON'T BELIEVE IN A GOD!!

If, as you believe, a god was the creator of all things (before he gave "free will" to man), why then would a God also include in his "lets make a world mixing kit" so many deadly things for man to play with. Why did he make a planet so unhospitable that we can only survive on about 10% of the planets surface.
Why make a world that can ,at any given time, kill thousands of innocent people in earthquakes and floods?
Did he give free will to Volcano's?
Get real Neo, you are deluding yourself if you think the god you so passionately believe in will be there for you at your moment of rapture, the best you can hope for is that you live on in the hearts of those you loved and who loved you back, apart from that you will be worm food like the rest of us.

(Note this does not only deal with food, it also deals with clothing as it means that no animals are unclean and thus any can be used as clothing)There are quite a number of laws in the Old Testament that are not concerned with uncleanliness, the temple, or sacrifices. The laws against confusion for instance.

"law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8)Congratulations, you got an apostle in there (assuming this is the same James) instead of just what Paul said.

I am indeed VERY wary of many of the old testament laws - WTF on the bleeding one? That's just wrong! I say that as a fervent Christian! It is quite obvious that lots of them were not written under God's true guidance, as Jesus refutes a lot - BUT he doesn't refute the one of homosexual acts!

That is because there isn't one on homosexual acts.

And, since Jesus was born a Jew, and probably spoke Aramaic (very close to Hebrew) - he probably had a much better grasp of Olt Testament scripture than the horrible twisted version people take from the English translations.

The fact that Jesus didn't attack homosexuality... and what with him 'being god', should be ALL the evidence a 'true' christian would need, that it is not a sin.

Why make a world that can ,at any given time, kill thousands of innocent people in earthquakes and floods?
Did he give free will to Volcano's?Because Nader wasn't around yet. People do die in cars and the makers are not responsible. But the cars are designed so as to avoid injury to occupants in the event of an accident, the makers excersized due diligence. This was not always so. When designers are reckless to the safety of car users, they are blamed for deaths.

Well lets see

1) Without God what is the world but an accident

The statistical probability of life forming by abogenisis (random cell creation) is comparable to a tornado flying through a scrapheep and the falling parts assembling a Harrier jump jet. It's near impossible. But if the random creation of a cell is the case, then what is so great about life? Why is it held in such high regard? Shouldnt we be like the animals solely living for the purpose of having a wonderfully good time. Why is life so special if it is just a random chance?


The statistical probability is low, to be sure. But, when the world has been around for millions upon millions of years, and is, in no way, the only world... life becomes inevitable.

Your argument is flawed. The possibility of life forming by abiogenesis is comparable to the tornado flying through a scrapyard, and putting any two of millions of possible pieces next to each other - since that is all that would have been required for life.

Imagine also, that the tornado just keeps going through the scrapyard, over and over again, for millions of years. One such iteration, sooner or later, is going to assemle those parts. Then - imagine that the tornado actually carries on passing through, eventually two of those 'micro' assmeblies are going to end up near each other. And the tornado KEEPS passing through, and eventually, enough micro-assemblies have been assembled that they become 'resistant' to the whirling winds... perhaps due to mass, or the aerodynamic shape that the tornado has flung them into.

You see - your tornado eventually WOULD give an infinitely complex world, with it's own form of 'evolution'. In your head, it only fails because you set the parameter that there will only be one tornado, one time... and that a Harrier is the ONLY acceptable result.



2) All three of the worlds major religons (Christianity, Islam and Judaisim) came from the same place
This is if not proof of some sort of God, then at least very interesting. The three most powerful and significent faiths in the world have all got their origins in the same spot and all point to one man as somehow connected with their origins, Abrabham.


Because Islam and Christianity both copy from the Judaistic texts?

The "God gave us free will" argument is the biggest "Cop out" that all you god botherers use, it's like Hitler saying "I only killed all those jews because god told me to"
It's also like the founder and managing director of a huge blue chip company blowing the company profits because he left the day to day running of the company to the cleaning lady!


How exactly is the free will arguement like Hitler saying "I only killed Jews because God told me to" There is no parralel. God gave us free will. If he didn't, all he would have done would be to create a race of machines loyal to him. He didnt want that. God gave humans a choice, whats wrong with that. God did not create a horrible world. He created Eden. We were the ones who sinned, were the ones who have to deal with it


what I was saying that those who do belive in a god seem to paper over the fact that the world *they* believe he created is such a crappy place.


We dont paper over anything. God created the world perfectly. Humans messed it up, I said that didnt I?

The statistical probability is low, to be sure. But, when the world has been around for millions upon millions of years, and is, in no way, the only world... life becomes inevitable.

Your argument is flawed. The possibility of life forming by abiogenesis is comparable to the tornado flying through a scrapyard, and putting any two of millions of possible pieces next to each other - since that is all that would have been required for life.

Imagine also, that the tornado just keeps going through the scrapyard, over and over again, for millions of years. One such iteration, sooner or later, is going to assemle those parts. Then - imagine that the tornado actually carries on passing through, eventually two of those 'micro' assmeblies are going to end up near each other. And the tornado KEEPS passing through, and eventually, enough micro-assemblies have been assembled that they become 'resistant' to the whirling winds... perhaps due to mass, or the aerodynamic shape that the tornado has flung them into.

You see - your tornado eventually WOULD give an infinitely complex world, with it's own form of 'evolution'. In your head, it only fails because you set the parameter that there will only be one tornado, one time... and that a Harrier is the ONLY acceptable result.


And your argument only works under one condition. That sentient life is not unique to Earth. Untill it can be proven that sentient life is not unique to Earth then and only then can the "Univerese is infinite, life could happen at some point etc" become valid. And Abiogeneis has another problem. It is only theoretical, no one has seen it happen. And rule one of empreical science is that nothing exists untill it is mesured.

Wrong about the fossil record their friend. There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian Strata. All of a sudden we then see complex animals such as jellyfish and Trilobites appering at a very simmilar level. I'd say that supports Genesis.

Good claim.

Now find a secular site that proves it.

(And, I mean proves that, collectively... not just one geographic area that might have 'disturbed' strata.

Good claim.

Now find a secular site that proves it.


Why secular? Surely if its science, then it doesnt matter about the religious orientation of the site? Or am I detecting racisim from you here? But just for you here is one

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

And while (disputable) fossils have been found below the cambrian strata, there is as yet no explination why there is a sudden level of complexity in the life form types. Execpt...maybe the flood happened at this time and all the Animals were around and burried at once...

Just another thing: If somebody (a lot of people here) is an athiest, then what right does he have to speculate and try to disprove christianity, and other religions? Why are people (and scientists) trying to disprove every culture they can think of? :headbang: and I don't think people are trying very hard to disprove that ghosts exist. I may be a little mixed up about this, so correct me if I'm wrong

And your argument only works under one condition. That sentient life is not unique to Earth. Untill it can be proven that sentient life is not unique to Earth then and only then can the "Univerese is infinite, life could happen at some point etc" become valid. And Abiogeneis has another problem. It is only theoretical, no one has seen it happen. And rule one of empreical science is that nothing exists untill it is mesured.

I didn't say that sentient life was/wasn't unique to earth.

Sentient life certainly ISN'T the only life on this world, by a long way.

You are setting very definite definitions of what you are willing to 'accept' as life... sentiency being one of your requirements, it seems - and yet, I am pretty sure you wouldn't accept Rats as sentient (despite their ability to make judgements based on memory), nor squirrels (despite their ability to calculate routes around/through incredibly complex situations), nor octopi, despite the fact that they can ascertain differences in geometric forms, and make use of patterns.

All your tornado needs to do, to prove the capacity for a spontaneous generation of life, is assemble parts into 'something' more complex... it doesn't have to be a Harrier - although that is what you are claiming is the only 'valid' model.

Nobody has seen abiogenesis - but it fits in quite well with the theory of evolution (although do not confuse the two).

Nobody has proved that they have ever seen god, either, but it fits in well with the theories of Christianity.

Interesting though... reading through your first paragraph... how would YOU explain it if other sentient life WAS proved to exist? Would you renounce your opinion that god created all? Or would you just argue that god made the Slug Men of Bathor-Prime in his image too?

Why secular? Surely if its science, then it doesnt matter about the religious orientation of the site?Sure. But how are we to tell if it is science? We have to trust the site to not lie.
Anywho, I did a bit of googling after you made your claim. And it appears there are no indisputed fossils of animals pre-cambrian (there are fossils of animal burrows that don't seem to be disputed though). But there are fossils that are very definitely of organisms. I really don't see how the cambrian explosion fits in with Genesis though.

actually, homosexuality is never addressed in the bible. the passage that is always quoted is in reference to male prostitution.

so, technically, it is never stated to be a sin. christianity and it's need to take over the world just likes to impose that on everyone.

And your argument only works under one condition. That sentient life is not unique to Earth. Untill it can be proven that sentient life is not unique to Earth then and only then can the "Univerese is infinite, life could happen at some point etc" become valid. And Abiogeneis has another problem. It is only theoretical, no one has seen it happen. And rule one of empreical science is that nothing exists untill it is mesured.

If nothing exists until it's measured, how do you justify your belief in God?

actually, homosexuality is never addressed in the bible. the passage that is always quoted is in reference to male prostitution.There is one (1) passage that calls homosexuality "vile affections". It's in Romans 1.

Why secular? Surely if its science, then it doesnt matter about the religious orientation of the site? Or am I detecting racisim from you here? But just for you here is one

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html

And while (disputable) fossils have been found below the cambrian strata, there is as yet no explination why there is a sudden level of complexity in the life form types. Execpt...maybe the flood happened at this time and all the Animals were around and burried at once...

The reason I said secular, is because I have already been to some of your connected sites, and they have ranged form a heavy religious bias, to flat-out lies...

I guess if you can provide a religious site that does neither of those things, that will be acceptable - although I don't see what the hell that has to do with 'racism'?

I am confused though... your link (which initially took me to a survey?) has nothing about mixed-levels of strata, and only talks about one geographic area... so, it is completely irrelevent.

And, if you read the source (I think I have worked out why your grasp of the bible is so shaky... if you can't even 'read' a page that's only about a thousand words...) you would note that they DO offer suggestions as to why there was such a flurry of fossil activity all around one point.

But hey, don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a perfectly servicable prejudice.

I have never understood why it matters what someone does in the privacy of their own home or in an area for that. Banning gays is like banning NASCAR. I can sit in the privacy of my home and watch NASCAR. I can put NASCAR stickers on my car and fly a NASCAR flag outside my house. I can go to bars and watch NASCAR and I could go to, oh yes they have these, a venue and watch NASCAR live if I wish. You may find NASCAR to be completely repulsive and degredating to the human spirit but it happens. I am not gay but I personally don't care if 2 guys want to share their love. And I believe it was written, "Love thy neighbor." Not "Love thy neighbor (except if its a man/woman who loves the sema gender)" Yes I am aware of the closed minded part where it says something like "man on man love is wrong and you will be bannished to hell for who you are."

So if God created us in his image, why are there gays? In my eyes something that is omniscent and omnipresent is just that. Everything and nothing. Separate and parate....rambles......I guess what I am trying to say is that most people have a hard enough time understanding the small insignificant world they create for themselves let alone to understand something so vast and complex as GOD. The book is just that, a book, limited to the point of view of its writers. Even if its claimed to be passed on to them by god.

/rant off

There is one (1) passage that calls homosexuality "vile affections". It's in Romans 1.

And, I argue that this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor actually anything to do with 'vile affections'... as is easily discerned from a quick analysis of the original Greek text.

Originally Posted by Blobites
The "God gave us free will" argument is the biggest "Cop out" that all you god botherers use, it's like Hitler saying "I only killed all those jews because god told me to"
It's also like the founder and managing director of a huge blue chip company blowing the company profits because he left the day to day running of the company to the cleaning lady!




How exactly is the free will arguement like Hitler saying "I only killed Jews because God told me to" There is no parralel. God gave us free will. If he didn't, all he would have done would be to create a race of machines loyal to him. He didnt want that. God gave humans a choice, whats wrong with that. God did not create a horrible world. He created Eden. We were the ones who sinned, were the ones who have to deal with it

There you go again, just because you say God gave us free will doesn't prove anything! It's all to easy to say that everytime you can't think of a decent answer to a valid question!

The parallel between me saying hitler only killed the jews because god told him to and you saying nothing is gods fault because he gave us free will is that both [god and hitler] are then absolving themselves of any blame!
God gave man free will so he can say Man fucked up, not me! I didn't do it.
Hitler says "God told me to kill the jews, blame him, not me!"
Thats the parallel!
You shout about evolution being an unproven theory yet you constantly bleat about god creating a world, god creating eden, god creating everything.....where's the proof??????? Just because you say it doesn't make it the truth!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blobites
what I was saying that those who do belive in a god seem to paper over the fact that the world *they* believe he created is such a crappy place.

We dont paper over anything. God created the world perfectly. Humans messed it up, I said that didnt I?

Yes you did say it, again does that prove you are right?
You *are* papering over the cracks, you avoid answering pertinent questions (see my previous post) and re-answer old points with the same rhetoric you have been spouting throughout this thread.

i do not know if being gay is a sin, but i don't suppose that it really matters, let god decide. I do know that the legal rights of marraige, and the spiritual, need to be seperatly defined. "all men are created equal" if they want to get married, legaly fine. go for it. THe church can decide for its self if it wants to condone it spirtually.

True, it doesn't have to be illigal to be a sin. its legal to drink at the age of 21. but heck, its still a sin.

True, it doesn't have to be illigal to be a sin. its legal to drink at the age of 21. but heck, its still a sin.

Jesus drank wine.

i don't care. if certain religions call it a sin, fine. good for them. but don't start imposing CIVIL laws that ban homosexual people from getting married or anything like that. civil laws are supposed to have nothing to do with religion. plain and simple

And, I argue that this passage has nothing to do with homosexuality, nor actually anything to do with 'vile affections'... as is easily discerned from a quick analysis of the original Greek text.Oh? Do tell. I'm not doubting you; I'm just interested.

Oh? Do tell. I'm not doubting you; I'm just interested.
I'm pretty sure the passage in question actually refers in the original language to pedophilia; the words used literally referred to the practice of sleeping with young boys. The translator focused on the wrong part.

We dont paper over anything. God created the world perfectly. Humans messed it up, I said that didnt I?

If God created the world perfectly, how were we able to mess it up?

If nothing exists until it's measured, how do you justify your belief in God?

I said scientificly proven. As I have said before, God cannot be scienficaly proven. But here is a question, why are scientists and the like arrogent enough to believe that the postion that there isnt a God any more grounded in reason than the belief that there is one?

If God created the world perfectly, how were we able to mess it up?

Because we had free will and the choice to know good and evil or not, the choice to sin or not etc.

I said scientificly proven. As I have said before, God cannot be scienficaly proven. But here is a question, why are scientists and the like arrogent enough to believe that the postion that there isnt a God any more grounded in reason than the belief that there is one?

Because whilst no one can prove that there isn't a god (just as we can't prove the non existance of the tooth fairy) we can give a better argument regarding evolultion agains creationism.

Evolution happens, we all evolve all the time, animals evolve and adapt all the time, it's a never ending process.
Scientists don't just say Evolution is a fact because we say so, they say evolution happens and then go on to explain and provide proof as to why it does.
You say God exists, why? because you say it does!
You say you don't need to prove his existance, why?
Wouldn't it make this thread a lot shorter if you could just explain how God is real and the Scientists have got it all wrong?

Please don't quote bible passages, they prove nothing, I could read passages from many novels that "ring true" but are in fact fiction.

There you go again, just because you say God gave us free will doesn't prove anything! It's all to easy to say that everytime you can't think of a decent answer to a valid question!
The parallel between me saying hitler only killed the jews because god told him to and you saying nothing is gods fault because he gave us free will is that both [god and hitler] are then absolving themselves of any blame!
God gave man free will so he can say Man fucked up, not me! I didn't do it.
Hitler says "God told me to kill the jews, blame him, not me!"
Thats the parallel!


Show me where in the Bible it says that "God's job is to make sure the world is a wonderful and perfect place all the time" or something to that effect. It doesnt. God gave us free will and a choice. I dont see how that is unfair or pushing the blame onto man. If he had given us not free will, we would be mindless drones worshiping him because that was all we knew and if we had been given free will and no choice (no tree) then Eden would have been no better than a prision. Would you rather have no free will and the world be perfect? Sounds like a dictatiorship to me...



You shout about evolution being an unproven theory yet you constantly bleat about god creating a world, god creating eden, god creating everything.....where's the proof??????? Just because you say it doesn't make it the truth!


Evolution is a theroy, not a certianty. What I get angry about is those people who dismiss creation and then point immidately to evolution as a certianty because it isnt one. Nautral selection is a certianty but abiogensis is not. And because it is a scientific principal it requires proof, but Creation which is a religous issue does not. However I can prove it (Havn't got my notes with me ATM) or at least provide enough doubt into the equation to explain to you that evolution is not a ceritanty. And as for my "bleat about god", may I remind you that we are talking about Christianity and to remove God from the equation seems foolish. If you dont believe in God then thats fine but dont go saying "Homosexuality is not a sin because God does not exist" because that is stupid. By saying the word "Sin" you are automaticly implying some sort of religious element and therefore contridicting yourself.



Yes you did say it, again does that prove you are right?
You *are* papering over the cracks, you avoid answering pertinent questions (see my previous post) and re-answer old points with the same rhetoric you have been spouting throughout this thread.

Could you please line up your questions specificly so that I can deal with each one rather than just rant.

Because whilst no one can prove that there isn't a god (just as we can't prove the non existance of the tooth fairy) we can give a better argument regarding evolultion agains creationism.


Maybe, maybe not. Again I do have notes on this but not with me (Will talk about them tommorow proberbly) And I'm not just talking about creation, I am talking about the existance of God. By disproving creation (Which no one can sucessfully do I might add) you dont disprove God automaticaly. You cant say "God did not create the world". You may be able to argue about wether or not it was in the literal 7 days or how exactly it happened but you cannot disprove God creating the world. You can put theories forward, show ideas, show possible explinations that do not involve God but you cant shut him out altogther. No scientist can ever disprove God's existance.

Evolution happens, we all evolve all the time, animals evolve and adapt all the time, it's a never ending process.
Scientists don't just say Evolution is a fact because we say so, they say evolution happens and then go on to explain and provide proof as to why it does.

Please do not confuse evolution and nautral selection. The part of evolution I am not convinced by is abiogensis which has little to no grounding in science. The idea that chemicals could come together of their own volution and then create life (a cell) is a little strange. At least in religion we have a cause, God. Nautral selection on the other hand I agree goes on all the time, as the enviroment alters and the gene pool is expanded. Please do not confuse the two.

I am confused though... your link (which initially took me to a survey?) has nothing about mixed-levels of strata, and only talks about one geographic area... so, it is completely irrelevent.

And, if you read the source (I think I have worked out why your grasp of the bible is so shaky... if you can't even 'read' a page that's only about a thousand words...) you would note that they DO offer suggestions as to why there was such a flurry of fossil activity all around one point.

But hey, don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a perfectly servicable prejudice.

1) Those are not facts on the site. Those are possibilites. Please do not confuse the two. In the same way it is also a possibilty (and a reasonable one) that the reason for the sudden burrial of many thousands of complex fossils is that the flood happened then and God created all the animals at the same sort of time. And also, while the site does try to explain why all said animals came to that level of complexity at that time, it does not explain why they were all burried so rapidly. The flood however does make that explination clear.

2) Read the site again. It is not just one area. The same form of fossil record can be found in British Coulmbia and Australia.

Slavery in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

"But we treat them well!" is no excuse for thinking you can own another person.

Genocide in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

You have posted this before and it is still useless. Genocide itself is objectively evil - there is no rationalizing it.

Women in the Bible = http://www.christian-thinktank.com/w2stds.html

This only talks about Paul, not about the myriad of OT laws that make it very obvious that women are looked down upon.

Care to find me an explanation of why women are unclean for twice as long after having a female child as after having a male child?

Just another thing: If somebody (a lot of people here) is an athiest, then what right does he have to speculate and try to disprove christianity, and other religions? Why are people (and scientists) trying to disprove every culture they can think of? :headbang: and I don't think people are trying very hard to disprove that ghosts exist. I may be a little mixed up about this, so correct me if I'm wrong

Scientists (real ones anyway) do not "try to disprove any culture." Scientists try to figure out how the world works. If the evidence happens to disprove something people said 1000's of years ago, so be it.

I said scientificly proven. As I have said before, God cannot be scienficaly proven. But here is a question, why are scientists and the like arrogent enough to believe that the postion that there isnt a God any more grounded in reason than the belief that there is one?

Well, maybe because scientists don't think that at all? At least, most of us don't. Scientists figure out how the world works and what has happened before. God, by definition, is outside the realm of measurable science. Thus, the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to science. There is no position of whether or not there is a God, just that the question itself has nothing to do with scientific study.

You have posted this before and it is still useless. Genocide itself is objectively evil - there is no rationalizing it.


If you are not going to listen then what is the point in even disussing it?

Here is an exert from said site, and I dont think you read the whole thing. If you did you would understand far better than you originally said here

Exert begins

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

We really didn't go into this side of the question, but we have enough clues in the above data to take a stab at this:

Israel didn't really want to do this AT ALL, so why would they make it up?!

The post-Exodus Israel was a whining (e.g. Num 11.1; Ex 16.2-3), grumbling (e.g. Ex 15.24; 17.3), bunch of folks who wanted to go back to Egypt (Num 14.1-3)! They were constantly afraid of the inhabitants of the Land (e.g. Num 14; Deut 7.19). They never even finished the job (Judges 1.1-3.5). And besides...what good would a forged passage or two in their sacred literature be?! It wouldn't be useful to 'appeal to' in disputes over land. It couldn't have been written centuries later and 'inserted' into the text to give some kind of legitimacy to Israel, because the land descriptions and details are too ancient/obscure to have even be known/made up that later.

No, the data all indicates that IN SPITE OF ISRAEL, the land-grant orders were authentic and ancient.



Why would God use a nation as questionable as the post-Exodus Israelites to deliver His "judgment" on the Canaanites? (Why not just use natural disasters, such as earthquakes [Num 16], volcanic-type phenomena [Gen 19], or plague [2 Kgs 19.35]?)



Well, first of all, since the land was supposed to be a 'present' to the descendants of Abe, it wouldn't make a lot of sense to have it ravaged by large-scale, ubiquitous earthquakes, or totally scorched by volcanix, or covered in rotting, disease-infested corpses!

Second, we have seen that God intended for most people to simply leave...He didn't want to kill them all.

Finally, He didn't give it to them because they were righteous at all--He gave it to them because of His promise to Abe...Plus, He had plans to 'grow them' into righteousness once they got into the Land.



What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?

There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.



Doesn't wholesale slaughter of nations seem a little incompatible with a God of Love and Mercy?



I think it should be clear by now that this was neither a (1) "slaughter"; nor (2) "wholesale"! It was a deportation, based upon a judgment that would have found consensus among world leaders of the day! There were elements of mercy THROUGHOUT the entire deal--from the 'early warnings' before the Sojourn in Egypt, to the 'heads up' warnings four decades before Entry, to the 'little by little' invasion tactic for the less-institutionalized, to the careful limits on Israelite behavior. The migration of much of the Canaanite peoples (and religious culture, unfortunately) into Phoenicia is testimony of the scale of this migration.

When we restate the pattern of our 'control data'--judgments that seem to be 'true annihilations'--and correlate that pattern with the Conquest data, we see similarities AND differences:
The annihilations are judgments [But the conquest judgment was a deportation, not an annihilation.]
These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature. [This applies to the Canaanites, plus the additional 'load' of long-term "being a curse" to Israel.]
These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").[This applies to the Canaanites extensively.]
Innocent adults are given a 'way out' [This is very true here--in additional to the extensive warnings, plenty of time&space is given to allow migration before Israel arrived. We even have one example of a non-migration exception--Rahab--which suggests there might be others that were not recorded.]
Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill). [This is true here as well--everyone in Rahab's house was spared--whether they were good or evil!]
Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites). [In our case, the mass of people that migrated north to Phoenicia, Rahab+household, plus Gibeonites (although through deception).]
These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these. [We have two other cases structured after this deportation--that of Israel and Judah--after the same standards and structures.]

Exert ends

Please do not confuse evolution and nautral selection. The part of evolution I am not convinced by is abiogensis which has little to no grounding in science. The idea that chemicals could come together of their own volution and then create life (a cell) is a little strange. At least in religion we have a cause, God. Nautral selection on the other hand I agree goes on all the time, as the enviroment alters and the gene pool is expanded. Please do not confuse the two.

Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. Evolution does not. Evolution describes the speciation of life.

If abiogenesis is your problem with evolution, you obviously don't understand what evolution is. Evolution *is* natural selection and speciation.

Because whilst no one can prove that there isn't a god (just as we can't prove the non existance of the tooth fairy) we can give a better argument regarding evolultion agains creationism.

Evolution happens, we all evolve all the time, animals evolve and adapt all the time, it's a never ending process.
Scientists don't just say Evolution is a fact because we say so, they say evolution happens and then go on to explain and provide proof as to why it does.
You say God exists, why? because you say it does!
You say you don't need to prove his existance, why?
Wouldn't it make this thread a lot shorter if you could just explain how God is real and the Scientists have got it all wrong?

Please don't quote bible passages, they prove nothing, I could read passages from many novels that "ring true" but are in fact fiction.

You are making the situation worse here. There is no fundamental apposition of science and religion.

You are making the situation worse here. There is no fundamental apposition of science and religion.

Demo is right. The two are not mutually exclusive. Science does not deal with religion because the existance of God cannot be disproven--because by the very definition of a God, it could control the experiments. Science doesn't say that God doesn't exist, it just says that since it cannot disprove God, it doesn't deal with God.

Religion and its viewpoint on science are a little harder. However, since the biggest religious objection to science tends to be the belief that science is trying to disprove God, then it seems that my first paragraph negates this point.

Exert begins

Did God actually command Israel to do this, or did they just invent this divine sanction to justify territorial greed or genocidal tendencies?

We really didn't go into this side of the question, but we have enough clues in the above data to take a stab at this:

Israel didn't really want to do this AT ALL, so why would they make it up?!

If you are trying to figure out the validity of a claim in a text, you cannot use that same text to "prove" the claim true.

What about all the innocent people killed in this "holy war"--families, "good" Canaanites, etc.? Even if it is 'okay' for God to execute judgment on nations within history, why didn't He only kill the evil-doers?

There is a strong possibility that most of the 'innocent' people left the country before the actual battles began in each local turf. Those that stayed behind were the die-hards, the "carriers" of Canaanite culture, the ruling, decadent, exploitative elite. We also saw that only a very tiny minority of people were actually killed in this campaign, relative to most military conquests in the ANE.

If there were no women and children (who could not make their own decisions to leave) there, then there would not have been an order to kill them all. This still does not explain slaughtering women and children with no way out.


I suppose you decided to agree with me on the other points then?

If you are trying to figure out the validity of a claim in a text, you cannot use that same text to "prove" the claim true.


Rather than intentionaly trying to pick holes in what I am saying, perhaps you can read the entire thing and then see what I mean. I have the belief sytem here, your just picking holes in it. You arnt comming from another viewpoint other than "You are wrong" and so perhaps you should have read the entire thing rather than pick it apart. See what it is saying as a whole. And I am not trying to "Prove" the fact that the massacre happened, I am trying to rationalise it to you people. Please read the post again.

Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life. Evolution does not. Evolution describes the speciation of life.

If abiogenesis is your problem with evolution, you obviously don't understand what evolution is. Evolution *is* natural selection and speciation.

Yes but evolution claims that not only abiogenesis happened but that nautral selection happens through genetics. While I do agree there are random mutations, there are far fewer of these than there are *nautral* selections. By these I mean the supposed random mutations that are beneficial and happen at a single time and thus continue throughout the lifetime of that species. For example, the fameous peppered moth. The idea that there was once a white peppered moth that lived in Britain which suvived becuase it camoflaged with silverberch trees. Then the industral revolution came along and the trees became black with soot. The moths however survived because one had mutated to be black and so camoflage. Oh come off it! What are the odds that there would be a random genetic mutation to create a Black peppered moth at the precicse moment in time when it would be enviromentally benefical for the black one to survive and the white ones to die. The more accurate version of events states that both black and white peppered moths existed but the black population was far smaller than the white and only surived by landing on the ground or somewhere dark. Then when the trees were blackened the bark was black and the blacks had a population burst. That seems to make more sense to me.

Scientists (real ones anyway) do not "try to disprove any culture." Scientists try to figure out how the world works. If the evidence happens to disprove something people said 1000's of years ago, so be it.

This is the kind of arrogence of scientists I talk about. Scientists stand up and say "We have proved X true. This disproves what God talks about when he says Y. Therefore God is wrong, therefore God does not exist". Firstly how on earth can they know if they have disproved God or not. The Bible does not say "And God created the earth using Z, F, Y methods" he just says he created it. And secondly, since God cannot be analysed scientificly, how can a scientist say wheter he exists or not.

Rather than intentionaly trying to pick holes in what I am saying, perhaps you can read the entire thing and then see what I mean. I have the belief sytem here, your just picking holes in it. You arnt comming from another viewpoint other than "You are wrong" and so perhaps you should have read the entire thing rather than pick it apart. See what it is saying as a whole. And I am not trying to "Prove" the fact that the massacre happened, I am trying to rationalise it to you people. Please read the post again.

I did read it all. The argument was that the account *must* be true because the account itself says that the Israelites were whiny.

Historically, we know that these stories were passed on by mouth for many generations before they were ever written down. We also know that mixing with other cultures led some who were weak of faith astray. One of the higher priests could have noticed this, and reasoned that God must have wanted them to kill *all* inhabitants of the land in order to avoid this occurrence. The fact that it wasn't done would have been this writer's demonstration that the Israelites were obviously loath to do it.

Either way, none of it justifies the intentional killing of children and, in this time period, women who had no other choice than to do what they were told.

And have you conceded then on the slavery and denigration of women problems?

Yes but evolution claims that not only abiogenesis happened but that nautral selection happens through genetics. While I do agree there are random mutations, there are far fewer of these than there are *nautral* selections. By these I mean the supposed random mutations that are beneficial and happen at a single time and thus continue throughout the lifetime of that species. For example, the fameous peppered moth. The idea that there was once a white peppered moth that lived in Britain which suvived becuase it camoflaged with silverberch trees. Then the industral revolution came along and the trees became black with soot. The moths however survived because one had mutated to be black and so camoflage. Oh come off it! What are the odds that there would be a random genetic mutation to create a Black peppered moth at the precicse moment in time when it would be enviromentally benefical for the black one to survive and the white ones to die. The more accurate version of events states that both black and white peppered moths existed but the black population was far smaller than the white and only surived by landing on the ground or somewhere dark. Then when the trees were blackened the bark was black and the blacks had a population burst. That seems to make more sense to me.

Actually, you have again proven that you don't research things before you talk about them.

(a) Evolution does not claim abiogenesis, although abiogenesis relies on principles of evolution for its description.

(b)No one claims that, at the time of the industrial revolution, there was a mutation that made moths black. The truth is that, long before, there had been a mutation that made some of them black. At that time, the selection in the forest was for white moths. Later, the selection was for black moths.

What evolution states is that there are these changes, and that the environment selects for certain traits. It is possible for two groups of the same species to get separated in different environments. Over time, one group will selectively breed for different traits than the other one and become a different species.

The theory of evolution has never stated that the mutation comes about in response to the change of environment, only that if a mutation enhances survival in that particular environment, it will be selected for.

This is the kind of arrogence of scientists I talk about. Scientists stand up and say "We have proved X true. This disproves what God talks about when he says Y. Therefore God is wrong, therefore God does not exist". Firstly how on earth can they know if they have disproved God or not. The Bible does not say "And God created the earth using Z, F, Y methods" he just says he created it. And secondly, since God cannot be analysed scientificly, how can a scientist say wheter he exists or not.

Do you not read? I quite clearly stated that scientists *DO NOT* claim to disprove God.

Scientists describe the way things work. If the evidence goes against something someone's holy book says, that in no way disproves God, and no true scientist would ever claim that it does.

For instance, the Bible quite clearly states that the sun held still in the sky and that made the day last longer. We now know that the sun does not rotate around the Earth. For years, the church murdered people or forced them to recant or be killed because they had found that the vast majority of evidence pointed towards the Copernican, rather than the geocentric view of the solar system.

These scientists never claimed to have disproved God, nor that they were trying to do so. It was the fundamentalist *religious* side of things that invented a conflict. Eventually, the church wised up and realized that the fact that one line in the Bible was wrong in no way disproved God.

Understand now?

Because we had free will and the choice to know good and evil or not, the choice to sin or not etc.

If the world was perfect, we would have had free will without being able to mess it up.

Homhsexuality is not a sin, How can that even be said because marriage isn't just for the christian religion any more. Muslims, hindu's and just about every other religion in the world (please don't be a smartass amd go try and find a religion that does not belive in marriage) Gay marriage isn't even a question of is it a sin or not so that it can be made illegal. What makes it appear bad are all these conservative assholes who dont belive in true freedom who make it bad. Marriage shouldn't even be given to the churches antmore the only thing the church has tio do with marriages these days is the ceremonial part, all the other things are handled by the government, such as tax breaks transfer of property hospital visitation rights. Marriage should be done away with all together in church and jus tg be made into a government controoled process so we can stop supporting all these corrupt and little boy raping clergy members

Are you ignorant or just stupid? If you are Christian, Jewish, or any of the denominations of those religions it is a sin. Sins only apply to those who follow those religions. If you are wondering what the definition of a sin is, a broad defintion is to disobey God. The fact that you think that marriage shouldn't be done in churches is totally contradictory, how can you say that it should be anyone's choice and yet say that churches shouldn't be allowed to? On another note, not only are you offending priests by calling them little boy rapers, you are offending all that believe in the Christian faith. Just because a very small amount of kids have come out and said that they have been sexually assaulted does not give you the discretion to generalize and assume that all are like that. I am in no way blaming the victims of sexual abuse, i believe that it is horrible that those individuals had to go through that and that those priests should be in jail. But you can't just go around insulting people to get your point across. I am a Christian and i personally don't believe in gay marriages. Although this is America and i don't have the right to tell someone to do something, i don't believe that gays should be married in churches since that really isn't appropriate. But I do think that since this is the land of the free, and you are able to do as you please then gays should be able to marry or become legally binded.

KBeeks

If you are Christian, Jewish, or any of the denominations of those religions it is a sin.

Wrong. If you are particular denominations of those religions, you consider it a sin, not all.

First of all, I really should read the post more often so I can get in on these debates while there are still somewhat relevent and read.

To get back to topic; and to address some points made above:

1) Sodom and Gomorrah, were not destroyed because of homosexuality or even as has been suggested; that the people of Sodom wanted to have sex with the angels. When one reads in Ezekiel, one finds a definitive listing of the sins of Sodom, to wit - pridefulness of self; inhospitality to strangers; greed; sloth; and impiety.

2) In Leviticus, where the scripture speaks of things being 'abominations' it actually simply means 'a very bad thing'.

3) Except for some Pauline exegises there are no New Testament references to condemnations of homosexuality. Rather, based upon the vision of Peter in Antioch regarding the cleanliness versus unclean nature of certain animals for food, it is now accepted that Christians were freed from adherence to the Law of Moses (even though that contradicts what Jesus said regarding coming not to supplant the Law, but to fulfill it - but that is a different thread). This is the reason why Christians are not bound by prohibitions on eating shell fish for example; and are willing to ignore such ideas that just because a woman wears red, then she is a harlot and should be taken to the city gates to be stoned.

4) The Bible has been used to hold many things that are now accepted to be untrue, and to be misconstrued and misquoted for such purposes. An example in the United States is that the Bible was used to prop up slavery, even though slavery as deemed acceptable in the eyes of God was only to be for a period of 50 years, at which time all slaves were to be freed in a year of Jubilee, calculated according to the Hebrew Calendar beginning with the Feast of Rosh Hashana.

5) What Bandana said above about the threat of male on male homosexuality be such a threat to patriarchy is very cogent. While 'uppity' women may challenge patriarchy by demanding equality, when men challenge the system it erodes the bedrock on which patriarchy is founded: namely that there is some special virtue by cleaving to a narrow interpretation of maleness. When one opens up the idea that there is no one right way to be male, then the idea of the specialness of maleness falls, and thus falls patriarchy.

6) Queer Theory (the study of the sociological and philosophical understanding of non-normative sexual expression and identification) currently holds that homosexuality is a social construct and a choice. But the corollary idea is that Heterosexuality is a social construct and a choice. This concept is anethema to the social and religious conservative who believes that there is some special nature to mixed-gender relationships essential to humanity. Ironically, attacks upon homosexuality were originally predicated upon the argument that it was unnatural inasmuch as only humans engaged in it. Now, the argument runs that it is unnatural because it is something that lower animals engage in, and is thus bestial in nature, which humanity - by its special God-imbued nature transcends. Instead the reality is that both are choices and one choice has no inherent virtuous quality. Both are equally valid forms of human sexual and romantic expression; just as choosing to not engage in such expressions at all is a valid choice.

The conclusion is that homosexuality is a sin because it is a statement of male dominated culture where even those who are not male engage in the support and creation of the cultural myths supporting the culture. Culture is very much a house of cards. Because people to not want to engage in the effort of cultural reformation and examination anything which challenges that structure must be quashed and demonized.

Thus, because western culture is currently at a point of examination and change, those ideas which most seriously attack the culture are thereby those resulting in the greatest reaction.

In a very real way, conservatives are correct. If one accepts homosexuality and by ultimate extension, homosexual marriage - it will be the end of civilization as we know it. This is a very terrifying concept if one believes that one's current civilization is the best possible (not simply the best among various choices currently available). For these people the concept of cultural shift is already scary enough without broaching the topic of cultural transformation. This is such a basic thing that even those who cannot articulate why they hold these fears; still fear them in a very real way.

To me it is sad that the religious community has tied itself so closely to this issue. By couching the debate in terms of Man's Will versus God's Will; or God versus Science, they risk truly undermining the entire system of belief in God as they define it. By accepting and embracing cultural changes and encouraging at all times such changes be made in accordance with ethical and moral standards religion remains relevent and powerful on the face of humanity. But should this debate be lost by the religious community, they risk losing any social or cultural relevnency and currency and thusly rendered obsolete. In the very act of defending their faith they may thereby destroy it as they are forced into ever more convoluted and tortured contortions of thought and deed.

In the late 1980s a play was written which examined a world in which a genetic source for homosexuality was found. Within this fictional world the religious debate turned to whether it was more moral to permit the pre-determined gay child to be born and thus sin and go to Hell; or should the religious accept abortion of such foetuses to 'save their souls'. A very poignant morality play, I believe.

But here is a question, why are scientists and the like arrogent enough to believe that the postion that there isnt a God any more grounded in reason than the belief that there is one?Whether that is even true or not rather depends on the scientist.

Show me where in the Bible it says that "God's job is to make sure the world is a wonderful and perfect place all the time" or something to that effect. It doesnt. God gave us free will and a choice. I dont see how that is unfair or pushing the blame onto man. If he had given us not free will, we would be mindless drones worshiping him because that was all we knew and if we had been given free will and no choice (no tree) then Eden would have been no better than a prision. Would you rather have no free will and the world be perfect? Sounds like a dictatiorship to me...False dilemma: there is a middle ground. God has a funny way of showing his love.

Evolution is a theroy, not a certianty. What I get angry about is those people who dismiss creation and then point immidately to evolution as a certianty because it isnt one. Nautral selection is a certianty but abiogensis is not. And because it is a scientific principal it requires proof, but Creation which is a religous issue does not. However I can prove it (Havn't got my notes with me ATM) or at least provide enough doubt into the equation to explain to you that evolution is not a ceritanty.Eh? abiogenesis != evolution. The evidence that organisms evolve (change "gradually") from common ancestors is overwhelming. The evidence for a single common ancestor is less so, but it is there. (The common genetic code)[1]. That is what the "theory" of evolution is, and it is pretty darn certain.
[1] Except for prions if you consider them life (I do).

You may be able to argue about wether or not it was in the literal 7 days or how exactly it happened but you cannot disprove God creating the world.Careful, you're getting a God of the gaps there. The discovery of gas giants near stars are baffling scientists, but this gap isn't very roomy. Now God creating the universe, that's a different kettle of fish. There's a ginormous gap there. Thing is, the early universe doesn't fit the Genesis description at all.

No scientist can ever disprove God's existance.True enough. No scientist can ever disprove the invisible pink unicorn either, that fact alone doesn't merit her serious consideration.

The part of evolution I am not convinced by is abiogensis which has little to no grounding in science.That's not evolution. If there is a good naturalistic theory, I haven't seen it yet.

In the same way it is also a possibilty (and a reasonable one) that the reason for the sudden burrial of many thousands of complex fossils is that the flood happened then and God created all the animals at the same sort of time.The thing is that that is not a reasonable possibility. Why should the order of burial in a catastrophic flood happen to match that predicted by evolution? And worldwide geology isn't consistent with a catastrophic flood. (Though, I am far from an expert in this area).

Genocide itself is objectively evil - there is no rationalizing it.Hear, hear!

If the world was perfect, we would have had free will without being able to mess it up.


Yup like being in a rubber room … we can choose to run into the wall but we wont hurt the wall or the room or ourselves too much :-D

Oh? Do tell. I'm not doubting you; I'm just interested.

Well, a quick look at the Greek gives us something like: "Dia touto theos paradidomi autos paradidomi eis atimia pathos gar te autos thelos metallasso phusikos chresis eis para phusis".

A quick, rough-and-ready translation would look something like this: (By the means of) (this thing) (god, or a god) (gives into the hands of) (themselves) (giving into the hands of) (for) (dishonourable) (calamity) (for) (and) (themselves) (of the female sex) (exchange) (inborn) (sexual use of a woman) (for) (from) (nature)...

Which roughly gives 'by means of this thing, gave them into their own hands, terrible calamity, in order that the female sex exchange the sexual use of a woman, for (that derived) from nature'.

Translating it directly from greek, god visits terrible calamity on Greek women (nothing to do with vile affections) SO that they WILL exchange "sexual use of women" for that that they were more 'naturally inclined' towards.

A curious piece of scripture - basically god curses the Greek women to MAKE them have sex with each other...

Well, a quick look at the Greek gives us something like: "Dia touto theos paradidomi autos paradidomi eis atimia pathos gar te autos thelos metallasso phusikos chresis eis para phusis".

A quick, rough-and-ready translation would look something like this: (By the means of) (this thing) (god, or a god) (gives into the hands of) (themselves) (giving into the hands of) (for) (dishonourable) (calamity) (for) (and) (themselves) (of the female sex) (exchange) (inborn) (sexual use of a woman) (for) (from) (nature)...

Which roughly gives 'by means of this thing, gave them into their own hands, terrible calamity, in order that the female sex exchange the sexual use of a woman, for (that derived) from nature'.

Translating it directly from greek, god visits terrible calamity on Greek women (nothing to do with vile affections) SO that they WILL exchange "sexual use of women" for that that they were more 'naturally inclined' towards.

A curious piece of scripture - basically god curses the Greek women to MAKE them have sex with each other...



*GASP you mean he could SUPORT such a thing *GASP

Lol I am just waiting for the argument that it does not apply to males (though that is mostly just because guys think it is “icky”)

1) Those are not facts on the site. Those are possibilites. Please do not confuse the two. In the same way it is also a possibilty (and a reasonable one) that the reason for the sudden burrial of many thousands of complex fossils is that the flood happened then and God created all the animals at the same sort of time. And also, while the site does try to explain why all said animals came to that level of complexity at that time, it does not explain why they were all burried so rapidly. The flood however does make that explination clear.

2) Read the site again. It is not just one area. The same form of fossil record can be found in British Coulmbia and Australia.

I didn't say the site was factual. I said you should prove a 'mixed' strata with evidence, and you produced a site that didn't mention mixed strata, and that focused on one geographic area - and I said that you obviously weren't letting that 'fact' get in the way...

This may be hard for you to grasp, since your head is so firmly knotted around the idea of a flood-timeline - but when they talk about fossils being laid down in very rapid succession, that doesn't mean 'over the course of a weekend' - that means a very great density of fossil lay-down, like thousands of individual types in a million years, for example.

Regardless, that site talks about fossil formation density, it says nothing about mixed strata.

Therefore, as I said: Irrelevent.

There is no position of whether or not there is a God, just that the question itself has nothing to do with scientific study.Scientists of course, by and large have opinions on the matter. But they do generally agree that it is a question outside the domain of science.

The more accurate version of events states that both black and white peppered moths existed but the black population was far smaller than the white and only surived by landing on the ground or somewhere dark. Then when the trees were blackened the bark was black and the blacks had a population burst. That seems to make more sense to me.Aye, me too.

it is now accepted that Christians were freed from adherence to the Law of MosesExcept for some posters here.

When one opens up the idea that there is no one right way to be male, then the idea of the specialness of maleness falls, and thus falls patriarchy.Sounds like a good thing to me.

6) Queer Theory (the study of the sociological and philosophical understanding of non-normative sexual expression and identification) currently holds that homosexuality is a social construct and a choice.Woah, I must be more out-of-touch than I thought.

To me it is sad that the religious community has tied itself so closely to this issue. By couching the debate in terms of Man's Will versus God's Will; or God versus Science, they risk truly undermining the entire system of belief in God as they define it. ... In the very act of defending their faith they may thereby destroy it as they are forced into ever more convoluted and tortured contortions of thought and deed.This arguably happened to the Catholic Church (not destroyed, but reduced in respect and stature and power), but it doesn't seem to be happening to fundamentalist Protestantism right now. (Probably due to the rise of anti-intellectualism).

A curious piece of scripture - basically god curses the Greek women to MAKE them have sex with each other...Ah. From the translation it wasn't clear whether God abandoned them to, or God "afflicted" them with same sex lusts. I assumed the former because it was consistent with a particular strain of homophobia I had run across quite a number of times.

Ah. From the translation it wasn't clear whether God abandoned them to, or God "afflicted" them with same sex lusts. I assumed the former because it was consistent with a particular strain of homophobia I had run across quite a number of times.

I think the confusion in the passage comes from two things:

a) An agenda, by certain translators, to ostracise homosexuals... therefore, a deliberate misreading of the text.

9) The fact that 'eis' is usually translated as 'for', but is HERE translated as 'unto' - suggests that, once again, a certain 'bias' was taken with the translation.

Reading it in Greek, there is no really good reason to suspect that it is any kind of condemnation - conversely, it actually looks like a divinely inspired act...

Oh, those crazy Greeks, eh?

What are the odds that there would be a random genetic mutation to create a Black peppered moth at the precicse moment in time when it would be enviromentally benefical for the black one to survive and the white ones to die. The more accurate version of events states that both black and white peppered moths existed but the black population was far smaller than the white and only surived by landing on the ground or somewhere dark. Then when the trees were blackened the bark was black and the blacks had a population burst. That seems to make more sense to me.
Actually, what happened was... Both kind of moth existed as variants of each other. They perched on the same trees, but since the trees were light coloured the white one's were more camouflaged and survived at higher levels to pass on thir genes.
Then, ones Britain became more industrialised, the trees blackened with soot. And the darker trees favoured the black moths surviving and passing on their genes.
The mutation already existed. It's not some hocus-pocus theory... Just natural selection at work.

Actually, what happened was... Both kind of moth existed as variants of each other. They perched on the same trees, but since the trees were light coloured the white one's were more camouflaged and survived at higher levels to pass on thir genes.
Then, ones Britain became more industrialised, the trees blackened with soot. And the darker trees favoured the black moths surviving and passing on their genes.
The mutation already existed. It's not some hocus-pocus theory... Just natural selection at work.

Thats what I said, read the post. Both white and black existed at the same time. But what I find stupid is when people say "So just when Britain became industrialised, a mutation happened and saved the day". And besides, I think there are proberbly several Genes involved in making a white moth black, not just one that could happen once.

a) An agenda, by certain translators, to ostracise homosexuals... therefore, a deliberate misreading of the text.


What adgenda? Why is it that people think that the Biblical translators were on some kind of anti-gay crusade? Besides claiming it none of you have offered evidence to support that idea?

If the world was perfect, we would have had free will without being able to mess it up.

That would give humans no sense of responseablity, nothing to force them to live with the concequences of their actions.

And have you conceded then on the slavery and denigration of women problems?

No, please read the website again, or better still here is an extract. First about slavery

(extract begins)

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge

(extract ends)

You clearly have not read the site, if you had you would see that it cannot be summerised as "We are treeting them well". The idea of new world slavery and Old Testement slavery are very diffrent. Read the website again and you will see why.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

And as for the women point

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html

read this.

Historically, we know that these stories were passed on by mouth for many generations before they were ever written down. We also know that mixing with other cultures led some who were weak of faith astray. One of the higher priests could have noticed this, and reasoned that God must have wanted them to kill *all* inhabitants of the land in order to avoid this occurrence. The fact that it wasn't done would have been this writer's demonstration that the Israelites were obviously loath to do it.


You obviously have not read the website properly

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html


God did not orriginaly plan to have the Cannanites exterminated merely moved

(Extract begins)

Let's look at a few examples of the "dispossession" words.
From the garasl group ("drive out"):
Ex 23:28-30: I will send the hornet ahead of you to drive the Hivites, Canaanites and Hittites out of your way... But I will not drive them out in a single year,... Little by little I will drive them out before you"
Ex 23.31-33: "I will hand over to you the people who live in the land and you will drive them out before you. 32 Do not make a covenant with them or with their gods. 33 Do not let them live in your land,"
Ex 33.2: "I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites..."
Deut 33.27: " He will drive out your enemy before you, saying, `Destroy him!'"
[Notice that this word is used to describe the Pharoah 'driving out' the Israelites--obviously not annihilating them!--in Exodus 6.1: " "Now you will see what I will do to Pharaoh: Because of my mighty hand he will let them go; because of my mighty hand he will drive them out of his country." and by Balak trying to drive Israel away in Numbers 22:6,11.]


The yarasl group ("dispossess"):
Ex 24.34: " I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory,"
Num 33.52f: " drive out all the inhabitants of the land before you. Destroy all their carved images and their cast idols, and demolish all their high places. 53 Take possession of the land and settle in it,"
Deut 4.38: " to drive out before you nations greater and stronger than you and to bring you into their land to give it to you for your inheritance, as it is today."
Deut 9.3,4,5: " And you will drive them out and annihilate them quickly... After the LORD your God has driven them out before you... the LORD your God will drive them out before you"
Deut 11.23: " then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and stronger than you."
Deut 18.12: " because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you."


The salah group ("send away")
Lev 18.24: " because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants."
Lev 20.23: " You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you."

(extract ends)

please read the website FULLY before comming back to me

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

That would give humans no sense of responseablity, nothing to force them to live with the concequences of their actions.

No, in a perfect world we would have had lots of sense of responsibility and lots of chances to live with the consequences of our actions, without being able to topple it all by eating the wrong apple.

No, in a perfect world we would have had lots of sense of responsibility and lots of chances to live with the consequences of our actions, without being able to topple it all by eating the wrong apple.

How would that work exactly? It may be the unpalletable truth but we KNEW what would happen when we ate the fruit. WE were AWARE of the concequences if we did eat it BUT we still chose to sin. How exactly would your idea work? Show me a workable system and I will debate its validity with you, dont just spew out nice sounding platitudes. And anyway, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect that it is God's job description to keep the world perfect for everyone all the time?

What adgenda? Why is it that people think that the Biblical translators were on some kind of anti-gay crusade? Besides claiming it none of you have offered evidence to support that idea?

Because none of it is in the original language????

My god, man, have you read none of the posts I wrote?

How about contxt, then? How about the british royal family outlawing homosexuality, and, coincidentally, authorising a version of the bible that 'interprets' the Greek and Hebrew originals into anti-homosexual sentiments?

How would that work exactly? It may be the unpalletable truth but we KNEW what would happen when we ate the fruit. WE were AWARE of the concequences if we did eat it BUT we still chose to sin. How exactly would your idea work? Show me a workable system and I will debate its validity with you, dont just spew out nice sounding platitudes. And anyway, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect that it is God's job description to keep the world perfect for everyone all the time?

Actually, since they had no experience of sin - how could they have comprehended anything about the results of eating the 'apple'?

More to the point.... god deliberately made them fail that test.

He didn't tell them about the existence of the 'serpent', and he never introduced them to the concept of lying.... so, when a talking serpent arrived, they have no reason to disbelieve it... and, in fact, since they only know one other speaking entity (god) - they would have every reason to do as the serpent says!

No, please read the website again, or better still here is an extract. First about slavery

(extract begins)

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge

(extract ends)

You clearly have not read the site, if you had you would see that it cannot be summerised as "We are treeting them well". The idea of new world slavery and Old Testement slavery are very diffrent. Read the website again and you will see why.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

And as for the women point

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html

read this.

Honestly, my friend... you will BELIEVE anything, if it agrees with your bias, won't you?

Explain how selling someone for labour, indentured for either seven years (if a man) or the rest of their life, if a woman.... and with absolute ownership over them - including a set of prices you have to pay if you 'damage' them... is any different to the 'new' concept of slavery.

It's unpalatable for you, but those Hebrews, like many of their contemporaries... did evil things.

The commited genocides, they took, trade and kept slaves, they raped the women, and they burned to towns of their enemies. They were barbarians.

How about contxt, then? How about the british royal family outlawing homosexuality, and, coincidentally, authorising a version of the bible that 'interprets' the Greek and Hebrew originals into anti-homosexual sentiments?

You must be clever. Since when were the British Royal family the primary legislatiors for the UK, a long time ago and the law banning homosexuality was repealed recently and Bibles have been published since then saying the same things. Unless you can get biographical detail on one of the traslators and prove that she/he was an outspoken anti-homosexual, then you may have a point but I doubt you can.

In a very real way, conservatives are correct. If one accepts homosexuality and by ultimate extension, homosexual marriage - it will be the end of civilization as we know it. This is a very terrifying concept if one believes that one's current civilization is the best possible (not simply the best among various choices currently available). For these people the concept of cultural shift is already scary enough without broaching the topic of cultural transformation. This is such a basic thing that even those who cannot articulate why they hold these fears; still fear them in a very real way. I think you have it spot on there. But everything, civilisations included, has to end. You either end by changing, or you die...

Me personally, I can't wait for the end of civilisation as we know it and then perhaps we can have a civilisation that isn't full of pointless prejudice...

Actually, since they had no experience of sin - how could they have comprehended anything about the results of eating the 'apple'?


God told them


" And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." "

Genesis 2: 16 - 17

And they were aware

(Eve speeking here) but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die

Genesis 3: 3



He didn't tell them about the existence of the 'serpent', and he never introduced them to the concept of lying.... so, when a talking serpent arrived, they have no reason to disbelieve it... and, in fact, since they only know one other speaking entity (god) - they would have every reason to do as the serpent says!

God told them the truth and they knew that. If what the serpent was telling them also claimed to be the truth, who do you think they should believe. They knew who and what God was so they knew he was right. They had a far better relationship with him than we do now as God walked with them on many occations.

The commited genocides, they took, trade and kept slaves, they raped the women, and they burned to towns of their enemies. They were barbarians.

You obviously have not read the websites, read them again. There were strict regulations about what the Isralites could and could not do in Cannen.

Site extract

They were NEVER allowed to take the cultic objects--with the precious metals and stones--Deut 7.25f:
The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. 26 Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.
They were REQUIRED to offer peace to nations at a distance--Deut 20.10-16:
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
There were restrictions on how Israelite men treated female war captives (from distant nations)--Deut 12.10ff:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Extract ends

Please read the ENTIREITY of the websites. They are long and complex but they do answer your questions. Just because the answers are not to your liking doesnt mean they are not answers.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

And as for the slave aspect, when will you understand that slave in twentith century understanding (new world colonial slave trade) and the near east understanding are diffrent. Read this website FULLY. It describes not what a slave was in the near east at this time

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

You must be clever. Since when were the British Royal family the primary legislatiors for the UK, a long time ago and the law banning homosexuality was repealed recently and Bibles have been published since then saying the same things. Unless you can get biographical detail on one of the traslators and prove that she/he was an outspoken anti-homosexual, then you may have a point but I doubt you can.

The british monarchs were the prime legislators for MOST of the history of the nation.

You are right... the law banning homosexuality was repealed RECENTLY... and all the bibles are being printed with the same mindless content they have since King James authorised the bible, because people like you refuse to believe that the wording could be any different.

It isn't a matter of translators being anti-gay... the MONARCHY made the decision to sponsor the book, and King James wanted it to support his views (including one on his belief in the Divine Right of Kings). If they hadn't fitted in with James's wishes... well, let's say, their 'severence pay' wouldn't have been money....

The monarchy has long been an outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Queen Elizabeth was very outspoken against male homosexuality, but not female... since she didn't believe women 'did things like that'.

I have shown you clear evidence that the KJV translation is wrong. I have explained context telling you WHY.

How about you show me a reason why your KJV IS NOT wrong?

God told them
" And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." "
Genesis 2: 16 - 17
And they were aware
(Eve speeking here) but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die
Genesis 3: 3
God told them the truth and they knew that. If what the serpent was telling them also claimed to be the truth, who do you think they should believe. They knew who and what God was so they knew he was right. They had a far better relationship with him than we do now as God walked with them on many occations.

And they were innocent... they had no knowledge of sin or death.

How could they comprehend lying? How could they understand that someone could tell them something untrue?

How could they understand what god meant by a punishment? They had no conception of sin, how coult they understand, then, what punishment was, or was for? They had no concept of death... how could they comprehend that 'death' would be a bad thing?

As far as they knew, their creator had given them a perfect world, with no sins... and everything in it was'good'... and yet he conceals a little evil in it, and doesn't even warn them.

You obviously have not read the websites, read them again. There were strict regulations about what the Isralites could and could not do in Cannen.

Site extract

They were NEVER allowed to take the cultic objects--with the precious metals and stones--Deut 7.25f:
The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. 26 Do not bring a detestable thing into your house or you, like it, will be set apart for destruction. Utterly abhor and detest it, for it is set apart for destruction.
They were REQUIRED to offer peace to nations at a distance--Deut 20.10-16:
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
There were restrictions on how Israelite men treated female war captives (from distant nations)--Deut 12.10ff:
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

Extract ends

Please read the ENTIREITY of the websites. They are long and complex but they do answer your questions. Just because the answers are not to your liking doesnt mean they are not answers.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

And as for the slave aspect, when will you understand that slave in twentith century understanding (new world colonial slave trade) and the near east understanding are diffrent. Read this website FULLY. It describes not what a slave was in the near east at this time

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html

I suggest you re-read this website.

You are accepting a website as though it were gospel... effectively placing someone else's opinions above scripture.

But, you are fine with that, because their lies match your prejudice.

Quick example... let's talk about 'taking wives' shall we? What do you think that means? Show how that is a 'marriage' in the modern sense? Show how it is anything less than rape?

How about you show me a reason why your KJV IS NOT wrong?

How about you show me why the NIV is wrong, or for that matter the NSRV, since the NSRV was translated from the earliest know availble texts and still condems homosexuality. And heres something you havent considered. If the homosexuality condeming passages are wrong, there is still the little matter of your failing to find any passages actively supporting homosexuality. The Bible may not be an outspoken opponent of nuclear war/car polution etc but those werent around then. Homosexuality was, and the Bible works on both negative and positve freedoms so please show me a verse promoting homosexuality. Your argument is flawed untill you can find one

And they were innocent... they had no knowledge of sin or death.

How could they comprehend lying? How could they understand that someone could tell them something untrue?

How could they understand what god meant by a punishment? They had no conception of sin, how coult they understand, then, what punishment was, or was for? They had no concept of death... how could they comprehend that 'death' would be a bad thing?

As far as they knew, their creator had given them a perfect world, with no sins... and everything in it was'good'... and yet he conceals a little evil in it, and doesn't even warn them.

They KNEW who God was, they KNEW that what he was telling them was the TRUTH. They KNEW that God had told them not to do something, They KNEW that if they ate the fruit of the tree they would die. And yet they did. There is no point in trying to defend them. If they could respond to God (as it is shown here they could) then they must have understood what he was saying so they were fully aware. They were guilty, they sinned.

But, you are fine with that, because their lies match your prejudice.


WHAT PREJUDICE? Im a Christian. Are you calling Christians prejudiced. As I have stated, I dont treet Gays any diffrently from the way I treet anyone else. They are sinners like me and everyone else of this world. I dont see why you dont get that.


Quick example... let's talk about 'taking wives' shall we? What do you think that means? Show how that is a 'marriage' in the modern sense? Show how it is anything less than rape?


The "Taking wives" thing is most comparable to today's arranged marriage. Read the passage on the way women that are taken are suposed to be treeted

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

She lives with the people, she is treeted like a wife (Becomes part of the family, lives in the house, is fed by the populus) she is treated as an Isralite. This is not rape. Rape is just sex and gone, this is diffrent.

WHAT PREJUDICE? Im a Christian. Are you calling Christians prejudiced. As I have stated, I dont treet Gays any diffrently from the way I treet anyone else. They are sinners like me and everyone else of this world. I dont see why you dont get that.

It's that many Christians believe homosexuals are sinners and should not be entitled to rights afforded to heterosexuals in family law, such as marriage or civil unions and child adoption (in some cases their OWN children) though this is a step up from decades ago when Christian "morals" and the law had a cozier relationship meanwhile homosexuals were committed to institutions or correctional facilities.

How about you show me why the NIV is wrong, or for that matter the NSRV, since the NSRV was translated from the earliest know availble texts and still condems homosexuality. And heres something you havent considered. If the homosexuality condeming passages are wrong, there is still the little matter of your failing to find any passages actively supporting homosexuality. The Bible may not be an outspoken opponent of nuclear war/car polution etc but those werent around then. Homosexuality was, and the Bible works on both negative and positve freedoms so please show me a verse promoting homosexuality. Your argument is flawed untill you can find one

Look, you are getting hot and bothered.... and there's nothing I can do about that, since you are getting worked up over something I have no control over.

Have you noticed that all those evrsions of the bible also traslate 'elohim' as god? No, of course you haven't - since you haven't read it in the original language.... but, here's the thing. 'Elohim' doesn't mean god... it means 'spirits'... and you'll notice, that is plural.

There is a modern convention to read 'elohim' as god, when one encounters it in scripture.... but that is a mile away from what the original text says... and yet, all the modern bibles do it. They ALL make the same mistake - because they are all following the same conventions - those set down by King James, when he ordered his 'translation'.

Show me one of those texts that actually translates what is on the page, rather than translating ACCORDING to 'accepted' etiquette, and I will show you a bible that doesn't condemn homosexuality.

Why don't you solve all these problems, by going an getting a 'Learn Hebrew' text book, teach YOURSELF the langauge of the scripture, and read it yourself?

Oh - and, if you read back through my posts, I did offer proof 'promoting homsexuality'... but, my guess is you didn't read the whole post.

They KNEW who God was, they KNEW that what he was telling them was the TRUTH. They KNEW that God had told them not to do something, They KNEW that if they ate the fruit of the tree they would die. And yet they did. There is no point in trying to defend them. If they could respond to God (as it is shown here they could) then they must have understood what he was saying so they were fully aware. They were guilty, they sinned.

The knew god created them... they believed he told them truth... but only because THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE of anything other than truth.

You see? How could they KNOW the serpent lied? All they knew was truth?

They were told that if they ate the fruit, they would die... and yet they didn't know what 'die' meant... since the text clearly states that they were effectively immortal at this point. How could they comprehend "die"? They had no frame of reference.

They were not fully aware.... to believe that would be foolish, and in direct contravention of scripture... it clearly says that they DID NOT KNOW GOOD AND EVIL. How did god know they had eaten the fruit? Because of the shame that caused them to dress.... at THAT point, they knew good and evil, and could understand wrong, and punishment... but the scripture CLEARLY states that they were ABSOLUTE innocents BEFORE they ate from the tree.

Can a baby sin? No - it has no knowledge of good or evil. The only sin it has, if you believe your Catholic dogma, is Eve's sin.... well, Adam and Eve were ignorant of good and evil - they were 'babies' - and they didn't even have Eve's sin (yet), so they had no frame of reference.

WHAT PREJUDICE? Im a Christian. Are you calling Christians prejudiced. As I have stated, I dont treet Gays any diffrently from the way I treet anyone else. They are sinners like me and everyone else of this world. I dont see why you dont get that.



The "Taking wives" thing is most comparable to today's arranged marriage. Read the passage on the way women that are taken are suposed to be treeted

When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.

She lives with the people, she is treeted like a wife (Becomes part of the family, lives in the house, is fed by the populus) she is treated as an Isralite. This is not rape. Rape is just sex and gone, this is diffrent.

Regarding prejudice: do you really treat homosexuals EXACTLY like everyone else? This is between you and your god, and he will know your lies.

Do you think 'straight' people should marry? What about gay people?

If you cannot answer those two (simple) questions with exactly the same response - then you do not treat them the same. And the reason is a prejudice - based on your misinterpretation of a document written several thousand years ago - but, which you have never bothered to read, relying instead on someone ELSE to tell you what it says.

And, for a change - you are wrong. It says nowhere that the invading Hebrew horde should ASK for the brides... they 'take them as wives'... with no consent. So - they take a woman, and they breed with her, against her will, and without her consent. This is rape. It would be rape if they did it once, then left, it is INSTITUTIONALISED rape when you kidnap the woman for the purposes of repeatedly raping her, and then write it into your law books as a legality.

How would that work exactly? It may be the unpalletable truth but we KNEW what would happen when we ate the fruit. WE were AWARE of the concequences if we did eat it BUT we still chose to sin. How exactly would your idea work? Show me a workable system and I will debate its validity with you, dont just spew out nice sounding platitudes.Ok, first of all, you DON'T tell them they're bad or anything like that. What you do tell them is that they made a bad choice, and that choice has consequences, ideally related in some way to what they did. And secondly, you have reasonable consequences. Because of eating the apple, they know they are naked. So a consequence could be having them make their own clothes instead of doing it for them (it's not going to be an easy task). The "workable system" is basically a system of parenthood. The garden of Eden is a somewhat unusual situation, so some creativity will have to be called for, but that shouldn't be a problem for God, no?

And anyway, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect that it is God's job description to keep the world perfect for everyone all the time?It doesn't, as far as I know. The Bible says "those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them", but the Bible is wrong: beating children is not a good way to discipline them.

More to the point.... god deliberately made them fail that test.Well, perhaps not quite. But he didn't anticipate that they would eat the apple against his instructions (so much for omniscience). Any parent could probably anticipate this, but He's new to parenting. Still that's no cause to overreact as He did. If the tree was so important it shouldn't have been accessible.

You obviously have not read the websites, read them again. There were strict regulations about what the Isralites could and could not do in Cannen.Yes. Among them they were required to kill every breathing thing in the cities they were given as an inheritance. And they did indeed burn the towns of their enemies. (Josh 11:21). Not all of them, for they took the ones on hills for themselves. And the ones outside their territory they merely enslaved.

WHAT PREJUDICE? Im a Christian. Are you calling Christians prejudiced.He's calling you prejudiced. And I agree, you appear to have judged prior to reading the Bible, and are searching it for support for your pre-conceived beliefs.

This is not rape. Rape is just sex and gone, this is diffrent.Rape is forced sex.

Regarding prejudice: do you really treat homosexuals EXACTLY like everyone else? This is between you and your god, and he will know your lies.

Do you think 'straight' people should marry? What about gay people?

If you cannot answer those two (simple) questions with exactly the same response - then you do not treat them the same. And the reason is a prejudice - based on your misinterpretation of a document written several thousand years ago - but, which you have never bothered to read, relying instead on someone ELSE to tell you what it says.

And, for a change - you are wrong. It says nowhere that the invading Hebrew horde should ASK for the brides... they 'take them as wives'... with no consent. So - they take a woman, and they breed with her, against her will, and without her consent. This is rape. It would be rape if they did it once, then left, it is INSTITUTIONALISED rape when you kidnap the woman for the purposes of repeatedly raping her, and then write it into your law books as a legality.

Lol to be fair like murder rape is dependent on the law :)
As murder is illegal killing

Rape is illegal sex against will

rape1 P Pronunciation Key (r p)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.


If it is legal then it is just sex against will … not right but still not rape if ya want to be technical

Though I agree with the push of your statement

Well, perhaps not quite. But he didn't anticipate that they would eat the apple against his instructions (so much for omniscience). Any parent could probably anticipate this, but He's new to parenting. Still that's no cause to overreact as He did. If the tree was so important it shouldn't have been accessible.


There are only two possible rationalisations:

1) God didn't KNOW the serpent was there... which seems unlikely, since he built the garden, and put everything in it. So much for omniscience.

2) God chose NOT to tell the two newbies that there was such a thing as lying, and, in fact, a serpent in the garden who might do it. Since they had no knowledge of evil, they couldn't understand lying if they encountered it... so god 'primes' the test against them.

Lol to be fair like murder rape is dependent on the law :)
As murder is illegal killing

Rape is illegal sex against will

rape1 P Pronunciation Key (r p)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.


If it is legal then it is just sex against will … not right but still not rape if ya want to be technical

Though I agree with the push of your statement

I don't know about that... it seems to me, that if it not consensual, it is always rape, even if your law 'allows' rape... that's still what it is.

Anyway... the woman would argue that HER culture didn't consider it rape, so the invaders are still raping the natives.

You clearly have not read the site, if you had you would see that it cannot be summerised as "We are treeting them well". The idea of new world slavery and Old Testement slavery are very diffrent. Read the website again and you will see why.

It says that slave could have been used to mean many different things. However, it does not discount the clear fact that the Bible still states that it is permissable to believe that you own someone else. The fact that you are given statutes on how to treat that someone else does not get rid of the original evil - that you think you can own them in the first place.

The website ignores several facts:
(a) That the jubilee year only applied to male Hebrew slaves (who had usually entered)
(b) That, while it was possible for a slave to "buy himself free", no owner was *required* to take a price for him. Thus, the owner could refuse to do so.
(c) That the fact that a slave would not necessarily be allowed to take his wife and children gave the owner a clear way to essentially force him into life-long servitude.
(d) The author falsely says that the slaves when beaten were treated exactly like free men, stating that if the slave survived for a night, it just isn't obvious that the beating killed him. Yeah, what if we went by that rule now? Half the people who committed murder would get away with it!

The entire website makes it sound like slavery was all happy-go-lucky, which is incredibly doubtful. Guess what, most slaves in the South were treated very well, as treating them badly would have cost the owner an investment. Exactly these same arguments were used to justify enslaving them! And many of the slaves at that time didn't *want* to be free, because it was less economically advantageous. Guess what? It was still wrong!

And as for the women point

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem02b.html

read this.

And your website conveniently ignores verses once again. It points out the verse that states a woman must give the same offering for a male or female child, but completely ignores the verse right before it that clearly states that a woman is unclean for *twice* as long if she has a female baby. This is quite clearly a source ignoring verses to make its point.

In addition, the site uses a translation that translates many things as "male and female" that are translated simply as male in most contexts, including the NRSV - biasing its decision even further.

It also does not speak to the fact that a woman had to prove her virginity using a method that would not always work, regardless of whether or not the woman was a virgin - while the male did not.

A male was not forced into marriage, a woman was - and the fact that you believe that all women were consenting because her father said so is pretty naive.

You obviously have not read the website properly

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

God did not orriginaly plan to have the Cannanites exterminated merely moved

So? According to the Bible, the Israelites were still supposed to murder *anybody* left whether they be man, woman, or child. The latter two had no part in the decision making. And, in fact, the idea that they were supposed to kill all the women and children is *clearly* contradicted by the passage you linked to on slavery, in which the Israelites supposedly are supposed to take women, children, and (cooperative) men as slaves in wartime, only killing those men who resist.

Lol to be fair like murder rape is dependent on the law :)
As murder is illegal killing

Rape is illegal sex against will

rape1 P Pronunciation Key (r p)
n.
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.


If it is legal then it is just sex against will … not right but still not rape if ya want to be technical

Though I agree with the push of your statement

Crime does not have to equate to illegal. Forced sex is *always* a crime against the person, as it takes away the free will of the person. The fact that the Israelites institutionalized forced sex only demonstrates how very barbaric they really were.

holy crap!!! this forum is still going on? i have been on here from page 5 on, but it wasn't showing up so i asummed it was over, but 3000? weird. is neo cannen still on here? if so, is he still a reliogious extremist? (bible says this, bible says that)

1) God didn't KNOW the serpent was there... which seems unlikely, since he built the garden, and put everything in it. So much for omniscience.... Or God didn't anticipate what the serpent might do, and what the humans might do. At any rate either omniscience goes out the window or god is set them up.

I don't know about that... it seems to me, that if it not consensual, it is always rape, even if your law 'allows' rape... that's still what it is.It seems that definitions vary. But I recon, regardless of what you call it, forced sex is wrong.

It points out the verse that states a woman must give the same offering for a male or female child, but completely ignores the verse right before it that clearly states that a woman is unclean for *twice* as long if she has a female baby.It's elsewhere in the page where the contradiction is not as appearent. (They did the same thing for the rules of war). Appearently uncleanliness is a good thing. Go figure!
It also does not speak to the fact that a woman had to prove her virginity using a method that would not always work, regardless of whether or not the woman was a virgin - while the male did not.It looks like they did indeed leave that out.
So? According to the Bible, the Israelites were still supposed to murder *anybody* left whether they be man, woman, or child. The latter two had no part in the decision making. And, in fact, the idea that they were supposed to kill all the women and children is *clearly* contradicted by the passage you linked to on slavery, in which the Israelites supposedly are supposed to take women, children, and (cooperative) men as slaves in wartime, only killing those men who resist.The rules apply to different types of cities, those alloted to the Israelites, and those far away from the Israelites. The site conveniently glosses over this.

Crime does not have to equate to illegal. Forced sex is *always* a crime against the person, as it takes away the free will of the person. The fact that the Israelites institutionalized forced sex only demonstrates how very barbaric they really were.

crime P Pronunciation Key (kr m)
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
So rape is based off of the act of crime and crime off of law … so it is in the violation of a law

The other definitions are common knowledge definitions including serious offenses and unjust situations … they can be used for the team “crime” but they are neither hear nor there because they are dependent on morality

And morality varies … so if the rapist sense of morals do not include forced sex under the “bad” heading it is not rape? Or is it only the “victim”?

edit I put victem in quotes because it could be argued as the reciving end of a crime when we are argung the existance of such

its a sin in the bible supposedly god created men and for each other not the same sex. and for the person who talked about god destroyin a gay village in the bible, it was called Sodom and that why homosexuality is also called Sodomy. but i dont think he used nucleur weepons.

-No replies to me or this please. You asked a question, and I'm replying.-

Homosexuality is a sin. This is because sex is a very sacred thing that should be only between a man and a woman. Sex is both to create children and to express a love you have for the other person. One man can love another man, and one woman can love another woman, but they cannot have children, and cannot create the family that God wants them to have, so to them, sex is nothing more than expressions of lust and a disregard for the sacredness it holds.

That being said, Gays are not all about sex. A gay man should not be harassed or beaten for being gay - God will judge him. A person is not born gay, their environment around them - the media, the "free" society where inibitions and any sense of responsibility are gone - with their own mind and other factors, determine their sexuality. They are not to be berated or belittled in any way. They are human beings, despite what they do in their spare time.

Also, any careless sex, even between a man and a woman, is a sin. For the reasons discussed above, sex is necessary to carrying on the human race, and will help a man and woman strengthen their family relationship. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marrying a woman only to later divorce her is wrong. Adultery is wrong. Divorces are bad, though there are many times where a person has no other option (abuse etc.). As stated before, people who participate in these things are not to be treated as anything less than a human beings - only God has the wisdom necessary to fairly judge them.

Gay marriage should not be allowed in the religious aspect, but the government should have no say in what two people can do - the government abolished any form of morality long ago from public life. However, those who are religious should not be belittled simply for holding to these values - you have no right to tell someone what to believe in. They want marriage as they have to remain the same, and the government has no right to take that away from them. The only sensible solution to this problem is to create a new union for homosexuality that grants gays what they desire in a union. Note that this will not change marriage, so the religious people have no need to oppose it, and this will give the gays the government-recognized union they desire, so they have no need to oppose this.

___
You asked, I answered. I have not been spoonfed this by anyone, despite what your flaming will imply - living where I do, society is attempting to brainwash me to the contrary. I do not hate homosexuals, nor condemn them to hell for what they are doing. Perhaps they don't believe in what I do, and as such, perhaps God will not judge them as harshly as He would judge me. If you are a gay man, I would remind anyone that you are still a man, and your work ability, thoughts, feelings, etc. are not affected by who you choose to give your affections to. I would give gays any rights I would give anyone else, but despite what society wants, I do not consider them a special group, and will not give them special treatment.

Though I have given a thoughtfull reply to your question, reading this thread has taught me you don't want that, but just want flaming. Very well, say what you will, but I will not reply to this thread or even look at it. You stated your desire to know what people object to about homosexuality and I have answered - the sex. Good day.

-No replies to me or this please. You asked a question, and I'm replying.-

Homosexuality is a sin. This is because sex is a very sacred thing that should be only between a man and a woman. Sex is both to create children and to express a love you have for the other person. One man can love another man, and one woman can love another woman, but they cannot have children, and cannot create the family that God wants them to have, so to them, sex is nothing more than expressions of lust and a disregard for the sacredness it holds.

That being said, Gays are not all about sex. A gay man should not be harassed or beaten for being gay - God will judge him. A person is not born gay, their environment around them - the media, the "free" society where inibitions and any sense of responsibility are gone - with their own mind and other factors, determine their sexuality. They are not to be berated or belittled in any way. They are human beings, despite what they do in their spare time.

Also, any careless sex, even between a man and a woman, is a sin. For the reasons discussed above, sex is necessary to carrying on the human race, and will help a man and woman strengthen their family relationship. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marrying a woman only to later divorce her is wrong. Adultery is wrong. Divorces are bad, though there are many times where a person has no other option (abuse etc.). As stated before, people who participate in these things are not to be treated as anything less than a human beings - only God has the wisdom necessary to fairly judge them.

Gay marriage should not be allowed in the religious aspect, but the government should have no say in what two people can do - the government abolished any form of morality long ago from public life. However, those who are religious should not be belittled simply for holding to these values - you have no right to tell someone what to believe in. They want marriage as they have to remain the same, and the government has no right to take that away from them. The only sensible solution to this problem is to create a new union for homosexuality that grants gays what they desire in a union. Note that this will not change marriage, so the religious people have no need to oppose it, and this will give the gays the government-recognized union they desire, so they have no need to oppose this.

___
You asked, I answered. I have not been spoonfed this by anyone, despite what your flaming will imply - living where I do, society is attempting to brainwash me to the contrary. I do not hate homosexuals, nor condemn them to hell for what they are doing. Perhaps they don't believe in what I do, and as such, perhaps God will not judge them as harshly as He would judge me. If you are a gay man, I would remind anyone that you are still a man, and your work ability, thoughts, feelings, etc. are not affected by who you choose to give your affections to. I would give gays any rights I would give anyone else, but despite what society wants, I do not consider them a special group, and will not give them special treatment.

Though I have given a thoughtfull reply to your question, reading this thread has taught me you don't want that, but just want flaming. Very well, say what you will, but I will not reply to this thread or even look at it. You stated your desire to know what people object to about homosexuality and I have answered - the sex. Good day.

Well done.

You flamed, and stated it as a moral highground.

I salute you.

(And, if I thought you were going to check back, I'd show you your (numerous) errors and assumptions.)

Well done.

You flamed, and stated it as a moral highground.

I salute you.

(And, if I thought you were going to check back, I'd show you your (numerous) errors and assumptions.)


lol and you expected better?

lol and you expected better?

No, not really. :(

I did HOPE for better... it seems that the only people who have ANY idea about scripture are the pro-equality faction; the only people who can put together a rational argument are the pro-equality faction; the only people who have (actual) evidence to back up their claims are the pro-equality faction...

I would LIKE to debate the issue with people of the 'other' persuasion, but they appear to be unequal to the task.

*sigh*

No, not really. :(

I did HOPE for better... it seems that the only people who have ANY idea about scripture are the pro-equality faction; the only people who can put together a rational argument are the pro-equality faction; the only people who have (actual) evidence to back up their claims are the pro-equality faction...

I would LIKE to debate the issue with people of the 'other' persuasion, but they appear to be unequal to the task.

*sigh*

I happen to agree … though maybe that is a prerequisite

I know the more I read the bible when I was younger the less I believed in it
Maybe it is any of those that truly study the text without bias start to do like me and be convinced that it doesn’t mean what others assume it does

I did HOPE for better... it seems that the only people who have ANY idea about scripture are the pro-equality faction; the only people who can put together a rational argument are the pro-equality faction; the only people who have (actual) evidence to back up their claims are the pro-equality faction...
I would LIKE to debate the issue with people of the 'other' persuasion, but they appear to be unequal to the task.


Firstly if thats not a flame I dont know what is and second, precisely why dont you think I have any knowlegdge of scripture. I have used it often enough to prove my point (And often you have ignored me)

-No replies to me or this please. You asked a question, and I'm replying.-

Homosexuality is a sin. This is because sex is a very sacred thing that should be only between a man and a woman. Sex is both to create children and to express a love you have for the other person. One man can love another man, and one woman can love another woman, but they cannot have children, and cannot create the family that God wants them to have, so to them, sex is nothing more than expressions of lust and a disregard for the sacredness it holds.

That being said, Gays are not all about sex. A gay man should not be harassed or beaten for being gay - God will judge him. A person is not born gay, their environment around them - the media, the "free" society where inibitions and any sense of responsibility are gone - with their own mind and other factors, determine their sexuality. They are not to be berated or belittled in any way. They are human beings, despite what they do in their spare time.

Also, any careless sex, even between a man and a woman, is a sin. For the reasons discussed above, sex is necessary to carrying on the human race, and will help a man and woman strengthen their family relationship. Sex outside of marriage is wrong. Marrying a woman only to later divorce her is wrong. Adultery is wrong. Divorces are bad, though there are many times where a person has no other option (abuse etc.). As stated before, people who participate in these things are not to be treated as anything less than a human beings - only God has the wisdom necessary to fairly judge them.

Gay marriage should not be allowed in the religious aspect, but the government should have no say in what two people can do - the government abolished any form of morality long ago from public life. However, those who are religious should not be belittled simply for holding to these values - you have no right to tell someone what to believe in. They want marriage as they have to remain the same, and the government has no right to take that away from them. The only sensible solution to this problem is to create a new union for homosexuality that grants gays what they desire in a union. Note that this will not change marriage, so the religious people have no need to oppose it, and this will give the gays the government-recognized union they desire, so they have no need to oppose this.

___
You asked, I answered. I have not been spoonfed this by anyone, despite what your flaming will imply - living where I do, society is attempting to brainwash me to the contrary. I do not hate homosexuals, nor condemn them to hell for what they are doing. Perhaps they don't believe in what I do, and as such, perhaps God will not judge them as harshly as He would judge me. If you are a gay man, I would remind anyone that you are still a man, and your work ability, thoughts, feelings, etc. are not affected by who you choose to give your affections to. I would give gays any rights I would give anyone else, but despite what society wants, I do not consider them a special group, and will not give them special treatment.

Though I have given a thoughtfull reply to your question, reading this thread has taught me you don't want that, but just want flaming. Very well, say what you will, but I will not reply to this thread or even look at it. You stated your desire to know what people object to about homosexuality and I have answered - the sex. Good day.

Here Here!

Well done.

You flamed, and stated it as a moral highground.

I salute you.

(And, if I thought you were going to check back, I'd show you your (numerous) errors and assumptions.)

What were his errors? I'm just curious becaus I agree with him on this and you dont seem to be able to do anything about what he has said. Its all true.

Firstly if thats not a flame I dont know what is and second, precisely why dont you think I have any knowlegdge of scripture. I have used it often enough to prove my point (And often you have ignored me)

Usually because you farley well pick and choose

Sometimes taking things out of context is worse then just making them up

(sorry not trying to flame just observe)

I don't think homosexuality is a sin, It's all within your own mind and with your relationship with God.

Display the direct scripture that says gay marriage isn’t allowed.

Display the direct scripture that says gay marriage isn’t allowed.

Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Gods definiton for marriage. The "This reason" that the passage is talking about is how things were in Eden. It is because Eden was one man and one woman, that that is how marriage should be in perfectness.

I happen to agree … though maybe that is a prerequisite

I know the more I read the bible when I was younger the less I believed in it
Maybe it is any of those that truly study the text without bias start to do like me and be convinced that it doesn’t mean what others assume it does

It does seem that way. I started out as a christian, and, the more educated I became within that field.. the less christian I found myself.

It seems that most 'atheists' are a kind of 'saved' christian.

Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Gods definiton for marriage. The "This reason" that the passage is talking about is how things were in Eden. It is because Eden was one man and one woman, that that is how marriage should be in perfectness.

Already covered it in this thread.

That isn't what it is saying (in the Hebrew), and it doesn't actually prove your point, even if it were an accurate translation.

Firstly if thats not a flame I dont know what is and second, precisely why dont you think I have any knowlegdge of scripture. I have used it often enough to prove my point (And often you have ignored me)

You have the ability to quote a few lines of scripture.

So? So can I... you do not understand what was WRITTEN. How can you claim to understand god's word, when all you read is man's word? If you believe that god spoke to the prophets, and told them what to write, why are you content to read it in a language that ISN'T the language god spoke to them in?

You have quoted scripture... that is true. But anyone can quote scripture. Until you have a knowledge of what the scripture MEANS, I will continue to maintain that only the pro-equality faction has any true understanding of the text.

It's not a flame. You haven't provided ANY evidence, except for bible quotes (in English, which I have SHOWN you the correct translation for), and biased websites that either skimp on truth, or just plain lie.

You don't really understand the texts, only what is 'accepted' as the meaning... but, rather than admit that, you will argue from a flawed base.

Like I say - it's not flaming. I am not insulting you. I am just saying that none here seem to have the depth of knowledge to refute the pro-equality claims - because, once again, it SEEMS that the better understanding is in the pro-equality camp.

What were his errors? I'm just curious becaus I agree with him on this and you dont seem to be able to do anything about what he has said. Its all true.

Well, how about we assume that you just didn't read the whole post then?

Just for a starter:The closing line, the 'response' to the question "Why is homosexuality a sin?" - was responded to, as follows: "the sex".

That is either just incredibly wrong, or so ignorant as to be beyond belief.

Homosexuality isn't about sex. Not any more than heterosexuality is.

Homosexuality is about a person of one gender finding their love, solace and companionship in the SAME gender - and yes, that CAN include sex.

To say that homsexuality is ABOUT sex is as much of a trivialisation as it would be for heterosexuality. I am a man, but have many female friends.. is that about sex? I love my mother and sister... is that about sex?

No - because the aspects of love are far removed from the aspects of sex, although love and sex CAN come together... that doesn't make them the same thing.

Sorry... cannot be bothered, right now, to rehash the same old territory againa and again and again.

Bastards. Screw the Bible. Let people do what they want with their bodies. I view it as, it is their body let them do what they want to it. If they wanna cut it, let them. Their choice as is being gay. Just let them do it their own way. The Bible controls peoples lives too much. Break away from it and you'll see how wonderful the world really is. All you sheltered religious pricks think about is converting everyone and you don't realize how much it pisses them off and shit. So what if the Bible says not to be gay, never once in my readings did it say that! Drop the religious view, nothing backs it up.

Firstly if thats not a flame I dont know what is and second, precisely why dont you think I have any knowlegdge of scripture. I have used it often enough to prove my point (And often you have ignored me)

hello there, neo cannen, although you have obviously read scripture, you only accept what you want to hear. Although the Bible talks about gay stuff as a sin, it also says eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics is a sin. one thing that i find is funny about our prez (the chimp), is he is rich and the bible says "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into heaven." isn't it amusing how people tend to take only the facts they like from anything, (especially the bible) and ignore others?

It does seem that way. I started out as a christian, and, the more educated I became within that field.. the less christian I found myself.

It seems that most 'atheists' are a kind of 'saved' christian.

i am 13, having said that, i would like to state that i am a christian. I am also almost a genius. no exaggeration. (note the almost) My belief is this. I believe in Jesus, I believe in God, I believe God created the world, but not the world we know.(cross between big bang/Darwinism and Creationism) the bible is a nice set of outdated values. Parts may be true, but i do not trust the whole. If God would beam down copies of an updated values every 200 years it would be most helpful. there you go. Gay marriage is thusly: it is probably a sin (sin is a religious word, so anything the bible says is a sin is a sin by definition) it is none of my buisiness, they can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they keep me the hell out of it.

i am 13, having said that, i would like to state that i am a christian. I am also almost a genius. no exaggeration. (note the almost) My belief is this. I believe in Jesus, I believe in God, I believe God created the world, but not the world we know.(cross between big bang/Darwinism and Creationism) the bible is a nice set of outdated values. Parts may be true, but i do not trust the whole. If God would beam down copies of an updated values every 200 years it would be most helpful. there you go. Gay marriage is thusly: it is probably a sin (sin is a religious word, so anything the bible says is a sin is a sin by definition) it is none of my buisiness, they can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they keep me the hell out of it.

Aw, don't sit on the fence! Either you are a genius or you aren't. And which God do you believe in, the God of the Jews, the Hindi Gods and Goddesses, the Christian God, Moslem Allah...? Disbelieving the Bible is good though, try reading other 'Holy Books', they all have similar flaws.

Aw, don't sit on the fence! Either you are a genius or you aren't. And which God do you believe in, the God of the Jews, the Hindi Gods and Goddesses, the Christian God, Moslem Allah...? Disbelieving the Bible is good though, try reading other 'Holy Books', they all have similar flaws.

my IQ is about 5 points under, that's what i call almost, annd the Christian god. Yeah quick question yall, if you are Christians, (dunno about other after death paridises) many people don't like going to church (or the equivalent) once a week. so why is our paradise like 24/7 church? rather than the viking valhalla? (food drink and chicks)

Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Gods definiton for marriage. The "This reason" that the passage is talking about is how things were in Eden. It is because Eden was one man and one woman, that that is how marriage should be in perfectness.

How about you quote the portion of scripture that verifies that statement?

Genesis 2: 24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Gods definiton for marriage. The "This reason" that the passage is talking about is how things were in Eden. It is because Eden was one man and one woman, that that is how marriage should be in perfectness.

quick question, since when is the bible the law? not in any western nation i have heard of. sin yes, our buisiness no. Quick 10 point quiz neo. for or against gay marriage (rules are no biblical refrences cause it aint the law.)

refresh listings

In my personal view (which isn't based on a religion of any sort), I think something can really only be a sin, or conisidered immoral, for that matter, if it involves harming somone else, either emotionally or physically. So I don't see how homosexuality is a sin...gays aren't hurting any anyone, and neither is gay marriage.

How would that work exactly? It may be the unpalletable truth but we KNEW what would happen when we ate the fruit. WE were AWARE of the concequences if we did eat it BUT we still chose to sin. How exactly would your idea work? Show me a workable system and I will debate its validity with you, dont just spew out nice sounding platitudes. And anyway, where in the Bible does it say anything to the effect that it is God's job description to keep the world perfect for everyone all the time?

I don't know, I'm not God.
And I'm not the one claiming God created the universe perfectly, but that it was somehow messed up by my great-great-great-etc-grandmother.

i am 13, having said that, i would like to state that i am a christian. I am also almost a genius. no exaggeration. (note the almost) My belief is this. I believe in Jesus, I believe in God, I believe God created the world, but not the world we know.(cross between big bang/Darwinism and Creationism) the bible is a nice set of outdated values. Parts may be true, but i do not trust the whole. If God would beam down copies of an updated values every 200 years it would be most helpful. there you go. Gay marriage is thusly: it is probably a sin (sin is a religious word, so anything the bible says is a sin is a sin by definition) it is none of my buisiness, they can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they keep me the hell out of it.
I don't want this to sound like a flame, because it most definatly is not. But IQ scores do not really mean everything, or even alot. Besides, he said educated not intelligent.

The simple fact is that at 13 you still haven't done or seen or experienced a whole lot. Again, I am not claiming to be some infallible source or wisdom, and I'm only 20 anyway, but I remeber being 13. To a large degree you are still parroting most of what you have been taught. Many logical and critical thinking skills have yet to even develop fully. To simply say I have a high IQ and am still a Christian discounts the fact that most of your reasons for or against faith will develop as a result of experiences.

Again, I'm not trying to flame you and say something stupid like, your just a kid what do you know. Just try to realize you have way too much unseen to make judgements about alot of things.

It says that slave could have been used to mean many different things. However, it does not discount the clear fact that the Bible still states that it is permissable to believe that you own someone else. The fact that you are given statutes on how to treat that someone else does not get rid of the original evil - that you think you can own them in the first place.

The entire website makes it sound like slavery was all happy-go-lucky, which is incredibly doubtful. Guess what, most slaves in the South were treated very well, as treating them badly would have cost the owner an investment. Exactly these same arguments were used to justify enslaving them! And many of the slaves at that time didn't *want* to be free, because it was less economically advantageous. Guess what? It was still wrong!


Why? Most of these slaves had been in battle against the Isralites. Would you have them kill them all? No of course not, that would be barbaric wouldn't it! The Isralites were very luck to keep them as slaves. They were POW's more than slaves. Well treated POW's I might add. They were given food and shelter which would have been a precious drain on resorces. The others were debt ridden who could not afford to pay it off. The economy was not Economy as we know it. Besides, if there was the need for slaves, it was only because they were not obeying GOD

"However, there should be no poor among you, for in the land the LORD your God is giving you to possess as your inheritance, he will richly bless you, if only you fully obey the LORD your God and are careful to follow all these commands I am giving you today"

Deutronomy 15: 4-5

So any debt or economic need for slavery was because the Isralites were not following the rules to the letter as they should have done (Note we are not held down like that any more because of Christ's death). And even if there was an debtious need for slavery, there were laws for Debt cancelation to make the Isralites less greedy and money loving

And though the Bible uses the word "Slave" many times it means those subordiante in socity to you (If you had a title the word applied to all those who's title was less than yours) So in conclusion if there were slaves then

A) Its because they were members of an opposing army and so became well treeted POW's

B) Its because the Isralites were not running their socity as they should and were not being as generous and kind to those in debt as they should have been.

hello there, neo cannen, although you have obviously read scripture, you only accept what you want to hear. Although the Bible talks about gay stuff as a sin, it also says eating shellfish and wearing clothes of mixed fabrics is a sin. one thing that i find is funny about our prez (the chimp), is he is rich and the bible says "It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to get into heaven." isn't it amusing how people tend to take only the facts they like from anything, (especially the bible) and ignore others?

Can people rearly be so stupid as to ignore what I have said about the shellfish again and again? Ok I will say it again, just for you

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Acts 10: 9-15

And as for the rich man passage, yes it is extremely difficult for a rich man to get to heven. The point of this story was not that Jesus was a socialist, and believed that money was evil. Rich men often are only in want of one thing, more riches as Rockerfeller said when he was asked how much money he would think was enough and he said something to the effect of "that little bit more".

Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless

Ecclesiastes 5: 10

I don't know, I'm not God.


So what right do you have to critcise God's handywork? You couldn't have done any better (So you say)

i am 13, having said that, i would like to state that i am a christian. I am also almost a genius. no exaggeration. (note the almost)

if you honestly think that making that claim is in any way relavent or helpful to your case, then you are either not a genius or not mature enough for your intelligence to matter in the slightest.


My belief is this. I believe in Jesus, I believe in God, I believe God created the world, but not the world we know.(cross between big bang/Darwinism and Creationism) the bible is a nice set of outdated values. Parts may be true, but i do not trust the whole. If God would beam down copies of an updated values every 200 years it would be most helpful. there you go.

congrats on what you believe. care to actually provide reasons or supports, or did you just feel like sharing?


Gay marriage is thusly: it is probably a sin (sin is a religious word, so anything the bible says is a sin is a sin by definition)

what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is far from clear. have you considered studying the Bible for yourself, rather than taking the word of religious leaders who interpret the Bible according to their personal biases?


it is none of my buisiness, they can do whatever they want with their bodies as long as they keep me the hell out of it.
i have yet to hear of any homosexual demanding that you be involved in their relationships or marital rights.

what the Bible has to say about homosexuality is far from clear. have you considered studying the Bible for yourself, rather than taking the word of religious leaders who interpret the Bible according to their personal biases?


1) The Bible NEVER endorced homosexuality

2) The Bible DID outlaw homosexual sex in the Old Testement and it is not one of the laws that is made obsolete by the New

3) Where (orriginaly) did said biases come from?

1) The Bible NEVER endorced homosexuality

it never endorses the driving of cars, either.


2) The Bible DID outlaw homosexual sex in the Old Testement and it is not one of the laws that is made obsolete by the New

that is your opinion, one that you have failed to support. your claim that some of the laws in the OT don't count any more while some of them do is not one that is shared by many theologians, unfortunately, and i am more inclined to take the word of people who actually read and write in the original languages of the Bible, particularly since they publish their work for all to see...that way i can read their methodology, logic, and all the competing perspectives, and form my own conclusions.


3) Where (orriginaly) did said biases come from?
same place all human biases come from. it's always better to go straight to the source yourself, rather than simply taking the word of another person.

it never endorses the driving of cars, either.


And for the *You people rearly are stupid if you think this works every time*th time, cars were not around in the Bible. If they were of any kind of theological significene then God would have mentioned them but they are not. Cars (and other technologys of this century) were not around. Homosexuality on the other hand has been around for a long while. God did not endorce it and as the Bible works on the basis of negaitve and positive freedoms it is logical to assume that without support and with a condeming (In the Old testement and I will explain why it is in the New as well) that it is opposed. No one has yet shown a verse of the Bible which actively supports homosexuality.


that is your opinion, one that you have failed to support. your claim that some of the laws in the OT don't count any more while some of them do is not one that is shared by many theologians, unfortunately, and i am more inclined to take the word of people who actually read and write in the original languages of the Bible, particularly since they publish their work for all to see...that way i can read their methodology, logic, and all the competing perspectives, and form my own conclusions.


Ok, here is my explination.

1) The bible does state which laws it keeps

http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOMOSEX.HTM

Exert begins

The New Testament speaks of the "law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2), the "law of Christ" (Gal 6:2), and the "royal law" (James 2:8). This "law" includes numerous commands, both positive and negative, which form a distinct code of ethics for today. It is here that the pro-homosexual exegetes have made their mistake. As a unit the New Testament code is new, but not all the commands in the New Testament are new. There is overlap, deletion, and addition. Some of the commands in the Mosaic code have been reincorporated into the New Testament code.

Exert ends

2) and which laws are removed

Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll--
I have come to do your will, O God.' " First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more." And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

Hebrews 10: 5-18

Here describing the lack need of ritualistic law and how it binds us. And again.

About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

Acts 10: 9-15



same place all human biases come from. it's always better to go straight to the source yourself, rather than simply taking the word of another person.

And where do all human biases come from. I am interested to hear you fill this out.

Already covered it in this thread.

That isn't what it is saying (in the Hebrew), and it doesn't actually prove your point, even if it were an accurate translation.

The word "Woman" is used for the first time earlier in the same passage. If it had been "Woman" and not "Wife" wouldnt that be clear?

The word "Woman" is used for the first time earlier in the same passage. If it had been "Woman" and not "Wife" wouldnt that be clear?

The problem with the Genesis verse you insist on quoting over and over again as a "definition of marriage" is that it does not actually define marriage. The verse only implies that a marriage has taken place. It says nothing about the genders of the members of the couple, besides one of the two being designated man, and also does not specify that the arrangement outlined by the verse is the only acceptable one.

The problem with the Genesis verse you insist on quoting over and over again as a "definition of marriage" is that it does not actually define marriage. The verse only implies that a marriage has taken place. It says nothing about the genders of the members of the couple, besides one of the two being designated man, and also does not specify that the arrangement outlined by the verse is the only acceptable one.

Read the verse and its context. The "For this reason" part basicly means that the reason that marriage is the way it is is because that is how it was in Eden.

1) The Bible NEVER endorced homosexuality

2) The Bible DID outlaw homosexual sex in the Old Testement and it is not one of the laws that is made obsolete by the New

3) Where (orriginaly) did said biases come from?

1) The bible does endorse homosexuality.

2) I have already proved, conclusively, that the Old Testament does not condemn homsexuality. Unless you can disprove my refutation.... which, of course, you can't.

3) The main body of the bias in English translation can be laid at the feet of King James... I wonder why you (still) don't know that?

1) The bible does endorse homosexuality.


(This is interesting) Where? I have yet to see a single provable endorsement.


2) I have already proved, conclusively, that the Old Testament does not condemn homsexuality. Unless you can disprove my refutation.... which, of course, you can't.


Exactly how? And even if you have that still doesnt explain the lack of endorsement.


3) The main body of the bias in English translation can be laid at the feet of King James... I wonder why you (still) don't know that?

Yes, while that may be true versions such as the NSRV have been writen in modern times and are more open yet still say the same things. Yet the NSRV is translated from the oldest available material.

And for the *You people rearly are stupid if you think this works every time*th time, cars were not around in the Bible. If they were of any kind of theological significene then God would have mentioned them but they are not. Cars (and other technologys of this century) were not around. Homosexuality on the other hand has been around for a long while. God did not endorce it and as the Bible works on the basis of negaitve and positive freedoms it is logical to assume that without support and with a condeming (In the Old testement and I will explain why it is in the New as well) that it is opposed. No one has yet shown a verse of the Bible which actively supports homosexuality.


Okay - let's play it your way. The event that takes place in Eden is a marriage (even though it doesn't say that), and is taken to be a model of future marriages (although I'm not sure who you think Adam was talking to, that it might be an example)...

So, Adam 'marries' Eve... and the first 'marriage' is created.

Aha! So, we have proof that marriage MUST be a man and a woman, right?

Let's look again, shall we? How many partners did Adam have to choose from? Let's count them shall we? Are you ready? Okay... Eve = 1... and that's about it, unless he married the snake, or god.

So, in other words, Adam married, and had sexual relations with, EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET - at the time Genesis 2:24 refers to.

Far from being a damnation of homosexuality, Genesis 2:24 is quite openly condoning polygamy, with no gender distinction, other than 'what is available'.

This is your petard... how would you like to be 'hoist'?

Cough....cough...hack....get gas masks on everyone! There alot of poisonous gas being blown...cough..hack...cough.

The word "Woman" is used for the first time earlier in the same passage. If it had been "Woman" and not "Wife" wouldnt that be clear?

You are still trying to discern the word of god, based on a language other than that in which it was written.

Your english translation is seriously flawed. It bears no 'relation' to the Hebrew, except that it is based on it... God's meaning transferring through the translation (while argued by some to be 'protected') is a nonsense... if you can't read it in the Hebrew, then you have never ACTUALLY read the Old Testament.

Let me pose you a question?

Question: Og hvem av eder kan med all sin bekymring legge en alen til sin livslengde?

If you can answer that question, your argument for 'transparent meaning' throughout translations MAY have some solid ground.

Okay - let's play it your way. The event that takes place in Eden is a marriage (even though it doesn't say that), and is taken to be a model of future marriages (although I'm not sure who you think Adam was talking to, that it might be an example)...

So, Adam 'marries' Eve... and the first 'marriage' is created.

Aha! So, we have proof that marriage MUST be a man and a woman, right?

Let's look again, shall we? How many partners did Adam have to choose from? Let's count them shall we? Are you ready? Okay... Eve = 1... and that's about it, unless he married the snake, or god.

So, in other words, Adam married, and had sexual relations with, EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET - at the time Genesis 2:24 refers to.

Far from being a damnation of homosexuality, Genesis 2:24 is quite openly condoning polygamy, with no gender distinction, other than 'what is available'.

This is your petard... how would you like to be 'hoist'?

No, read it again "FOR THIS REASON". In other words marriage is the way it is (one man, one woman) is because that is how it was in Eden, and Eden was perfect. IF homosexuality had been part of God's plan then it would have been present in Eden. It wasn't. There are four conditions that Eden fufilled and that ever since the fall have tried to be recreated

1) Gods people (then Adam and Eve, now all Christians)

2) Living in God's place (then Eden, now the New Jerusleum)

3) Obeying God's rule (then the command about the tree of knowege of Good and Evil, now the Bible's teaching)

4) Enjoying God's blessing (then the perfectness of Eden, now the perfectness of Hevan and the new Jeurselum and for Both, living in God's presence)

Read the verse and its context. The "For this reason" part basicly means that the reason that marriage is the way it is is because that is how it was in Eden.


"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

Translate it as 'therefore' or 'For this reason'... it still doesn't follow.

The previous verse says "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

She was taken out of man, therefore, a man shall leave his father and mother... etc.

Apart from anything else, this verse was CLEARLY added in at a later date, since it doesn't flow with the original narrative...

I have already shown that Adam could not have spoken the line, anyway.

It does not, in any way, say that marriage MUST be that way 'because that is how it was in Eden'... that is YOUR interpretation.

Must I circumnavigate the Euphrates? Abraham did...

Must I kill an Egyptian? Moses did...

Must I murder my brother? Cain did...

Must I touch lepers? Jesus did...

Must I murder foreigners? Joshua did...

Just because it happened in the bible, doesn't make it a good model for morality. Unless you believe that rape and incest are morally 'good', of course?

Let me pose you a question?

Question: Og hvem av eder kan med all sin bekymring legge en alen til sin livslengde?

If you can answer that question, your argument for 'transparent meaning' throughout translations MAY have some solid ground.

In answer to you question, the answer is no one. Except some madman who because of his fear of death devotes his life to cryogenic research and puts himself in stais for a good hundrud years and lives, but I would hardly call that life.

[QUOTE=

So, in other words, Adam married, and had sexual relations with, EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET - at the time Genesis 2:24 refers to.

QUOTE]
Hello, God would have put more people on if he intendid it to be that way.

(This is interesting) Where? I have yet to see a single provable endorsement.

Exactly how? And even if you have that still doesnt explain the lack of endorsement.

Yes, while that may be true versions such as the NSRV have been writen in modern times and are more open yet still say the same things. Yet the NSRV is translated from the oldest available material.

1) Re-read my posts. You are a lazy debater, I am afraid.

2) Wiping your butt after using the toilet isn't actually endorsed in the bible, either. To most people, some things are not worth mentioning, because everyone knows about them, and everyone does them.

If the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, maybe they didn't think it WORTHY of putting in an endorsement... after all, why bother?

3) I have answered this point before, also. Go back and read my earlier post (you can search under my name to make it easier), THEN refute my points, if you can.

The NSRV is still translated to the same 'criteria' as the other bible translations... it still follows the same conventions... i outlined this earlier, with examples.


Honestly. Please try to keep up.

[QUOTE=

So, in other words, Adam married, and had sexual relations with, EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET - at the time Genesis 2:24 refers to.

QUOTE]
Hello, God would have put more people on if he intendid Adam to marry more. and would have made a man, not a womon if he intedend adam to have sexual intercourse with a man. but he didn't.

Must I circumnavigate the Euphrates? Abraham did...

Must I kill an Egyptian? Moses did...

Must I murder my brother? Cain did...

Must I touch lepers? Jesus did...

Must I murder foreigners? Joshua did...

Just because it happened in the bible, doesn't make it a good model for morality. Unless you believe that rape and incest are morally 'good', of course?

1) Moses's murder of an Egyptian was out of rage and not ednorsed by God. Granted it did lead to something good but that doesnt mean God endorsed it in the first place.

2) Cains murder of his brother again was not endorced by God

3) Jesus toched Lepars to heal them, unless you can heal them by toching them I would advide against it. However you could give them the cash to go buy the drugs to cure it

4) Joshua lead the Isralites into battle where there were forces in his way. Never were they just out for bloodlust. I dont know about which example you are speeking of so I am uncertain of the circumstances, but as I have explained, pre crucifixtion God was entitled to kill anyone at any time for all had sinned and the wages of sin were death (and that includes Isralites as well as everyone else) and there was nothing at that point to remove our sins from ourselves. Thats what Jesus's death did.

In answer to you question, the answer is no one. Except some madman who because of his fear of death devotes his life to cryogenic research and puts himself in stais for a good hundrud years and lives, but I would hardly call that life.

Now, let's guess how you found the answer?

I found the question, by leafing through one of my bibles, which is a Norweigan translation.... were you also leafing through your norweigan bible, and happened across the reference? Probably not...

Do you speak Norweigan as a second language? Possible, but not entirely likely... but we shall leave that door open...

Did the 'word of god' shine mysteriously through the confused letters? Were you miraculously gifted with the power to overcome the curse of Babel? I think we can probably discount that one, too.

So... you probably banged it into Google, and ran a web-search, that flipped up a noweigan bible, and, probably a translation into english.

Which, let's face it... totally invalidates your argument. You SHOULD have been able to comprehend the meaning, anyway... that is what you are arguing in English translations.

How about: لِهَذَا، فَإِنَّ الرَّجُلَ يَتْرُكُ أَبَاهُ وَأُمَّهُ وَيَلْتَصِقُ بِامْرَأَتِهِ، وَيَصِيرَانِ جَسَداً وَاحِداً.

[QUOTE=

So, in other words, Adam married, and had sexual relations with, EVERY OTHER PERSON ON THE PLANET - at the time Genesis 2:24 refers to.

QUOTE]
Hello, God would have put more people on if he intendid Adam to marry more. and would have made a man, not a womon if he intedend adam to have sexual intercourse with a man. but he didn't.

I see... so you are sufficiently wise to explain god's thinking?

I bow before your uber-godlike intellect.

Would god have had to place more people on earth to prove my point?

Not at all... god placed 2 persons on the earth, and then proceded to let ALL OF THEM marry.

1) Re-read my posts. You are a lazy debater, I am afraid.


You have yet to provide a specific verse.


2) Wiping your butt after using the toilet isn't actually endorsed in the bible, either. To most people, some things are not worth mentioning, because everyone knows about them, and everyone does them.

If the bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, maybe they didn't think it WORTHY of putting in an endorsement... after all, why bother?


I think something as signifent as homosexuality deserves a mention. And it gets one. See this extract from the website on the Cannanite massacre

But Israel's God condemned this behavior (homosexuality) in EVERY culture in which it was mentioned (!): ANE (i.e. Sodom), Canaanite and Egyptian (i.e. Lev 18:3), Israelite (Lev 18, 20), Roman (Rom 1), Hellenistic (I Tim 1.9), and Greek (I Cor 6.9).


3) I have answered this point before, also. Go back and read my earlier post (you can search under my name to make it easier), THEN refute my points, if you can.

The NSRV is still translated to the same 'criteria' as the other bible translations... it still follows the same conventions... i outlined this earlier, with examples.


"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

Revelation 22: 18-19

And while he is talking about just revalation, it is a principal that has been applied to the entire Bible when translating it.

1) Moses's murder of an Egyptian was out of rage and not ednorsed by God. Granted it did lead to something good but that doesnt mean God endorsed it in the first place.

2) Cains murder of his brother again was not endorced by God

3) Jesus toched Lepars to heal them, unless you can heal them by toching them I would advide against it. However you could give them the cash to go buy the drugs to cure it

4) Joshua lead the Isralites into battle where there were forces in his way. Never were they just out for bloodlust. I dont know about which example you are speeking of so I am uncertain of the circumstances, but as I have explained, pre crucifixtion God was entitled to kill anyone at any time for all had sinned and the wages of sin were death (and that includes Isralites as well as everyone else) and there was nothing at that point to remove our sins from ourselves. Thats what Jesus's death did.

You set forth biblical precedent as reason enough to do something. I have shown that 'just because it is in the bible' isn't necessarily sufficient justification.

1) Moses' murder of the Egyptian wasn't condoned by god? How do you know?
One assumes you base that assumption on the fact that it doesn't say "God condones this" in the text... well, neither does Genesis 2:24. The ONLY person speaking is Adam... and he is not quite the authority on the matter that god might have been.

2) On the contrary - God condemned Cain for a poor sacrifice, and lauded Abel for a sacrifice of blood, a sacrifice of something precious. Cain then sacrificed the thing that was dearest to him in the whole world. And god rewarded him with immortality. Sounds like a ringing endorsement to me.

3) Motivation is irrelevent. You say only heterosexuals shall marry, because that is the bible example. Well, touching lepers is the bible example, too... so, by your logic, we should all do that to be christian.

4) God didn't kill the Canaanites. he let his barbarian horde do the rape and pillage for him. And, you know damned-well that "the wages of sin" are not the bloody carnage that Joshua and his henchmen inflicted on the innocent people of Jericho. The 'death' that rewards sin is a spiritual one. The 'death' that Joshua brought was an altogether physical, sharp and bloody one.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

Revelation 22: 18-19

And while he is talking about just revalation, it is a principal that has been applied to the entire Bible when translating it.

Nice guy your God! He sounds more like Saddam, "do as I say or I will make your life a hell on earth" seems to be the gist of that wee gem Neo Cannen.

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

Revelation 22: 18-19

And while he is talking about just revalation, it is a principal that has been applied to the entire Bible when translating it.

So, is this translated from the original Hebrew? Because if it isn't, then there's a chance that that's not what God said at all. Just like every other part of the Bible.

So, is this translated from the original Hebrew? Because if it isn't, then there's a chance that that's not what God said at all. Just like every other part of the Bible.


Lol how true it is but how often they usually brush off things like translation error

Lol how true it is but how often they usually brush off things like translation error
The saddest part is that it's often not anybody's fault; it's just the way things happen when you try to translate from Hebrew to Latin to English. Going through a mediary language can easily destroy the original meaning of the text.

The saddest part is that it's often not anybody's fault; it's just the way things happen when you try to translate from Hebrew to Latin to English. Going through a mediary language can easily destroy the original meaning of the text.

Exactly … and I always get yelled at for pointing it out … like it is somehow my fault that translations are not always correct

What I find disturbing is they are always like “show me where it is translated incorrectly”

Like we are supposed to prove witch parts are currently wrong

You would figure they would have a vested interest in figuring it out for themselves … it is them not only living it but placing their “afterlife” and souls in the possibly flawed translation of a text. Just takes one should not accidentally changed to should :)

So, is this translated from the original Hebrew? Because if it isn't, then there's a chance that that's not what God said at all. Just like every other part of the Bible.
Revelation wasn't in Hebrew...mostly.

It was actually horrible, horrible Greek. The actual text is so riddled with syntax errors that is almost laughable. It basically the equivalant of bad Spanglish except its Greek and Hebrew mixed. So yay John of Patmos!

You have yet to provide a specific verse.

I think something as signifent as homosexuality deserves a mention. And it gets one. See this extract from the website on the Cannanite massacre

But Israel's God condemned this behavior (homosexuality) in EVERY culture in which it was mentioned (!): ANE (i.e. Sodom), Canaanite and Egyptian (i.e. Lev 18:3), Israelite (Lev 18, 20), Roman (Rom 1), Hellenistic (I Tim 1.9), and Greek (I Cor 6.9).

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book"

Revelation 22: 18-19

And while he is talking about just revalation, it is a principal that has been applied to the entire Bible when translating it.

1) I quoted verses. Reread my posts.

2) Something as significant as homosexuality? Significant to YOU, perhaps... but maybe not even worth mention 2000 years ago.

Nowhere does it say that the crimes of Sodom were homosexuality.

Romans 1 condemns idol worship and lust.

All Leviticus 18:3 says, is that the Hebrews have to follow Hebrew law, after Egypt... rather than Egyptian laws, as the had been doing.

I'm not overly convinced of your bible knowledge here... I ASSUME you mean I Timothy 1:10 - but even that is only a proclamation against prostitution and slavery.

Similarly, I Corinthians 1:9 refers to "Malakos", a prostitute. It says you shouldn't be a whore... not sure where the homsexuality element comes in.

3) This is quite possibly your most ridiculous claim to date - since the canonisation of the bible, about 300 years after the death of Jesus - excised a whole array of texts... similarly, the KJV and most other 'protestant' bibles STILL leave out a whole collection of texts.

Revelation wasn't in Hebrew...mostly.

It was actually horrible, horrible Greek. The actual text is so riddled with syntax errors that is almost laughable. It basically the equivalant of bad Spanglish except its Greek and Hebrew mixed. So yay John of Patmos!
Alright, so instead we have faulty Greek translated to Latin translated to English... once again, language barriers can cause problems. And of course most people don't have the language skills necessary to translate the Bible from the four or five original languages it was written in, so instead we use the flawed version. Usually works well enough, but then we come upon things like homosexuality, where nobody knows that the original word in the original text actually referred to prostituting young boys.

Alright, so instead we have faulty Greek translated to Latin translated to English... once again, language barriers can cause problems. And of course most people don't have the language skills necessary to translate the Bible from the four or five original languages it was written in, so instead we use the flawed version. Usually works well enough, but then we come upon things like homosexuality, where nobody knows that the original word in the original text actually referred to prostituting young boys.

My spelling may fail me, but I'm pretty sure that the form of 'Greek' used to write Revelation, was "Koit" - a bastardised version used as the 'lingua franca' of people coming from all kinds of backgrounds, and, therefore, a sturdy, but clumsy 'pidgin' language.

Like trying to translate the bible from English into Spanish, but starting off with Ebonix as the version of 'English'.

Exactly … and I always get yelled at for pointing it out … like it is somehow my fault that translations are not always correct

What I find disturbing is they are always like “show me where it is translated incorrectly”

Like we are supposed to prove witch parts are currently wrong

You would figure they would have a vested interest in figuring it out for themselves … it is them not only living it but placing their “afterlife” and souls in the possibly flawed translation of a text. Just takes one should not accidentally changed to should :)

The really scary thing is, when you show them the mistranslation, and explain why, and show them the original language version, and break it down fot them...

They yell 'nuh-uh', and poke their own eyes out. (A little dramatic license, there...)

My spelling may fail me, but I'm pretty sure that the form of 'Greek' used to write Revelation, was "Koit" - a bastardised version used as the 'lingua franca' of people coming from all kinds of backgrounds, and, therefore, a sturdy, but clumsy 'pidgin' language.

Like trying to translate the bible from English into Spanish, but starting off with Ebonix as the version of 'English'.
Your Ebonix analogy is accurate, only what's actually happening is more like translating Ebonix to Spanish to Greek, and then expecting a decent, readable Greek passage.

So what right do you have to critcise God's handywork? You couldn't have done any better (So you say)

Ah, so not only do you take Bible-verses out of context (as pointed out by several other people), you do the same with other people's posts. Brilliant.

Your Ebonix analogy is accurate, only what's actually happening is more like translating Ebonix to Spanish to Greek, and then expecting a decent, readable Greek passage.


And like I said before basing a whole belief system on every word (hey you argue about just the “general” meaning is what the faith is based on but have no problem going into the specific if it proves your point) not to mention that changing a single word can change the whole meaning of a statement

Does Neo Cannen just spend all day on this thread? Because it just seems weird to me that he can manage to post what seems like every three seconds or so...

And I was just thinking about people who don't even really believe that homosexuality exists, that it's the mental problems of a heterosexual...and is anyone else reminded of the people who don't believe that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, that they're making it all up?

Maybe the men who wrote the Bible were just homophobes. Maybe they snuck it in without God noticing, and cackled to themselves that they had gotten one past God. Maybe by the time God noticed, he had decided he was done smiting people and he just kind of shrugged and went off to finish his checkers tournament with Lucifer.

Your Ebonix analogy is accurate, only what's actually happening is more like translating Ebonix to Spanish to Greek, and then expecting a decent, readable Greek passage.

It's not too unlikely to expect a decent, readable sentence... a good translator will strive for a good result... but it won't necessarily bear ANY resemblance to the original English version...

And THAT is what i have been trying to illustrate to Neo-Cannen... if you want to truly understand what the scripture SAYS, you HAVE to read it in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

It's not too unlikely to expect a decent, readable sentence... a good translator will strive for a good result... but it won't necessarily bear ANY resemblance to the original English version...

And THAT is what i have been trying to illustrate to Neo-Cannen... if you want to truly understand what the scripture SAYS, you HAVE to read it in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.


Don’t forget cultural context

You set forth biblical precedent as reason enough to do something. I have shown that 'just because it is in the bible' isn't necessarily sufficient justification.


No, what I said was in the case of EDEN alone becase EDEN was perfect.

No, read it again "FOR THIS REASON". In other words marriage is the way it is (one man, one woman) is because that is how it was in Eden, and Eden was perfect. IF homosexuality had been part of God's plan then it would have been present in Eden. It wasn't. There are four conditions that Eden fufilled and that ever since the fall have tried to be recreated

1) Gods people (then Adam and Eve, now all Christians)

2) Living in God's place (then Eden, now the New Jerusleum)

3) Obeying God's rule (then the command about the tree of knowege of Good and Evil, now the Bible's teaching)

4) Enjoying God's blessing (then the perfectness of Eden, now the perfectness of Hevan and the new Jeurselum and for Both, living in God's presence)

there was one condition eden fulfilled.giveing humanity the choice between happiness and freewill.adam and eve choose freewill.
argueably,this is the outcome god wanted.

No, what I said was in the case of EDEN alone becase EDEN was perfect.

And the idea of Eden being perfect is based off of a biblical passage lol

there was one condition eden fulfilled.giveing humanity the choice between happiness and freewill.adam and eve choose freewill.
argueably,this is the outcome god wanted.

No, God already gave them free will. They chose to disobey, and how would God have wanted that?

EDEN was perfect????

You mean the perfecht snake? The perfect stupid Eve? The perfect lie of god telling Adam and Eva they would die suddenly after eating the forbidden fruit? And then they lived afterwards a lot of years...

If the cars from General Motors were half so perfect as Eden, they would have a lot of problems.

Just read again the "Genesis" and you will find a lot of funny things about Eden.

The first versions of the creation:

Human 1.0: Adam and Eve

Failure - Eve convinces Adam to eat forbidden fruit.

Human 1.0a: Kain and Abel

Failure - Kain kills his brother

Humans 3.7c: Humanity without Noah

Failure - must be killed by god because of their failures