NationStates Jolt Archive

...snip...

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

I figured you'd be the first one to use the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument, Nazz.

I make no assumption. I know that to be fact. How can you say you appreciate the Scriptures and then from the other side of your mouth admit you believe it to be nothing more than a collection of ancient essays?

You say you were once a believer. I take you at your word.. but what you appear never to have posessed is Faith.

I can defiantly appreciate art portraying dragons without actually believing the dragons are real.

And sense I am not bound by believing that it is an actual representation of a dragon I can spend the time to reflect on what the style and quality say good or bad about the society and the myth that spawned it.

You are at liberty to assume whatever you like. Not sure why that's so interesting, though.


It isn't a matter of 'liberty'. You didn't put together a coherent response... I am not choosing my interpretation based on 'freedoms', but on the lack of choice.

It is 'interesting' because you said you were going to elaborate, and add something in for the OP.... and you haven't. Or, if you have, you've made such a jumble of it as to be about incomprehensible.


So?

So... what more do you want me to say? You appear to have a special interest in the sinfullness of homosexuals, but no one is perfect. Hell, even Jesus was a heretic.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html

What?

I figured you'd be the first one to use the "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument, Nazz.

I make no assumption. I know that to be fact. How can you say you appreciate the Scriptures and then from the other side of your mouth admit you believe it to be nothing more than a collection of ancient essays?

You say you were once a believer. I take you at your word.. but what you appear never to have posessed is Faith.

I appreciate the scriptures for what they are--and that's what I described them as in that last post. The fact that you can't see them as anything but God's breath shows how limited you are.

Here's what you limit yourself to if you believe they're fact. You limit any real appreciation of any culture hat's not bound by those writings. You limit yourself from any real appreciation of science or history or archaeology or anthropology--and that's just or starters. And what's most sad, you limit yourself from appreciating the beauty of the scriptures because you're too busy trying to impose your reading of them on everyone else.

The beauty of the Scriptures has nothing to do with their supposed divine heritage. Nearly all ancient writings espouse a divine heritage of some sort or another. Hell, the Iliad begins with an invocation of the Muses. Doesn't make the story factual. Their beauty comes from the fact that they help us see another time and place and that we can react to their stories. It helps us see the universal in ourselves. As long as you believe in the factual accuracy of the Bible, you will never experience that. And I will pity you as a result.

The beauty of the Scriptures has nothing to do with their supposed divine heritage. Nearly all ancient writings espouse a divine heritage of some sort or another. Hell, the Iliad begins with an invocation of the Muses. Doesn't make the story factual. Their beauty comes from the fact that they help us see another time and place and that we can react to their stories. It helps us see the universal in ourselves. As long as you believe in the factual accuracy of the Bible, you will never experience that. And I will pity you as a result.

I'm not even entirely sure the bible claims it to be the literal and factual accuont of god's words. Anyone got a verse where it does that?

'Christianity, at it's core', does not teach that homosexual behaviour is any MORE sinful than heterosexual behaviour. You might want to bear that in mind.Christianity teaches the exact same that Judaism teaches in this respect: any sex that does not lead to offspring is wrong. Just as mingling with non-Jews. You know, Jews have always been afraid of dying out. Almost every law in the Bible is aimed at securing numbers.
.

Hyperbole, but let's roll with it: Regardless of how you can quote the bible, you can't ever be sure who wrote it, why, or with what inspiration unless you were there every single time the pen hit the paper.

I suspect it woul dmake very little difference to you if there WERE a way. Not saying there is, but hyperbole begs hyperbole, right?


Which doesn't really make sense. If he wanted just the result of their souls, he would have to have a control - that control being present in the scientific method, having been proven to be able to measure and decide things, it would be sufficient enough to be able to be able to weigh the balance of someone's soul. If he really wanted us all to be on equal grounds, with an equal chance of going to heaven or hell, then we should've all been born the same, with only the differences in our heart being the deciding factor. But no, he doesn't want an equal playing ground. God obviously knows nothing of science.


Is this meant as a serious argument? Really? You're posing as someone who knows all of the factors so well that you'd presume to judge not only God's motives, but the means by which He achieved His ends. For your argument (such as it is) to make any sense at all, you'd have to know:

-The properties of the soul
-All of the environmental factors that you claim are equal (apparently, since according to you the only deciding factor is the heart, whatever that means)
-What constitutes that equality in the first place
-why equality is necessarily required (in an automotive race, not all cars start at a point equidistant from the finish line. Is that fair? apparently so, so perhaps there are other factors, no?)
-The relative degrees of handicap impoed by the various challenges, in a spiritual context
-that the people in question aren't spiritually equal
etc.



It's not simple, and it's far from a fact. Just because the church says something does -not- make it so. Just because a supposed holy book says something does -not- mean it is representative of god's intent. Therein lies the problem: uncertainty. The fact that god has left us with such uncertainty is a testament in itself to god's relationship to humans.


Of course it's simple. Only people that are trying to get around that simplicity make it complex. It's called rationalization. And yes, it's a fact, too. they sort of go together. Your problem is that there's no maneuvering room in a simple system to allow you to manipulate the data and factors to derive the desired conclusion, therefore you have to reject the premise that the sinful nature of homosexual conduct is a simple matter.


And gay people are perfectly fine even when Christians think they're abominations.

Your twisting of words was subltle here, buut not subtle enough, and thus yuo prove that you're really not reading very carefully the arguments being put to you. Christians don't say that gay people are abominations. (My church doesn't, the Bible doesn't. If some do, they are in error.) The statement is that homosexual conduct is an abomination.

Nice try, though.


Faith comes from the human mind. If it just came from the holy spirit, then people of the Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Seventh Day Adventist, etc religions would have no faith, and the religions would not exist. Obviously it comes from something other than something that's exclusive to Christianity.

For starters, Seventh Day Adventists are Christians, in case you didn't know.

You assume that the Holy Spirit does not testify to people outside Christianity. That wouldn't make sense if all people are God's children regardless of what they believe, would it?

But don't make the mistake of assuming that religions can only exist where faith exists. Religion can esaily be twisted into something else that has little to do with faith. That's how cults get started.

Christianity teaches the exact same that Judaism teaches in this respect: any sex that does not lead to offspring is wrong. You know, Jews have always been afraid of dying out.

No - I don't think this is true - although I think a lot of people with issues about homosexuality have tried to make it so... and about other flavours of sexuality, too.

I can find Biblical references, even in the Old Testament, that support the idea of oral sex, for example - even though such practise is unlikely to produce children without some really interesting explorations...

The message I get, is that sex should be about love, not lust. When sex is only lust, it is decried in scripture... but no bad word is spoken of David and Johnathan's relationship. Onan wasn't punished for spilling his seed... but for spilling his seed as an act of deliberate rebellion.

Oral sex as part of love is celebrated. Sex as part of the official committed relationship is celebrated... but I think it is about committment, not the angle of your genitals.

I can defiantly appreciate art portraying dragons without actually believing the dragons are real.

And sense I am not bound by believing that it is an actual representation of a dragon I can spend the time to reflect on what the style and quality say good or bad about the society and the myth that spawned it.

You're talking about simple aesthetic and technical appreciation. A painting of a dragon doesn't present as a spiritual media and thus can't be judged on that merit. Your analogy isn't working.

It isn't a matter of 'liberty'. You didn't put together a coherent response... I am not choosing my interpretation based on 'freedoms', but on the lack of choice.

It is 'interesting' because you said you were going to elaborate, and add something in for the OP.... and you haven't. Or, if you have, you've made such a jumble of it as to be about incomprehensible.
If you say so.



So... what more do you want me to say? You appear to have a special interest in the sinfullness of homosexuals, but no one is perfect. Hell, even Jesus was a heretic.
Wow. Maybe that's because the sinfulness of homosexuals is the issue of this thread? or perhaps you'd like me to start writing about the sin of heterosexual adultery so that you can go back to accusing me of going off topic again.

You're talking about simple aesthetic and technical appreciation. A painting of a dragon doesn't present as a spiritual media and thus can't be judged on that merit. Your analogy isn't working.

But painting of other sorts CAN be be a "spiritual media" or a media of another message ... by focusing on the metaphisical and making that a priority that has to be compled with you can not recognize fully the other aspects that may contradict or cast in doubt your priority

You're talking about simple aesthetic and technical appreciation. A painting of a dragon doesn't present as a spiritual media and thus can't be judged on that merit. Your analogy isn't working.

In what way does a painting of a dragon not present as a spritual medium?

Are you seriously contending that no religious text ever mentioned dragons? (Which would be an interesting argument, for someone who claims to be familiar with the biblical text...)

If you say so.


Not if I say... it wasn't my 'interpretation' of your work that was the problem.


Wow. Maybe that's because the sinfulness of homosexuals is the issue of this thread? or perhaps you'd like me to start writing about the sin of heterosexual adultery so that you can go back to accusing me of going off topic again.

And, if you present an argument to the original poster, that illustrates homosexuality as something it isn't - i.e. a sin that is 'greater' than it's heterosexual counterpart - then you are doing no favours to the original poster... and, in fact, are misrepresenting the scripture.

If you cannot witness without bearing false witness, perhaps you shouldn't?

I appreciate the scriptures for what they are--and that's what I described them as in that last post. The fact that you can't see them as anything but God's breath shows how limited you are.

Your argument is so flawed I was tempted to just quote the whole thing and answer that way.. but so as not to be accused of ignoring any of your pearls of assumption I'll go point by point as best I can.


Here's what you limit yourself to if you believe they're fact. You limit any real appreciation of any culture hat's not bound by those writings. You limit yourself from any real appreciation of science or history or archaeology or anthropology--and that's just or starters. And what's most sad, you limit yourself from appreciating the beauty of the scriptures because you're too busy trying to impose your reading of them on everyone else.
Based on what? Why do you make the assumption that Faith in the Spiritual value of the Scriptures excludes the value of the other fields you referenced? I'm sorry to burt your bubble but:
My profession is in an applied science.
I am working on a degree in History. Specifically, Classical and Medieval History
Archaeology is a hobby of mine and has been, along with Ancient architecture, for about 15 years.
Anthropology is a field I'e done significant independent research into.

By hey, why let reality get in the way of an assumption, right?

And it's laughable that somehow this is how you try and prove that I'm limited in my thinking. By keeping my mind open, I can reconcile all these things very easily. Why can't you?


The beauty of the Scriptures has nothing to do with their supposed divine heritage. Nearly all ancient writings espouse a divine heritage of some sort or another. Hell, the Iliad begins with an invocation of the Muses. Doesn't make the story factual.

I'll have to check that with the religious group that uses the writings of Homer as their divine text...

-oh wait.. there isn't one. I wonder what that means?


Their beauty comes from the fact that they help us see another time and place and that we can react to their stories. It helps us see the universal in ourselves. As long as you believe in the factual accuracy of the Bible, you will never experience that. And I will pity you as a result.

So we've gone from discussing the moral teachings of the Bible to a discussion on the implications of it's factual (by that I take it you mean historical) accuracy.

And you guys accuse me of going off topic. Bravo.

But painting of other sorts CAN be be a "spiritual media" or a media of another message ... by focusing on the metaphisical and making that a priority that has to be compled with you can not recognize fully the other aspects that may contradict or cast in doubt your priority

Assuming the work itself isn't divinely inspired, or that the Faith one gains from that connection with God somehow contradicts it.

I'll have to check that with the religious group that uses the writings of Homer as their divine text...

-oh wait.. there isn't one. I wonder what that means?
There was. That means that you're not nearly as smart as you claim to be.


So we've gone from discussing the moral teachings of the Bible to a discussion on the implications of it's factual (by that I take it you mean historical) accuracy.

And you guys accuse me of going off topic. Bravo.
A huge part of this conversation--which I've been involved in from page one, by the way--deals with the factual accuracy of the Bible as a basis for using it as a guideline for daily life. It's a standard belief of most christian sects that you have to accept everything the Bible says, and so most of those groups go to great lengths to torture history and archaeology and all the rest to fit the Biblical record, empirical evidence be damned. If you're not one of those, then good on you--but your dogged determination to hold on to the issue of homosexuality=bad tends to belie that possibility.

Not if I say... it wasn't my 'interpretation' of your work that was the problem.
Looking around, I can't say I agree. But meh.



And, if you present an argument to the original poster, that illustrates homosexuality as something it isn't - i.e. a sin that is 'greater' than it's heterosexual counterpart - then you are doing no favours to the original poster... and, in fact, are misrepresenting the scripture.

If you cannot witness without bearing false witness, perhaps you shouldn't?

Your homework assignment: Find the quote where I stated the relative severity of homosexual and heterosexual sin.

Go ahead, I dare ya.

But I DID indicate that the Bible does, in fact, refer to homosexual conduct as abomination. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the Management.

The statement is that homosexual conduct is an abomination.

And once again you are left with your premise hanging on a statement for which you have no proof.

There was. That means that you're not nearly as smart as you claim to be.

Which would mean something if I had made such a claim.

Mind you, my statement was still correct. I said there Isn't one (present tense) You said there was one. (past tense).

Wow.. quibbling about the minutia of syntax is fun. I can see why you guys liek it so much.


A huge part of this conversation--which I've been involved in from page one, by the way--deals with the factual accuracy of the Bible as a basis for using it as a guideline for daily life. It's a standard belief of most christian sects that you have to accept everything the Bible says, and so most of those groups go to great lengths to torture history and archaeology and all the rest to fit the Biblical record, empirical evidence be damned. If you're not one of those, then good on you--but your dogged determination to hold on to the issue of homosexuality=bad tends to belie that possibility.

I never said the Bible had survives 1500 years of copying and translating unscathed. What I did say was that the truth behind it did, and that you can't just throw away the parts that don't say what y ou want to hear by simply trashing it in the name of historical unreliability.

Do I think Sampson really derived his strength from his hair, or that Jonah lived in a fish for 3 days? Nah, but if Jesus could teach in parables, why not the writers of the Old Testament?

And once again you are left with your premise hanging on a statement for which you have no proof.

Much as I'd love to give you a chapter and verse, my Scriptures are at home and I am not, atm.

Not that it would matter if I did though, because then someone would come along and either give us the list of alternative translations that don't quite say that, or directly attack the translation I'm using. In any case, it would be pointless.

Much as I'd love to give you a chapter and verse, my Scriptures are at home and I am not, atm.

Not that it would matter if I did though, because then someone would come along and either give us the list of alternative translations that don't quite say that, or directly attack the translation I'm using. In any case, it would be pointless.

So it's moral values taught by parables using translations that say different things.

Yet the "truth" behind it is solid. Got it.

I suspect it woul dmake very little difference to you if there WERE a way. Not saying there is, but hyperbole begs hyperbole, right?

No, I've said it before: If you have proof, I'll consider it.


Is this meant as a serious argument? Really? You're posing as someone who knows all of the factors so well that you'd presume to judge not only God's motives, but the means by which He achieved His ends. For your argument (such as it is) to make any sense at all, you'd have to know:

-The properties of the soul
-All of the environmental factors that you claim are equal (apparently, since according to you the only deciding factor is the heart, whatever that means)
-What constitutes that equality in the first place
-why equality is necessarily required (in an automotive race, not all cars start at a point equidistant from the finish line. Is that fair? apparently so, so perhaps there are other factors, no?)
-The relative degrees of handicap impoed by the various challenges, in a spiritual context
-that the people in question aren't spiritually equal
etc.

I'm just making educated guesses here. Unlike other poeple, I do not know nor claim to know the intent of god in creating us, I simply guess based on the given information - the difference being, I don't claim that anyone's going to hell because of it.

Of course it's simple. Only people that are trying to get around that simplicity make it complex. It's called rationalization. And yes, it's a fact, too. they sort of go together. Your problem is that there's no maneuvering room in a simple system to allow you to manipulate the data and factors to derive the desired conclusion, therefore you have to reject the premise that the sinful nature of homosexual conduct is a simple matter.

Of course things are simple if you never think them through or care if the conclusions are truth.


Your twisting of words was subltle here, buut not subtle enough, and thus yuo prove that you're really not reading very carefully the arguments being put to you. Christians don't say that gay people are abominations. (My church doesn't, the Bible doesn't. If some do, they are in error.) The statement is that homosexual conduct is an abomination.

Nice try, though.

I disagree with both statements, so it hardly matters.



For starters, Seventh Day Adventists are Christians, in case you didn't know.

I knew. I think they're crazy, especially the Davidians in Waco, but I knew. I make the distinction because I feel there's a significant difference in interpretation between general christian faith and specifically 7DA's.

You assume that the Holy Spirit does not testify to people outside Christianity. That wouldn't make sense if all people are God's children regardless of what they believe, would it?

Or, heaven forbid, if they engage in homosexual sex, or disagree with what you consider to be the basic tenents of christianity. Oh me, oh my - certainly the holy ghost wouldn't have anything to do with these bastards of satan.

But don't make the mistake of assuming that religions can only exist where faith exists. Religion can esaily be twisted into something else that has little to do with faith. That's how cults get started.

Personally I believe christianity is a cult, but that's another debate for another time.

Looking around, I can't say I agree. But meh.


One doesn't need to look around. If we look back a few posts, we find you incapable of constructing a response that differentiates between the two persons it claims to address.

You haven't improved on it, by explaining what was aimed at which recipient... so the error of understanding is capable of being dropped only at your feet.



Your homework assignment: Find the quote where I stated the relative severity of homosexual and heterosexual sin.

Go ahead, I dare ya.

But I DID indicate that the Bible does, in fact, refer to homosexual conduct as abomination. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the Management.

I think you read the scripture incorrectly... but that is an aside. Galatians 5 clearly explains why your use of the term 'abomination' is irrelevent, and even erroneous. Indeed - if you insist on referring to homosexual intercourse as 'abomination', it implies you are less of a 'christian' than you believe.

Again - this is not my word... this is scripture.


So - we are left with the Greek scripture... which actually condemns heterosexual lust far more times than it does homosexual lust - if you take the alleged references to homosexuality as being genuinely about that subject at all.

As an example - the common mis-translation of phrasing that SHOULD be read as referring to 'temple prostitution'.


Perhaps I should take it up with 'the Management'. Some of those in the lower offices seem to have ideas far above their own stations, and seem to have taken it on themselves to be this generations Pharisees - explaining what their 'tradtions' say God means in his word... and electing themselves as judges over the actions of other mere men.

Much as I'd love to give you a chapter and verse, my Scriptures are at home and I am not, atm.

Not that it would matter if I did though, because then someone would come along and either give us the list of alternative translations that don't quite say that, or directly attack the translation I'm using. In any case, it would be pointless.

This is funny.

You make an argument based on scripture you can't-quite-remember, and which you ADMIT can be translated to mean something very different than what you want it to say...

I hope you are here all week.

Which would mean something if I had made such a claim.

Mind you, my statement was still correct. I said there Isn't one (present tense) You said there was one. (past tense).

Wow.. quibbling about the minutia of syntax is fun. I can see why you guys liek it so much.
Have you surveyed the earth? Do you know for a certainty that there are no people still sacrificing to Zeus and the other Gods and Goddesses of the Pantheon? Besides, replace that with the Bhagavad-Gita or the Quran or any other non-christian holy book and the illustration still stands.


I never said the Bible had survives 1500 years of copying and translating unscathed. What I did say was that the truth behind it did, and that you can't just throw away the parts that don't say what y ou want to hear by simply trashing it in the name of historical unreliability.

Do I think Sampson really derived his strength from his hair, or that Jonah lived in a fish for 3 days? Nah, but if Jesus could teach in parables, why not the writers of the Old Testament?

Then why are you giving me shit? I've been saying all along that the beauty of the Bible is in what it teaches us about each other and about ourselves. The book doesn't have to be divine to do that. It's truthful all the same--just not extra-worldly.

Much as I'd love to give you a chapter and verse, my Scriptures are at home and I am not, atm.

Not that it would matter if I did though, because then someone would come along and either give us the list of alternative translations that don't quite say that, or directly attack the translation I'm using. In any case, it would be pointless.

You can provide as much scripture quotation as you wish.

However it so happens that I have on my desk a note stating:

"Don't listen to anyone named Neo Bretonnia as he is a liar, and a sinner, and shall burn in hell.

Signed,

God

P.S. this note is true, because I say it is"

Now, considering this note says god wrote it, and it must be true because it says it's true, I must believe it, and no longer consider anything you say valid.

And once you realize the lunacy of my statement you will understand where i note the lunacy of yours.

Oh and somethign else I forgot to mention.

Earlier, someone indicated that I'm somehow pushing my beliefs on others. Understand something: I'm not pushing them on anyone. I don't think the Government should interfere in gay marriages. I don't think it's right to discriminate for employment or whatever other secular institution based on homosexuality. None of that obligates me however, to alter my religious beliefs when the source of those beliefs comes from a higher Authority.

This reminds me of the first axiom of liberal thought:

"Everyone's beliefs and rights are the same and equally valid, as long as the moral superiority of the gay perspective is acknowledged."

You can provide as much scripture quotation as you wish.

However it so happens that I have on my desk a note stating:

"Don't listen to anyone named Neo Bretonnia as he is a liar, and a sinner, and shall burn in hell.

Signed,

God

P.S. this note is true, because I say it is"

Now, considering this note says god wrote it, and it must be true because it says it's true, I must believe it, and no longer consider anything you say valid.

And once you realize the lunacy of my statement you will understand where i note the lunacy of yours.


What's getting missed however, is what I said earlier about Faith and where it comes from.

You can provide as much scripture quotation as you wish.

However it so happens that I have on my desk a note stating:

"Don't listen to anyone named Neo Bretonnia as he is a liar, and a sinner, and shall burn in hell.

Signed,

God

P.S. this note is true, because I say it is"

Now, considering this note says god wrote it, and it must be true because it says it's true, I must believe it, and no longer consider anything you say valid.

And once you realize the lunacy of my statement you will understand where i note the lunacy of yours.

That's actually a decent argument. Very simple, but it works. Well done.

This reminds me of the first axiom of liberal thought:

"Everyone's beliefs and rights are the same and equally valid, as long as the moral superiority of the gay perspective is acknowledged."

What lovely right wing propaganda you got going there.

What's getting missed however, is what I said earlier about Faith and where it comes from.

and you missed what I said earlier about PROOF. You have no PROOF of your statement. You may have faith in it, but because you believe it makes it no more objectively true or false then my hypothetical note.

What's getting missed however, is what I said earlier about Faith and where it comes from.

I have quite a bit of faith that the holy spirit was divining him while he wrote that post-it note.

What lovely right wing propaganda you got going there.

It helps to drag the red herring across the trail after admitting that translations differ.

It helps to drag the red herring across the trail after admitting that translations differ.

Hey, hey - red herrings are heavy. Those things get huge. You think you can drag one across a trail without the help of some propaganda? Be my guest. Till then, the forklift is a-workin, and the liberal jewish fags are goin to hell. *beep beep*

Have you surveyed the earth? Do you know for a certainty that there are no people still sacrificing to Zeus and the other Gods and Goddesses of the Pantheon? Besides, replace that with the Bhagavad-Gita or the Quran or any other non-christian holy book and the illustration still stands.

No I haven't surveyed the Earth, but neither have you.

Ok boys and girls, watch as Nazz changes his premise to replace the broken one! Did you see it?

No the illustration doesn't still stand, because I would contend that such a book is not divinely inspired. Can I prove that? Nope. But I don't have to. I operate on Faith, and Faith is an individual matter.


Then why are you giving me shit? I've been saying all along that the beauty of the Bible is in what it teaches us about each other and about ourselves. The book doesn't have to be divine to do that. It's truthful all the same--just not extra-worldly.

Yes, Nazz. My entire forum life revolves around giving you grief.

Just because I believe some of it is parable doesn't mean I believe it all is, or that somehow the metaphorical nature of some of its parts invalidates the assertion that homosexual conduct is abomination.

Or are you trying to make the point that it's just a metaphor for something else? Go on... try it. I dare ya.

What lovely right wing propaganda you got going there.

hey wow thanks. Made it myself. Problem is, it hits the nail on the head and you know it.

No the illustration doesn't still stand, because I would contend that such a book is not divinely inspired. Can I prove that? Nope. But I don't have to. I operate on Faith, and Faith is an individual matter.


You've made the important first step that admitting that your faith is at its base irrational since you can't prove it, now the question becomes why do you chose to believe in that which can not be proven, or even demonstrated to be likely.

No the illustration doesn't still stand, because I would contend that such a book is not divinely inspired. Can I prove that? Nope. But I don't have to. I operate on Faith, and Faith is an individual matter.

So you're playing badminton and we're playing football - obviously you can't debate with us until you drop that 'faith' charade as an argument.

No the illustration doesn't still stand, because I would contend that such a book is not divinely inspired. Can I prove that? Nope. But I don't have to. I operate on Faith, and Faith is an individual matter.


And some other religious group could contend that their book is divinely inspired, and yours is not. And they wouldn't have to prove it, because they have faith.

Your argument reduces the Bible to being nothing more or less than any other scripture - present or past.

Hey guys I'va had a great time but it's time for me to mosey on home. No holes in my chest, either!

If anyone would like to continue this, by all means feel free to send me a Telegram. I probably won't be back on the threads until tomorrow. I know how much some people like ganging up but just thought I'd throw that out there.

Edwardis, if you see this post, congratulations! Trust yourself. Always.

hey wow thanks. Made it myself. Problem is, it hits the nail on the head and you know it.

except it doesnt, because you went off about the "moral superiority of the gay agenda" or some other raving right wing lunacy.

What you fail to realize is that the entire idea behind classical liberalism is that I don't need to evaluate morality AT ALL. I merely need to accept your right to hold viewpoints contrary to my own, and involve in any activity you wish that does not not harm those without their consent, or those who are incapable of giving rational consent.

The minute you use the phrase "liberal" and "superior morality" in the same expression you show off your own ignorance, and just become a tool for right wing propaganda. Because that's the REAL problem, the real ultimate problem that has the conservative base foaming at the mouth at "liberals". We refuse to tell someone their lifestyle is wrong, which the conservative base just doesn't understand because their entire ideology is based on judging people, and they can't understand a philosophy without that.

No I haven't surveyed the Earth, but neither have you.

Ok boys and girls, watch as Nazz changes his premise to replace the broken one! Did you see it?

No the illustration doesn't still stand, because I would contend that such a book is not divinely inspired. Can I prove that? Nope. But I don't have to. I operate on Faith, and Faith is an individual matter.That's awfully convenient, then. "I can't prove it, but that's okay because I don't have to, and yet I am still right!" That's rhetorical Calvinball, and it's bullshit no matter how you cook it up.

None of that obligates me however, to alter my religious beliefs when the source of those beliefs comes from a higher Authority.


But, neither does it obligate the scripture to dignify your anti-gay-sex prejudice.

You seem to believe that god hates gay sex... other people (reading the same book) believe the Message says something else. Why do you continue to support the voice of hate, when the rest of the Message is love?

Hey guys I'va had a great time but it's time for me to mosey on home. No holes in my chest, either!

If anyone would like to continue this, by all means feel free to send me a Telegram. I probably won't be back on the threads until tomorrow. I know how much some people like ganging up but just thought I'd throw that out there.

Edwardis, if you see this post, congratulations! Trust yourself. Always.

Except for that whole "words mean what I want them to mean" egg you dropped. Right before you decided to bolt the thread. (shock, surprise, unprecedented)

Edwardis, if you see this post, congratulations! Trust yourself. Always.

Actually, Edwardis - this is the one thing Neo has said that you should listen to.

The church has 2000 years of history of shaping the scripture to mean what they want it to mean. Make your own decisions, make your own journey with the Spirit.

Don't ever just accept someone else's word on the Word... not even mine. ;)

But I couldn't resist responding to tthe criticism of the faith argument, since I'd hate to leave with anyone thinking that floatsam drove me off.

Do you understand what I wrote about faith at all? Did you even read it? Because if you did, then you wouldn't say something as innane as that making the argument irrational.

Faith doesn't come from you, it doesn't come from any person. It doesn't come from a happy coincidence of convenient beliefs or emotional outbursts. It comes form the Spirit. If I could convince you that it's true based on MY Faith, then you'd have no faith of your own and it would be meaningless.

We are playing two different games. Whoever said that was right. You want me to offer you proof, wrapped in the way you like it so that you can take it and tear it up, if you can. What you don't realize is that any "proof" that comes from a person is by it's very nature flawed and vulnerable. Not really proff at all then, is it?

I know about who God is, not by taking someone's word for it, but by the results of prayer and seeing His miracles around me. I know His Scriptures hold the truth, and that it's not subject to being evaluated by any human.

I don't ask you to take my word for it. As I said, I can't give you faith. That comes from God. if you're ready to try it yourself, then please by all means pray about it on your own. Keep your mind and your heart open, and just trust yourself. Trust the answer when it comes. It might not be immediate, but it will come.

Besides that, I don't know what else to say. In looking over some of my posts I realize I may have come off as arrogant. I apologize for that.

Talk to you guys soon.

Except for that whole "words mean what I want them to mean" egg you dropped. Right before you decided to bolt the thread. (shock, surprise, unprecedented)

predictable as a clock. I invite you personally to send me a Telegram and let's see the truth of it.

predictable as a clock. I invite you personally to send me a Telegram and let's see the truth of it.

When someone does a predictable action is it not a fairly normal thing that responses to it should also be predictable?

What you don't realize is that any "proof" that comes from a person is by it's very nature flawed and vulnerable. Not really proff at all then, is it?

This is the absolute biggest piece of drivel I've ever seen, it defies the very definition of proof.

Keep your mind and your heart open

The problem is you talk about keeping your mind open but do the exact opposite. Your mind is entirely CLOSED to the idea that you interpreted wrong, CLOSED to the idea that the bible may not be divinely inspired, CLOSED to the idea that your faith may be incorrect.

You say keep your mind open, but what you mean is "keep your mind open to what i offer, just don't question it."

What you offer is the antithesis of an open mind, it's a mind locked from reason, devoid of rationality, and stuck on an endless loop of "faith" in which you use one thing to demonstrate itself.

predictable as a clock. I invite you personally to send me a Telegram and let's see the truth of it.

The truth of what? That you decided to bolt the thread after you admitted that translations vary meanings?

That's my whole argument. That the reason homosexuality exists is because people "unlearned" heterosexuality.





That's not possible. I didn't learn heterosexuality and I couldn't choose homosexuality. I could, perhaps, choose to perform a homosexual act, but my attraction to women isn't under my control and my revulsion at the thought of having sex with a man is also not something I can change.

That's not possible. I didn't learn heterosexuality and I couldn't choose homosexuality. I could, perhaps, choose to perform a homosexual act, but my attraction to women isn't under my control and my revulsion at the thought of having sex with a man is also not something I can change.

hey careful there, I know it's wierd ass formatting, but could you edit that to make it NOT look like i said that shit?

That's not possible. I didn't learn heterosexuality and I couldn't choose homosexuality. I could, perhaps, choose to perform a homosexual act, but my attraction to women isn't under my control and my revulsion at the thought of having sex with a man is also not something I can change.

As a wise man on these forums once said: "If you think homosexuality is a choice, go jack off to a gay porn. If you can, congrats - you're gay."

First, If it is true that homosexual orientation can be detected in some people as young as pre-school age, then I doubt very much that the medication (if there was such a thing) would be a choice of the youth but of the parents.
Second, we should be above what today? If a chemical imbalance causes the organs to not develop (like shortsightedness or left-handedness) and this one affects the brain itself, how would it immoral to treat it if you can?


Neither homosexuality nor lefthandedness affects the development of the person in any way biologicaly. The only negative effects to be felt are brought about by society.
Therefore, I would regard it as unnecessary treatment, and an unnecessary ttreatment with high risks to the individual as it will mess with the normal biological development of their brains.

hey careful there, I know it's wierd ass formatting, but could you edit that to make it NOT look like i said that shit?

Sorry about that. I have no idea how that happened... :confused:

As a wise man on these forums once said: "If you think homosexuality is a choice, go jack off to a gay porn. If you can, congrats - you're gay."

Your quote got screwed up, too. I said that, not Edwardis...

Now that Edwardis is back online, I believe he promised us a contradiction free manifesto.

The truth of what? That you decided to bolt the thread after you admitted that translations vary meanings?

I love that the only possible explanation for my timing is that I was somehow intimidated into leaving the thread under the weight of your wonderful arguments. Never occured to you that when I said it was time for me to head out, that I might, just might have been telling the truth, and now that I'm home and have access to this forum again, I'm back.

I do find it noteworthy that neither you nor anyone else in your jackal club found the courage to take me up on my challenge.

This is the absolute biggest piece of drivel I've ever seen, it defies the very definition of proof.



The problem is you talk about keeping your mind open but do the exact opposite. Your mind is entirely CLOSED to the idea that you interpreted wrong, CLOSED to the idea that the bible may not be divinely inspired, CLOSED to the idea that your faith may be incorrect.

You say keep your mind open, but what you mean is "keep your mind open to what i offer, just don't question it."

What you offer is the antithesis of an open mind, it's a mind locked from reason, devoid of rationality, and stuck on an endless loop of "faith" in which you use one thing to demonstrate itself.

Your logic, in a nutshell:
P:Your reasoning is flawless
P:Any open minded person would reach the same conclusion you did
P:I disagree with you

C:I am closed minded.

Kind of an ego-centric argument you have there, don't you think?

I love that the only possible explanation for my timing is that I was somehow intimidated into leaving the thread under the weight of your wonderful arguments. Never occured to you that when I said it was time for me to head out, that I might, just might have been telling the truth, and now that I'm home and have access to this forum again, I'm back.

I do find it noteworthy that neither you nor anyone else in your jackal club found the courage to take me up on my challenge.

"Jackal club". How cute. I guess those red herrings are more important than providing any evidence. Oh, wait, you admitted you didn't need that, only faith. Why should a person have "faith" in the subjective/mystical parts of the bible when so much of the objective parts are incorrect/mistranslated/contradictory?

Keep trying.

Why don't you present some evidence for your mythical "liberal conspiracy"?

Your logic, in a nutshell:
P:Your reasoning is flawless
P:Any open minded person would reach the same conclusion you did
P:I disagree with you

C:I am closed minded.

Kind of an ego-centric argument you have there, don't you think?

Your "logic":

P:Your reasoning is flawless but have nothing except "faith" to support yourself
P:Any open minded person would reach the same conclusion you did
P:I disagree with you

C:I am closed minded.

"Jackal club". How cute. I guess those red herrings are more important than providing any evidence. Oh, wait, you admitted you didn't need that, only faith. Why should a person have "faith" in the subjective/mystical parts of the bible when so much of the objective parts are incorrect/mistranslated/contradictory?

Keep trying.

Why don't you present some evidence for your mythical "liberal conspiracy"?

Wow hypocisy in action, boys and girls! Notice how Kecibukia starts by accusing me of using a red herring because I refered to him and his supporters as the jackal club. (WHich is, by the way, an incorrect application of the term red herring, but I know how much you love to use it so it's okay.)

Next, he distorts what I said to create a conclusion I didn't make.

Finally, he goes completely off topic and goes into the liberal conspiracy item, only a few short lines after accusing ME of using red herrings.

Gawd I've missed this form. This is where all the really fun people are.

I had totally forgotten about this thread. I had promised a "manifesto" (I don't like using that word, but I cannot think of another.), but it appears that you don't want it. I'm much out of the loop of the conversation by now and you have others who appear to be a doing a better job than I.

Plus, I'm just not in the mood to argue anymore. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it doesn't matter what I post. One of you already said it, and I'm going to paraphrase it: "I will have nothing to do with such a God."

So, since my whole argument is based on Scripture, it would be pointless for me to try to convince you, as you have already rejected that Scripture. May God soften your hearts.

Your "logic":

P:Your reasoning is flawless but have nothing except "faith" to support yourself
P:Any open minded person would reach the same conclusion you did
P:I disagree with you

C:I am closed minded.

Well I'm honored that since your own arguments aren't working you've decided to borrow one of mine. Cool!

But where your logic breaks down is that I didn't come in here in an attempt to prove anything to you. I came in here because I saw Edwardis getting ganged up on and wanted to come in on his side. Specifically, to point out the double standard with which people like you view this issue.

My faith is mine. I don't expect you to share it. I suggested a way that you could find your own, should you choose to.

What's funny is that you're sort of locked into this cycle where you think I'm trying to prove the point that you're so certain you've mastered. I mean really, I don't care what you believe where the Bible is concerned. What I do care about is the fact that people like you claim to want to be left alone by Christians, and yet you can't resist trying to tear them and their beliefs down for daring to disagree with your politics concerning the gay issue.

I had totally forgotten about this thread. I had promised a "manifesto" (I don't like using that word, but I cannot think of another.), but it appears that you don't want it. I'm much out of the loop of the conversation by now and you have others who appear to be a doing a better job than I.

Plus, I'm just not in the mood to argue anymore. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it doesn't matter what I post. One of you already said it, and I'm going to paraphrase it: "I will have nothing to do with such a God."

So, since my whole argument is based on Scripture, it would be pointless for me to try to convince you, as you have already rejected that Scripture. May God soften your hearts.

I couldn't have said that better myself.

Wow hypocisy in action, boys and girls! Notice how Kecibukia starts by accusing me of using a red herring because I refered to him and his supporters as the jackal club. (WHich is, by the way, an incorrect application of the term red herring, but I know how much you love to use it so it's okay.)

Whoops, try again. I used the red herring call when you tried to divert the topic to "ebil liberals".

You obviously don't know what a red herring is:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.

Next, he distorts what I said to create a conclusion I didn't make.

Now show what I "distorted". Please do so.

Finally, he goes completely off topic and goes into the liberal conspiracy item, only a few short lines after accusing ME of using red herrings.

So you deny making this statement?

This reminds me of the first axiom of liberal thought:

"Everyone's beliefs and rights are the same and equally valid, as long as the moral superiority of the gay perspective is acknowledged."

Gawd I've missed this form. This is where all the really fun people are.

Yeah, it's where people can lie, avoid questions, and dodge around topics whenever they feel like coming back and trolling.

Well I'm honored that since your own arguments aren't working you've decided to borrow one of mine. Cool!

But where your logic breaks down is that I didn't come in here in an attempt to prove anything to you. I came in here because I saw Edwardis getting ganged up on and wanted to come in on his side. Specifically, to point out the double standard with which people like you view this issue.

My faith is mine. I don't expect you to share it. I suggested a way that you could find your own, should you choose to.

What's funny is that you're sort of locked into this cycle where you think I'm trying to prove the point that you're so certain you've mastered. I mean really, I don't care what you believe where the Bible is concerned. What I do care about is the fact that people like you claim to want to be left alone by Christians, and yet you can't resist trying to tear them and their beliefs down for daring to disagree with your politics concerning the gay issue.

So you admit you're trolling. Gotcha.

I had totally forgotten about this thread. I had promised a "manifesto" (I don't like using that word, but I cannot think of another.), but it appears that you don't want it. I'm much out of the loop of the conversation by now and you have others who appear to be a doing a better job than I.

Plus, I'm just not in the mood to argue anymore. The more I think about it, the more I realize that it doesn't matter what I post. One of you already said it, and I'm going to paraphrase it: "I will have nothing to do with such a God."

So, since my whole argument is based on Scripture, it would be pointless for me to try to convince you, as you have already rejected that Scripture. May God soften your hearts.

Translation: I don't have a contradiction free manifesto so I'm not going to post it and claim I'm bored w/ the thread.

Whoops, try again. I used the red herring call when you tried to divert the topic to "ebil liberals".

Actually, that wasn't an attempt at diverting the topic. If it were, I wouldn't have continued in the same vein. But hey, keep trying.


You obviously don't know what a red herring is:

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
well done. Now use it correctly.



Now show what I "distorted". Please do so.

Sure. When I mentioned that there are different translations of the Scripture as a way in which you would attempt to tear down my citing it as a source. You keep refering to it as is that were the backbreaker of my argument, as if somehow by acknowledging that fact I was sinking my own point.

Your failing logic is based on the premise that I was trying to prove otherwise, which I was not. There are indeed many different translations, because people with different agendas create their own version. This is not in any way a weakness in the value of the original text, but a sign of its strength, since people have to write new translations to shoehorn it into their desired belief structure.


Yeah, it's where people can lie, avoid questions, and dodge around topics whenever they feel like coming back and trolling.

oh wow you called me a troll I guess I lose the debate.

So you admit you're trolling. Gotcha.

uh yeah okay if that's what you need to be able to keep preening your feathers. Knock yourself out.:rolleyes:

Just out of curiosity, precisely what question am I accused of dodging?

Actually, that wasn't an attempt at diverting the topic. If it were, I wouldn't have continued in the same vein. But hey, keep trying.

Because you left after being called on it. OF course you can't support it.

well done. Now use it correctly.

and it continues. an attempt to divert a topic. Keep going.



Sure. When I mentioned that there are different translations of the Scripture as a way in which you would attempt to tear down my citing it as a source. You keep refering to it as is that were the backbreaker of my argument, as if somehow by acknowledging that fact I was sinking my own point.

Which speaks for itself. You choose which translation you like to support your own biases. Thank you.

Your failing logic is based on the premise that I was trying to prove otherwise, which I was not. There are indeed many different translations, because people with different agendas create their own version. This is not in any way a weakness in the value of the original text, but a sign of its strength, since people have to write new translations to shoehorn it into their desired belief structure.

Vague meanings are a strength? Multiple translations supporting discrimination is a strength? Agenda based translations are a strength? Kind of like there is no "proof" right? You're delving into the realm of stupidity here.



oh wow you called me a troll I guess I lose the debate.

No, you lost it when you opened your mouth.

Just out of curiosity, precisely what question am I accused of dodging?

Don't know if it's a question, but it would really be nice if you'd just admit that your belief in the idea that homosexuality is sinful is based on nothing more substantial that the gas that intermittently escapes from your ass.

Just out of curiosity, precisely what question am I accused of dodging?

Every one that Edwardis dodged that you came in here to "defend".

Of course I'm sure you'll deny that as well.

Keep dancing. I'll keep playing the tune.

Don't know if it's a question, but it would really be nice if you'd just admit that your belief in the idea that homosexuality is sinful is based on nothing more substantial that the gas that intermittently escapes from your ass.

Your problem is that just because you don't get it, you can't understand why anybody else believes it.

Don't know if it's a question, but it would really be nice if you'd just admit that your belief in the idea that homosexuality is sinful is based on nothing more substantial that the gas that intermittently escapes from your ass.

Or more correctly, an alternative, agenda driven translation that he chooses to have faith in in order to justify personal biases and discrimination.

Every one that Edwardis dodged that you came in here to "defend".

Of course I'm sure you'll deny that as well.

Keep dancing. I'll keep playing the tune.

Wow. if I had given a response that non-specific you'd have had a field day.

Wow. if I had given a response that non-specific you'd have had a field day.

As you ignore the other posts.

How convienent.

You dodged the "which version is correct" question. Howabout that one?

Your problem is that just because you don't get it, you can't understand why anybody else believes it.

Au contraire. I most decidedly do get it. You're wiling to cede the difficult work of rational thought and argument over to a set of ancient writings, and there's a simple reason for it. It's easy.

You see, your whole argument rests on one logical fallacy--the appeal to authority. Take away that authority--that faith--and you've got nothing. So you see, when I compared your arguments to farts, I was being kind. Farts are more substantial.

Because you left after being called on it. OF course you can't support it.

Well you seem to really love this, and I've already said I left because it was time to go home, but since that's inconvenient you can keep on harping on it and tooting your own horn. Go ahead. I don't mind.



and it continues. an attempt to divert a topic. Keep going.
This doesn't even make sense. I was replying to you... but apparently the set of rules you're playing by are much less stringent than the ones you expect me to play by. Ah well. This is normal.


Which speaks for itself. You choose which translation you like to support your own biases. Thank you
This is how I know you're not interested in really communicating. This is how I know you just want to shout down anyone that doesn't pay lip service to your point of view. You don't even know what translation I adhere to, or why. One would think it would be important, since I assert that it's more faithful to the original text than anything else currently available.

You reveal yourself here.


Vague meanings are a strength? Multiple translations supporting discrimination is a strength? Agenda based translations are a strength? Kind of like there is no "proof" right? You're delving into the realm of stupidity here.

No.. that's not what I said. I mean, if it's too much trouble to expect you to actually READ my posts, then just let me know. There are other things I could be doing with my time right now.

Of course, heaven forbod that something in real life take precedence over posting on the forums. If it does, that must bean I"m all intimidated and scared of your arguments, right?




No, you lost it when you opened your mouth.

This was your coup de grace? Work on it.

Au contraire. I most decidedly do get it. You're wiling to cede the difficult work of rational thought and argument over to a set of ancient writings, and there's a simple reason for it. It's easy.

You see, your whole argument rests on one logical fallacy--the appeal to authority. Take away that authority--that faith--and you've got nothing. So you see, when I compared your arguments to farts, I was being kind. Farts are more substantial.

Ah so your point is that a fart is more substantial than religion. This, to you, is a rational statement? Go to sleep Nazz you need a break.

As you ignore the other posts.
Huh?


You dodged the "which version is correct" question. Howabout that one?
You forget that I came into the discussion well after you posed that to Edwardis, and as I stated repeatedly before, it wasn't my intention to get into that argument. I even stated why.

But heck, you're not bothering to read anything I post so you probably won't read this one either.

*snip poorly edited post*

1. You still can't provide evidence of your claim so you dodge it again. Shock.

2. You're still dodging and avoiding. Keep dancing.

3. You admit the translation you use considers homosexual acts to be an "abomination". You also admit that the versions are agenda driven based on translation and personal beliefs. You have chosen the version you use and chose your agenda.

4. You said agenda driven translations were a strength because people could modify the words to whatever they want. Hence the Humpty Dumpty reference.

Keep dancing. This is most entertaining.

Ah so your point is that a fart is more substantial than religion. This, to you, is a rational statement? Go to sleep Nazz you need a break.
At least a fart has little pieces of shit included in it--that gives it substance. Faith in the infallibility of ancient writings has no substance.

Huh?


You forget that I came into the discussion well after you posed that to Edwardis, and as I stated repeatedly before, it wasn't my intention to get into that argument. I even stated why.

But heck, you're not bothering to read anything I post so you probably won't read this one either.

I asked it several times to several posters. The best response was "they're all correct".

Nice that you keep refusing to answer it.

At least a fart has little pieces of shit included in it--that gives it substance. Faith in the infallibility of ancient writings has no substance.

Wow that's so clever. Hey Nazz, I'll be ignoring your drivel for the balance of this thread unless you come up with something intelligent. Just a heads up.

1. You still can't provide evidence of your claim so you dodge it again. Shock.

2. You're still dodging and avoiding. Keep dancing..

I don't even know what you're refering to here. Which claim?
(Seriously)


3. You admit the translation you use considers homosexual acts to be an "abomination". You also admit that the versions are agenda driven based on translation and personal beliefs. You have chosen the version you use and chose your agenda...

Okay firstly, you're creating a fallacy by suggesting that somehow the translation I use is unique in saying that. Hardly.

Second, you're painting a picture wherein I was shopping around for Bibles, and based soely on the criteria of how they referenced homosexuality, chose this one.

That's idiotic. I mean, if this is the best you've got in terms of criticizing translations, waste no more of my time. The version I use (And I noticed you didn't seem willing to ask) is the King James Version, which is accepted in the majority of protestant churches as the definitive translation.


4. You said agenda driven translations were a strength because people could modify the words to whatever they want. Hence the Humpty Dumpty reference.


No, I said that it was a mark of the strength of the Scriptures that those who want to twist them around find it necessary to write new versions in order to advance their agenda.

Did you ever take a reading comprehension test when you were a kid?

Wow that's so clever. Hey Nazz, I'll be ignoring your drivel for the balance of this thread unless you come up with something intelligent. Just a heads up.

Must suck to be so completely pwned.

I asked it several times to several posters. The best response was "they're all correct".

Nice that you keep refusing to answer it.


I wasn't around for that part of the discussion, so how can I answer it? And no, I'm not going to read pages and pages of material to ferret out a question that you seem to think is the center of the world, and yet not even the point I Was trying to make.

Your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that no point can be made until yours is addressed first. Is that so?

I don't even know what you're refering to here. Which claim?
(Seriously)

Try and use some cognitive abilities here. Support the whole liberal nonsense unless you just want to admit you were pulling a red herring and trolling.



Okay firstly, you're creating a fallacy by suggesting that somehow the translation I use is unique in saying that. Hardly.

Second, you're painting a picture wherein I was shopping around for Bibles, and based soely on the criteria of how they referenced homosexuality, chose this one.

That's idiotic. I mean, if this is the best you've got in terms of criticizing translations, waste no more of my time. The version I use (And I noticed you didn't seem willing to ask) is the King James Version, which is accepted in the majority of protestant churches as the definitive translation.

So now you admit that you support it based on faith alone. You admit there are other translations but that yours is better because it's not "unique". Now you make claims about the KJV being used my the majority of protestant churches. Can you support that one or is it just more farts in the wind?

If you didn't personally believe that homosexual acts were an "abomination", you would do more research into other translations. Since you accept it, you accept the translation.



No, I said that it was a mark of the strength of the Scriptures that those who want to twist them around find it necessary to write new versions in order to advance their agenda.

SO WHICH IS THE DEFINITIVE VERSION!!!!????

Did you ever take a reading comprehension test when you were a kid?

And aced every one. Apparently you just resort to the personal attacks when backed into a corner, eh?

I wasn't around for that part of the discussion, so how can I answer it? And no, I'm not going to read pages and pages of material to ferret out a question that you seem to think is the center of the world, and yet not even the point I Was trying to make.

Your whole argument seems to be based on the premise that no point can be made until yours is addressed first. Is that so?

But you stated a few posts ago that you had "reasons" for not answering the question and I just didn't read it. Now you're stating you never saw it? Make up your mind.

Try and use some cognitive abilities here. Support the whole liberal nonsense unless you just want to admit you were pulling a red herring and trolling.
Actually, I was being serious. If your question was so very important, that was your opportunity to put it out there where it would be impossible for me to dodge it... Yet you didn't do so. What does that tell us?

And about that personal attack... hm... hypocrisy on your part. See the end of your last post.

And man you do love to throw that red herring argument out there! Which is ironic since, as I said, thst was your opportunity to get the argument right back on track and you wasted it on a paersonal attack of your own.


So now you admit that you support it based on faith alone.

Huh? Where did I say this?

You admit there are other translations but that yours is better because it's not "unique".

No... didn't say that either... I only pointed out it has a common trait of most other versions, which is to condemn homosexual behavior.

Getting tired of repeating myself here.

Now you make claims about the KJV being used my the majority of protestant churches. Can you support that one or is it just more farts in the wind?
Do you disagree? Or are you trying to go after my credibility without actually responding to my claim. Know what that is?

Here's a hint: It's another logical fallacy.


If you didn't personally believe that homosexual acts were an "abomination", you would do more research into other translations. Since you accept it, you accept the translation.
No. Your whole premise here is in error. Do you think religion and faith is like a trip to the supermarket? Where someone takes their preconceived notions and shop around until they find a church that caters to their ideas? Religino isn't a pair of shoes.

And you say *I* am closed minded. You've just advocated being so immersed in a preconceived worldview as to reject any religion that doesn't cater to it, without regard to merit or credibility on any other basis.


SO WHICH IS THE DEFINITIVE VERSION!!!!????
:rolleyes:



And aced every one. Apparently you just resort to the personal attacks when backed into a corner, eh?
Not a personal attack. I actually meant it. You seriously seem to be having a hard time getting the point I'm making, even at the simplest levels.

Although it's hilarious that you want to be taken seriously and yet you use Nazz' asinine analogy.

See, you do have one advantage. I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of this thread, which means eventually I will move on, because forums aren't the center of my life, and when I do you'll start patting each other on the back and congratulating yourselves for winning an argument. I could invite you to continue it with me, but somehow I suspect you won't. Far easier to go for the illusion of vixtory over the substance.

But you stated a few posts ago that you had "reasons" for not answering the question and I just didn't read it. Now you're stating you never saw it? Make up your mind.

So no matter how many times I ask you to clarify (And it was a sincere request) you're going to stay latched onto the idea that somehow by not understanding you I lose the debate. Well, I guess whatever it takes to validate yourself.

Actually, I was being serious. If your question was so very important, that was your opportunity to put it out there where it would be impossible for me to dodge it... Yet you didn't do so. What does that tell us?

So support it. Can you?

And about that personal attack... hm... hypocrisy on your part. See the end of your last post.

Right. So now you're trying to dodge the fact that the name calling didn't start here.

And man you do love to throw that red herring argument out there! Which is ironic since, as I said, thst was your porrotunity to get the argument right back on track and you wasted it on a paersonal attack of your own.

More dodging w/ out providing an ounce of supporting evidence. Shock. Keep dancing.


Huh? Where did I say this?

When you admitted you didn't have proof and then berated proof itself. The tune goes on.

No... didn't say that either... I only pointed out it has a common trait of most other versions, which is to condemn homosexual behavior.

So they're not "agenda driven"?

Getting tired of repeating myself here.

Then present some evidence to support yourself.

Do you disagree? Or are you trying to go after my credibility without actually responding to my claim. Know what that is?

You made a claim, I'm asking for evidence. Apparently your full of a gaseous substance here as well.

Here's a hint: It's another logical fallacy.

You mean like argument by authority like you used? Keep trying.


No. Your whole premise here is in error. Do you think religion and faith is like a trip to the supermarket? Where someone takes their preconceived notions and shop around until they find a church that caters to their ideas? Religino isn't a pair of shoes.

So why did the protestants break off? Because they didn't believe the same translation the catholics used. Then every other group out there. More agenda driven translations.

And you say *I* am closed minded. You've just advocated being so immersed in a preconceived worldview as to reject any religion that doesn't cater to it, without regard to merit or credibility on any other basis.

You've now claimed that "other versions" are agenda driven. Which are these other versions and which one is the original? You can dodge this all you want. The question will keep being asked until you answer it.



Not a personal attack. I actually meant it. You seriously seem to be having a hard time getting the point I'm making, even at the simplest levels.

Although it's hilarious that you want to be taken seriously and yet you use Nazz' asinine analogy.

And the more you vent your gas, the more apt it becomes.

See, you do have one advantage. I am not emotionally invested in the outcome of this thread, which means eventually I will move on, because forums aren't the center of my life, and when I do you'll start patting each other on the back and congratulating yourselves for winning an argument. I could invite you to continue it with me, but somehow I suspect you won't. Far easier to go for the illusion of vixtory over the substance.[/QUOTE]

*snip*.

Okay. State your question. No more sidetracking

So no matter how many times I ask you to clarify (And it was a sincere request) you're going to stay latched onto the idea that somehow by not understanding you I lose the debate. Well, I guess whatever it takes to validate yourself.

So which is it? Can you stop dodging around. You clearly stated you had presented reasons for not answering (then make assertions about other translations) and then claim that you never saw the question, completely contradicting youself.

This is really pathetic.

Okay. State your question. No more sidetracking

And now you've just returned to the beginning of the circle. Fine.

You admit you're a troll and are refusing to provide any support for yourself.

You want a question? Here's one.

You have stated that translations are "agenda driven" yet use the KJV which is itself an agenda driven translation. Do you recognize it as the definitive version of the Christian Bible? Yes or No.

Are you going to refuse to answer this as well? I bet you will.

You want a question? Here's one..

THIS is the question you were trying to use to leverage the discussion? Or did you just pull this out because you don't even remember what was so important?


You have stated that translations are "agenda driven" yet use the KJV which is itself an agenda driven translation. Do you recognize it as the definitive version of the Christian Bible? Yes or No.

Are you going to refuse to answer this as well? I bet you will.

Yes it is the definitive version.

Now I'm going to qualify that, although I doubt you'll read this.

It is definitive because it is the best we've got. I said earlier it's not perfect, but it is better than any other available today.

Now, that wasn't the one you were accusing me of dodging initially, since you seemed to be referring to something thaqt went on before I entered the discussion. That was the question I was hoping for, but whatever.

THIS is the question you were trying to use to leverage the discussion? Or did you just pull this out because you don't even remember what was so important?



Yes it is the definitive version.

Now I'm going to qualify that, although I doubt you'll read this.

It is definitive because it is the best we've got. I said earlier it's not perfect, but it is better than any other available today.

Now, that wasn't the one you were accusing me of dodging initially, since you seemed to be referring to something thaqt went on before I entered the discussion. That was the question I was hoping for, but whatever.

What makes that translation better then some of the others?

what, exactly are you asking? Is being gay a sin? Some think so, others don't, there's no way any of us can answer that with any absolute certainty one way or the other.

I think he's saying that he isn't hateful and intolerant enough, so he's asking for help in becoming more hateful.

THIS is the question you were trying to use to leverage the discussion? Or did you just pull this out because you don't even remember what was so important?



Yes it is the definitive version.

Now I'm going to qualify that, although I doubt you'll read this.

It is definitive because it is the best we've got. I said earlier it's not perfect, but it is better than any other available today.

Now, that wasn't the one you were accusing me of dodging initially, since you seemed to be referring to something thaqt went on before I entered the discussion. That was the question I was hoping for, but whatever.

So you accept all the contradictions and the fact that numerous biblical scholars reject the KJV as being accurate?

Why is it "the best we've got"? What scholarship do you base that off of?

What makes that translation better then some of the others?

Well, a couple things, actually... I like it because it's meant to be as close to a literal translation as possible. This has the side effect of making it difficult to read at times, using language constructs that aren't commonly used in English nor were they at the time it was compiled, but it does preserve the original text better than the alternatives.

Also, being among the older, it's based on sources that are closer to the original. In other words, if I were to start compiling a new translation today, I'd be unlikely to find documents as old and as close to the original as what was available at the time.

The translation was commissioned by King James but was carried out by a team of scholars that were deliberately assembled from a variety of backgrounds in ordr to avoid putting a slant on the translation that would have resulted from people with all the same background.

That's the weakness of most other translations, IMHO... They tend to be brought about by a specific group with a specific agenda, which is naturally going to impact the meaning of the text.

As it happens, the church I joined uses this particular text for those reasons as well as others, and it fits perfectly.

Yes it is the definitive version.

Now I'm going to qualify that, although I doubt you'll read this.

It is definitive because it is the best we've got. I said earlier it's not perfect, but it is better than any other available today.

Now, that wasn't the one you were accusing me of dodging initially, since you seemed to be referring to something thaqt went on before I entered the discussion. That was the question I was hoping for, but whatever.

What makes it the best? Should it not be judged in the context of the Court of King James? If you don't know what they believed in before translating the text, then how are you supposed to appraise their work, without yourself knowing how to read Latin, Greek, and Hebrew?

So you accept all the contradictions and the fact that numerous biblical scholars reject the KJV as being accurate?

Why is it "the best we've got"? What scholarship do you base that off of?

What does "numerous Biblical scholars" mean? A bunch of Bible school graduates? Biblical archaeologists? Did you pick a few authors that said what you wanted to hear and subsequently elevated them to the status of infallibility?

Also, being among the older, it's based on sources that are closer to the original. In other words, if I were to start compiling a new translation today, I'd be unlikely to find documents as old and as close to the original as what was available at the time.
It was also based on far fewer documents, since there have been thousands of manuscripts discovered in the nearly 400 years since the KJV was first completed. Now, don't you think that pulling from a larger pool of documents would result in a better, more accurate, more likely to be closer to the original writings translation?

Of course, that assumes that the earliest available manuscripts agree with each other. They don't. Any Biblical scholar worth his salt will tell you that.

Your logic, in a nutshell:
P:Your reasoning is flawless
P:Any open minded person would reach the same conclusion you did
P:I disagree with you

C:I am closed minded.

Kind of an ego-centric argument you have there, don't you think?

See, this is where you are wrong.

I recognize that once you bring in the concept of a supernatural, all powerful diety, that diety can do, literally, anything. As such, ANYTHING is possible.

I recognize you MIGHT be right. I likewise recognize you MIGHT be wrong. I recognize that there is no solid evidence one way or the other.

You, on the other hand are convinced you ARE right, with no solid evidence to prove it.

I can admit you MIGHT be right. Can you admit you might be wrong?

What does "numerous Biblical scholars" mean? A bunch of Bible school graduates? Biblical archaeologists? Did you pick a few authors that said what you wanted to hear and subsequently elevated them to the status of infallibility?

Translation: My personal preference makes it the "definitive" version and not scholarship.

These scholars would disagree w/ you.

Walter Brueggemann, Marcus Borg, Warren Carter, James L. Crenshaw, Robert W. Funk, John Dominic Crossan, N.T. Wright.

The KJV has been modified many times over the years:

(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

The Textus Recepticus (which the KJV was primarily based on) has also been revised throughout the years. There were no original hebrew or greek texts used. Mosly Latin Vulgate.

What makes your version "definitive"? Which edition of it are you using? Especially in comparison to other versions? What actual scholarship do you base this on?

And since you want to continue being snotty, here's another one of the earlier questions.

Why would god intentionally and knowingly create homosexuals, already knowing that they are going to be persecuted and damned?

We've already discussed that god is omniscient so he does know that they're going to be damned.

Look, you're all very smart and know your shit.


But this is why I haven't involved myself with religion as yet. Look at this? Living my scriptures and rules and Gods that can't be proven and ancient books. I can't comprehend. Believe what you feel is right, I'd say.

Ach.

And since you want to continue being snotty, here's another one of the earlier questions.

Why would god intentionally and knowingly create homosexuals, already knowing that they are going to be persecuted and damned?

We've already discussed that god is omniscient so he does know that they're going to be damned.

Why did he create anyone then? We all have imperfect bodies, susceptible to death and pain and shortcomings. A cleft lip or a valedictorian honor are all the same to God, our perfect bodies come in the afterlife, not in this current life.

Why did he create anyone then? We all have imperfect bodies, susceptible to death and pain and shortcomings. A cleft lip or a valedictorian honor are all the same to God, our perfect bodies come in the afterlife, not in this current life.And as always, that begs the question: do we have free will in the afterlife?

If we do, then obviously this god thingy could have created a perfect world with perfect people. If not, then are heaven & hell truely different?

uh yeah okay if that's what you need to be able to keep preening your feathers. Knock yourself out.:rolleyes:

Hoist by your own petard, actually:

"But where your logic breaks down is that I didn't come in here in an attempt to prove anything to you. I came in here because I saw Edwardis getting ganged up on and wanted to come in on his side. "

You admit you came into the thread with no intent to discuss the topic. You admit your motive was purely to elicit a reaction.

By your own admission, you came to troll.

No... didn't say that either... I only pointed out it has a common trait of most other versions, which is to condemn homosexual behavior.

Getting tired of repeating myself here.


You seem to be under the double delusion that "I said so" and 'repetition' are forms of incontavertible proof.

Is there a reason why many translations of the Bible say very similar things? Yes - it is called precedent. There are certain 'traditions' of translation that apply whenever scripture is considered for a new translation - collectives of scholars are not approaching the materials cold, and the earlier translations are considered to 'stand' until they are explicitly constested and proved wrong.

This is the reason most bibles still translate Isaiah as talking about a 'virgin' birth, when no such thing is even hinted at in the text. Very few translations actually translate the word correctly. The question would be... why? The answer would be - because there are 'received' translations, which have become more important to the Christian Church than an HONEST appraisal of the text as written.

Well, a couple things, actually... I like it because it's meant to be as close to a literal translation as possible.


Actually - the King James version was less about being literally accurate, and more about being UNDERSTANDABLE to the English speaker. It was one step in a movement to kill the Latin domination of the church... and, as such, it's two chief design remits were to be easy to remember (which is why the KJV is so poetic), and easy to understand.

Literal accuracy, when you only really have the Latin version to translate from, is very much a secondary issue.

This has the side effect of making it difficult to read at times, using language constructs that aren't commonly used in English nor were they at the time it was compiled, but it does preserve the original text better than the alternatives.


This isn't true on either point. The KJV is inferior to the native scriptures (Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew). In many cases, it is also inferior to the Latin - because it perpetuates the errors of the Latin translation into English.

As for the use of language constructs of the time - they may be difficult for some to understand now, but they were written as populist text 'then'.


Also, being among the older, it's based on sources that are closer to the original. In other words, if I were to start compiling a new translation today, I'd be unlikely to find documents as old and as close to the original as what was available at the time.


This is utter rubbish. At the time of the KJV translation, many of the best materials hadn't been discovered or hinted at. Most of our really 'early' material, has been found VERY recently.


The translation was commissioned by King James but was carried out by a team of scholars that were deliberately assembled from a variety of backgrounds in ordr to avoid putting a slant on the translation that would have resulted from people with all the same background.


The translation was carried out for King James' personal pleasure. The agenda was pleasing the king.


That's the weakness of most other translations, IMHO... They tend to be brought about by a specific group with a specific agenda, which is naturally going to impact the meaning of the text.


Not as much, I suspect, as actually translating from the real Aramiac scriptures might. Wouldn't you consider a text translated directly from the langauge Jesus would have spoken in... as possibly superior to one translated from Latin, translated from Greek, translated from Aramaic?


As it happens, the church I joined uses this particular text for those reasons as well as others, and it fits perfectly.

The KJV is my favourite version... for it's poetry, for the way it reads. It is not, however, anything LIKE the most accurate.

Why did he create anyone then? We all have imperfect bodies, susceptible to death and pain and shortcomings. A cleft lip or a valedictorian honor are all the same to God, our perfect bodies come in the afterlife, not in this current life.

Flawed argument - the child who will never reach a mental age of greater than an infant, will never comprehend the difference between good and evil. Where is free will, if you cannot control or chose?

The child born with no arms and legs will never be able to partake of a number of sins. Free will, to this child, is much less of an issue than being in lack of limbs.

If we all honestly are expected to make the same judgements about good and evil, about sin and salvation - the variety of the fleshy constructs makes this an impossibility. To make a person homosexual can not be 'irrelevent' to God... it is either deliberate or accident. Accidental homosexuality sounds like the work of a bumbling spirit rather than an omnipotent force... but deliberate homosexuality means that God victimises some, by making them make EXTRA choices on the matetr of sin... for no reason other than whim.

So what was god thinking by knowingly making us fallible then punishing us for it?

According to the scriptures, God made us weak, not as sinners. The weakness is thought to be there only when we are independent from God. The weakness is not a problem when we live in close communion with Him. Thus, the weakness is a way of keeping us close to God. We run into trouble when we insist on going our own way, just like the story of Adam and Eve. Their insistence on going their own way led to other problems. Cain chose to kill Able, for example. What did Able do wrong? Nothing, as far as we know, but he suffered because of his brother Cain's jealousy, a jealousy that would never have led to murder IF he had listened to God's warning. God punished Cain, because he chose to ignore God.


But if god allows his perfect actions to be swayed by our imperfect perceptions can one say his ultimate actions are still perfect?

Yes, because perfect actions does not necessarily mean only one course of action.


And sense it is god actualy following through with thoes actions is he capable of doing incorrect actions?

Our imperfect perceptions do not necessarily lead to a wrong course of action. Weakness or imperfection is not necessarily wrong, more like a limitation. And why shouldn't God accept our limited perceptions? Like a human father accepts the limited perceptions of his child.


Not if there's more than one interpretation.

I would say that there are some parts of scripture that are not open to more than one interpretation, other than by extreme interpretations that do not make much sense. Granted, though, given that some people don't make much sense, you could have a point. From a Christian point of view, though, the interpretation that counts is the one that recognises the existence of God. Atheistic or Godless interpretations need not be taken into account.


The lie is in the misunderstanding and the allowance of said misunderstanding. The lie is in allowing him to think he's killing his son, when it's just a sheep. You can't ever trust the word of a god who "tests" you in such a way to make you believe one thing and have something completely different happen.


There was not necessarily any misunderstanding. The sacrifice that God asked of Abraham was complete. As far as Abraham was concerned, he passed the test. The sacrifice was complete. Isaac was given to God, though he lived. God did not deceive Abraham. Rather, Isaac was a living sacrifice. Sure, Abraham didn't understand everything before (or perhaps even after) the event, but that didn't matter, nor did God promise to make every detail clear to him. What did matter was that he was faithful, and God showed him that God had only good intentions towards him.

Christians like to think of Jesus as the living sacrifice also, and find much in common between Isaac and Jesus, both sons of God's promise.



It's very necessary when dealing with a religion that demands your blind faith.


Blind faith, as you call it, may be something that you look down upon, but don't forget that it really is the only reasonable option if you wanted to follow a God that was beyond your understanding. Thus faith, for a Christian, is the most reasonable thing to have. Of course, Abraham was not a Christian, in the formal sense, but he did serve the same God so far as he understood God.

Furthermore, although faith can take us places that we cannot see, earning the name 'blind', it does not therefore follow that it means we can close our eyes. Rather, Christ encouraged us to open our eyes and our ears. Despite a long history of the church telling us to close our minds, Christ's message was quite the opposite. He even told a story about a shrewd manager who used his reason, and then told his disciples to be as harmless as doves but as wise as serpents.

Having faith is like having another set of eyes. The physical eyes don't always serve us very well, thus the eyes of faith are really quite an asset.


Cite them, please, by verse. God can, by definition, never change his mind like a human. He can know ahead of time that something will happen, and can thereby act like he wants something to happen up to a certain point, and then act differently and make it SEEM like he changed his mind, but he cannot suddenly realize something he did not previously take into account and change his decision like a human can. It's an illusion, a play put on so that we can feel that we have some type of influence over a god who already has everything planned out. It's a form of control, nothing more.


Exodus 32 7-14
The Lord told Moses, “Quick! Go down the mountain! Your people whom you brought from the land of Egypt have corrupted themselves. 8 How quickly they have turned away from the way I commanded them to live! They have melted down gold and made a calf, and they have bowed down and sacrificed to it. They are saying, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.’”
9 Then the Lord said, “I have seen how stubborn and rebellious these people are. 10 Now leave me alone so my fierce anger can blaze against them, and I will destroy them. Then I will make you, Moses, into a great nation.”
11 But Moses tried to pacify the Lord his God. “O Lord!” he said. “Why are you so angry with your own people whom you brought from the land of Egypt with such great power and such a strong hand? 12 Why let the Egyptians say, ‘Their God rescued them with the evil intention of slaughtering them in the mountains and wiping them from the face of the earth’? Turn away from your fierce anger. Change your mind about this terrible disaster you have threatened against your people! 13 Remember your servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[a] You bound yourself with an oath to them, saying, ‘I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven. And I will give them all of this land that I have promised to your descendants, and they will possess it forever.’”
14 So the Lord changed his mind about the terrible disaster he had threatened to bring on his people.

It's correct to say that God is not a mere man, that he should change his mind like one. Rather, he is God, thus he can change his mind like a god. Sound confusing? That would be because we are discussing someone who is far more than a man, and far greater than our understanding. That's part of the reason why the scripture is full of metaphoric language. We call God our father, but he isn't masculine. Rather, he is the source of both masculinity and femininity. Thus Jesus called him father because that was the best picture we could have of him in Jesus' day.

The idea of God changing his mind can only be understood if we could understand what it would be like to exist both inside and outside of time (as God does).


Simply put: No, there aren't. God is absolute, because he is everything. EVERYTHING. He is every concept, every action, every reason, every detail, every sun, every star, every person, every cell - EVERYTHING. That's pretty absolute, and the only way to deal with absolutes is with absolutes.


I disagree. God is not everthing. He isn't sin. I think I pretty much totally disagree with your idea of God. He isn't in control of everything. He isn't in control of your choices, for example, or mine, for that matter. He isn't absolute.
What you seem to be doing is projecting this great big expectation of God and then claiming that he can't fulfill them, because when he does, he breaks the rules that you think he ought to have. Like saying that God can't make a rock too big so that he cannot carry it--that is simply a logical contradiction. The problem exists in the logic, not in God.

You seem to be under the double delusion that "I said so" and 'repetition' are forms of incontavertible proof.

Is there a reason why many translations of the Bible say very similar things? Yes - it is called precedent. There are certain 'traditions' of translation that apply whenever scripture is considered for a new translation - collectives of scholars are not approaching the materials cold, and the earlier translations are considered to 'stand' until they are explicitly constested and proved wrong.

This is the reason most bibles still translate Isaiah as talking about a 'virgin' birth, when no such thing is even hinted at in the text. Very few translations actually translate the word correctly. The question would be... why? The answer would be - because there are 'received' translations, which have become more important to the Christian Church than an HONEST appraisal of the text as written.


Regardless of your view of their accuracy, the common versions used by Christianity do translate with homosexuality as a negative. Certainly it is not an emphasis, but it is definitely a negative.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Timothy 1:8-11
8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,

9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers

10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.


Leviticus 18:21-23
21'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.

22'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

23'Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.


Leviticus 20:12-14
12If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death; they have committed perversion; their blood is upon them. 13If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. 14If a man takes a woman and her mother also, it is depravity; he and they shall be burned with fire, that there may be no depravity among you.





So, if you want to make a case to challenge the common translations, as some scholars are leaning to, you might have a translation where homosexuality is better translated as male temple prostitutes and you could then make the case that the NT is condeming prostitution not homosexuality in general, but it isn't a slam dunk.

The problem in this thread is that many of you seem to see it as the posters' in this thread have come up with their own version of scripture that isn't accepting of homosexuality, that just is not true.

And as always, that begs the question: do we have free will in the afterlife?

If we do, then obviously this god thingy could have created a perfect world with perfect people. If not, then are heaven & hell truely different?

That's like the problem of having the trinity with separate wills. Can each person of the godhead have their own will? Obviously not if they are like humans. However, they are not like us humans. They are gods, or more correctly, they are God, and God is one. They do have individual wills, but because they all are united by a perfect love and a perfect nature, there is no disharmony.


Here is my two cents worth: in heaven, when we are united with God, when we participate in the nature of God, there will be no disharmony. Sure, we will have our own free wills, but they will be perfect. We will only want to act out of our love for God and one another, unlike now where we act out of selfishness part--or perhaps most--of the time.

So, if you want to make a case to challenge the common translations, as some scholars are leaning to, you might have a translation where homosexuality is better translated as male temple prostitutes and you could then make the case that the NT is condeming prostitution not homosexuality in general, but it isn't a slam dunk.

The problem in this thread is that many of you seem to see it as the posters' in this thread have come up with their own version of scripture that isn't accepting of homosexuality, that just is not true.

Well, the case I've always made is that Jesus never made mention of homosexuality--the only people who did, as you so nicely pointed out, were the Levitical Jews and the apostle Paul (and there's some question as to his authorship of some of what's attributed to him). And since Jesus is the basis of the whole christianity thing, there's a very good argument to be made that the Biblical injunction against homosexuality is not of divine origin (assuming any of it is), but is rather a case of people with an agenda inserting their own prejudices into the scripture, especially since it's so inconsistent with the message of inclusiveness that Jesus preached.

Flawed argument - the child who will never reach a mental age of greater than an infant, will never comprehend the difference between good and evil. Where is free will, if you cannot control or chose?

Just how is one to know how much free will an infant has, unless we know something of their capacities?


The child born with no arms and legs will never be able to partake of a number of sins. Free will, to this child, is much less of an issue than being in lack of limbs.

Nevertheless, free will would be present in a person without arms and less, providing they had in them some of the basic attributes that all humans share.


If we all honestly are expected to make the same judgements about good and evil, about sin and salvation - the variety of the fleshy constructs makes this an impossibility. To make a person homosexual can not be 'irrelevent' to God... it is either deliberate or accident. Accidental homosexuality sounds like the work of a bumbling spirit rather than an omnipotent force... but deliberate homosexuality means that God victimises some, by making them make EXTRA choices on the matetr of sin... for no reason other than whim.

I think the issue can be made a little clearer by distinguishing between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. God is never responsible for a homosexual practice, which is a sin in the eyes of traditional Christianity. But is God responsible for the orientation? In one sense, perhaps, but then again, only in a small measure, as one who allowed it to develope. But is God to be blamed for all of the genetic dispositions that are found in man? If a man is found with less testosterone in the blood, for example, which makes him more likely to be a homosexual, is that God's fault? Like the person born blind. Whose fault is this? The parent's, or the blind man? Jesus said neither was.

The problem of evil has long been discussed by Christians, and traditionally, evil is traced back to man's sin and fall.

When someone chooses to practice homosexuality, he is guilty of sin, in my view, since I reckon the Bible is clear about the issue. Sex outside of a committed relationship with a member of the opposite sex is clearly sin. Thus adultery and fornication and lust are all examples of sin. Personally, I do not consider a person practicing homosexuality a worse sinner than a person indulging in pornography. Though, of course, one tends to have more severe effects than the other.

And I don't think I have ever met a perfect person, thus I would treat a homosexual no differently to an adulterer or even my friends. But I would have even more sympathy for someone who I knew to have a homosexual orientation. But blame God I would not.

Flawed argument - the child who will never reach a mental age of greater than an infant, will never comprehend the difference between good and evil. Where is free will, if you cannot control or chose?

The child born with no arms and legs will never be able to partake of a number of sins. Free will, to this child, is much less of an issue than being in lack of limbs.

If we all honestly are expected to make the same judgements about good and evil, about sin and salvation - the variety of the fleshy constructs makes this an impossibility. To make a person homosexual can not be 'irrelevent' to God... it is either deliberate or accident. Accidental homosexuality sounds like the work of a bumbling spirit rather than an omnipotent force... but deliberate homosexuality means that God victimises some, by making them make EXTRA choices on the matetr of sin... for no reason other than whim.

No, I didn’t use a flawed argument, you used a false dichotomy to try and refute it.

There is more than one option open to understanding the questions involved, thus your black or white only options are a misdirection, a false dichotomy. But to address your position anyway ~ Is a child born with no arms and legs being denied the opportunity to partake in sins? What nonsense is this? Being denied the opportunity to partake in sins is not a negative against freewill. To reverse what you said, it would be like saying a poor child never was generous by giving millions of dollars to charity and therefore shouldn’t be rewarded on the same scale that the rich man who was generous by giving a small percentage of his own wealth but that amounted to millions. The exact opposite is what Jesus taught though. A small thing to others can be a huge thing to God. A penny from the poor woman was more to God than the millions the rich can easily give away. The quadriplegic is measured on their own scale, not yours or mine. God will know what they can and cannot be accountable for. There is a reason that we are not to judge each other, most people take that in the negative judgment arena, but it also applies to the positive judgments of other, we are incapable of knowing the inner truths that only God knows.

We will be judged on our own individual scales. More will be expected of those that have more, and adversely, less will be expected of those that have less.

What your theme seems to really be about is that you are trying to present the argument that life is not ‘fair’ between us all, some having better starting positions than others, and therefore God is a cheat. In answer to that, and now having reminded us that God has different expectations on the scale of our individual responsibilities, we can use the example of the relationship between sibling children and their parent; one child or another will go through stages of dissatisfaction about who has what and who gets what responsibilities in the household, some doing more work and different work depending on their ages and abilities, they will take turns complaining that it’s not fair. Then, when they are older they look back and realize that it wasn’t so unfair after all, they simply had a selfish point of view or too few considerations to be able to make an accurate judgment at the time.

But the house rules are the house rules, all of the children are expected to obey them. The same with us and God.

Well, the case I've always made is that Jesus never made mention of homosexuality--the only people who did, as you so nicely pointed out, were the Levitical Jews and the apostle Paul (and there's some question as to his authorship of some of what's attributed to him). And since Jesus is the basis of the whole christianity thing, there's a very good argument to be made that the Biblical injunction against homosexuality is not of divine origin (assuming any of it is), but is rather a case of people with an agenda inserting their own prejudices into the scripture, especially since it's so inconsistent with the message of inclusiveness that Jesus preached.

The problem with using a negative as a positive argument is that it never ends and never proves itself: In the same way that Jesus NEVER said anything directly about why Christians shouldn't buy other people's term papers and purchasing an undeserved diploma either.

We could make that argument, but it doesn't make it right. The scripture and Jesus say a Christian marriage should not have divorce AND marriage is the only acceptable place for sexual relations between people AND a man will leave his family for his wife (making it one man and one woman relationship)... the entirety of the Christian relationship endorsed by Jesus and the scripture leaves no room for sexual relations outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship.

The problem with using a negative as a positive argument is that it never ends and never proves itself: In the same way that Jesus NEVER said anything directly about why Christians shouldn't buy other people's term papers and purchasing an undeserved diploma either.

We could make that argument, but it doesn't make it right. The scripture and Jesus say a Christian marriage should not have divorce AND marriage is the only acceptable place for sexual relations between people AND a man will leave his family for his wife (making it one man and one woman relationship)... the entirety of the Christian relationship endorsed by Jesus and the scripture leaves no room for sexual relations outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship.
I know Paul said that about divorce and marriage, but did Jesus? My memory isn't perfect, but I think Jesus stayed away from moral condemnations on the whole in his ministry. He was much more focused on being a good person toward others, treating others with respect and love. And you have to realize something about my point of view--I think that anything in the Bible that clashes with the basis of Jesus's teachings is suspect, because it hints at an agenda not his. Forget issues of divinity--the Bible is no more divine than the Arthur legends. It's the message of Jesus that's the important thing to me.

Well, the case I've always made is that Jesus never made mention of homosexuality--the only people who did, as you so nicely pointed out, were the Levitical Jews and the apostle Paul (and there's some question as to his authorship of some of what's attributed to him). And since Jesus is the basis of the whole christianity thing, there's a very good argument to be made that the Biblical injunction against homosexuality is not of divine origin (assuming any of it is), but is rather a case of people with an agenda inserting their own prejudices into the scripture, especially since it's so inconsistent with the message of inclusiveness that Jesus preached.

The problem with your argument is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are arguing for a version of christianity that does NOT accept the Bible as the Word of God and puts faith in only the "red letter words".
That may be a worthwhile debate, but it isn't the homosexuality debate.
The OP raised questions regarding how particular versions of christianity that DO accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God view homosexuality.

Your efforts would be better served to drop the homosexual issue and challenge these kinds of Christians on what their faith is based on in the first place because unless they lower their reverance for their Bible, none of your arguments have any merit.

I know Paul said that about divorce and marriage, but did Jesus? My memory isn't perfect, but I think Jesus stayed away from moral condemnations on the whole in his ministry. He was much more focused on being a good person toward others, treating others with respect and love. And you have to realize something about my point of view--I think that anything in the Bible that clashes with the basis of Jesus's teachings is suspect, because it hints at an agenda not his. Forget issues of divinity--the Bible is no more divine than the Arthur legends. It's the message of Jesus that's the important thing to me.


Here's some confirmation in Jesus’ own words...

In regards to Extra-marital sex, Mathew 5:27-28
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In regards to Male and Female (one man one woman) Marriage:
Matthew 19:4-6
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In regards to No Divorce:
Matthew 19:7-9
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

FYI: additional scriptural instruction regarding sex and marriage:
Hebrews 13:4
4Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

The problem with your argument is that it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

You are arguing for a version of christianity that does NOT accept the Bible as the Word of God and puts faith in only the "red letter words".
That may be a worthwhile debate, but it isn't the homosexuality debate.
The OP raised questions regarding how particular versions of christianity that DO accept the Bible as the infallible Word of God view homosexuality.

Your efforts would be better served to drop the homosexual issue and challenge these kinds of Christians on what their faith is based on in the first place because unless they lower their reverance for their Bible, none of your arguments have any merit.
They have plenty of merit ... just no potential. But in the end it is a worthwhile fight, trying to get people to stop being absorbed in mythology enough to not discriminate is always worthwhile

They have plenty of merit ... just no potential. But in the end it is a worthwhile fight, trying to get people to stop being absorbed in mythology enough to not discriminate is always worthwhile

Worthwhile? How so?
You don't respect what they believe (mythology being your choice of label) and yet you want them to hear you.

When has that ever worked for anyone?

You don't have to agree with people to respect their belief.

Worthwhile? How so?
You don't respect what they believe (mythology being your choice of label) and yet you want them to hear you.

When has that ever worked for anyone?

You don't have to agree with people to respect their belief.

I respect their right to believe as they do … I respect their right to practice their religion as long as it does not affect the rights of others. I even respect those that have faith but yet have the guts enough to know they are fallible and refuse to impose their religions

But in the end I do not have to “Respect” their religion any more then they have to “Respect” mine. I find it silly. So what if someone cant handle a bit of criticism on the part of their faith specially when they stick that faith into the public domain, they may want to re-evaluate their faith.

I refuse to compromise when the cost of compromise is inequality such as that homosexuals currently face in the USA

So, if you want to make a case to challenge the common translations, as some scholars are leaning to, you might have a translation where homosexuality is better translated as male temple prostitutes and you could then make the case that the NT is condeming prostitution not homosexuality in general, but it isn't a slam dunk.

The problem in this thread is that many of you seem to see it as the posters' in this thread have come up with their own version of scripture that isn't accepting of homosexuality, that just is not true.

No - not at all - the posters in this thread seem to have sucked down a two-thousand year tradition of interpretation... apparently without question.

How many Christians can read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic? Personally, I think they all SHOULD, just so that they can read the text as written.

Would you accept a translation of the scripture written by me? Most probably wouldn't... maybe because they don't know my credentials, or maybe because they think they know them too well - but so many carelessly place their faith in the hands of translators of time past, that they couldn't even name.

You present some verses here - and I could start debating them point on point... but Galatians 5 means I don't even HAVE to touch the Hebrew ones... and the simple fact that Paul invents his own phrase (arsenokoites), which appears at no other single point in the entirety of scripture, means I don't really have to contend much with Paul, either.... in as much as his text cannot be comparatively translated... so 'my word' is as good as 'yours'.

I respect their right to believe as they do … I respect their right to practice their religion as long as it does not affect the rights of others. I even respect those that have faith but yet have the guts enough to know they are fallible and refuse to impose their religions

But in the end I do not have to “Respect” their religion any more then they have to “Respect” mine. I find it silly. So what if someone cant handle a bit of criticism on the part of their faith specially when they stick that faith into the public domain, they may want to re-evaluate their faith.

I refuse to compromise when the cost of compromise is inequality such as that homosexuals currently face in the USA


You are free to find their religion silly, that would be why you disagree with them. But if you are attempting to persuade them from what you find to be inequities, then you will do nothing more than turn them away from whatever message you think you have if you use ridicule as your primary, or secondary, or tertiary... weapon.

If people of faith ridicule you for your lack of faith, how likely are you to suddenly adopt their point of view? Or even listen for a moment?

Just how is one to know how much free will an infant has, unless we know something of their capacities?


You've read your bible, yes? You see that Genesis makes it clear one cannot sin until one can comprehend that there can BE a difference between a good and an evil?


Nevertheless, free will would be present in a person without arms and less, providing they had in them some of the basic attributes that all humans share.


But, 'free will' that they can't act on. Are you 'good' because you don't take advantage of the opportunities that don't come your way?

Even Jesus had to be tempted... otherwise his 'not sinning' is worthless.


I think the issue can be made a little clearer by distinguishing between homosexual orientation and homosexual practice. God is never responsible for a homosexual practice, which is a sin in the eyes of traditional Christianity. But is God responsible for the orientation? In one sense, perhaps, but then again, only in a small measure...


No - God is either responsible or he is not. If we are made gay or straight by the hand of god, then it is god's choice. There is no 'small measure'.

You don't give much credit to your omnipotent god.


...as one who allowed it to develope. But is God to be blamed for all of the genetic dispositions that are found in man? If a man is found with less testosterone in the blood, for example, which makes him more likely to be a homosexual...


Who told you that? Did they give you a source?


...is that God's fault? Like the person born blind. Whose fault is this? The parent's, or the blind man? Jesus said neither was.


It would be the fault of God... as you just pointed out. I wonder how you think this invalidates the point.


The problem of evil has long been discussed by Christians, and traditionally, evil is traced back to man's sin and fall.


Of course it is.

Most Christians wear their 'sin nature' as a badge of pride, so they can show off just how much they are not sinning. They hate the idea that maybe the problem IS 'me'. Much easier to blame two naked dimwits, a serpent, or some mythical goat.


When someone chooses to practice homosexuality, he is guilty of sin, in my view, since I reckon the Bible is clear about the issue. Sex outside of a committed relationship with a member of the opposite sex is clearly sin. Thus adultery and fornication and lust are all examples of sin. Personally, I do not consider a person practicing homosexuality a worse sinner than a person indulging in pornography. Though, of course, one tends to have more severe effects than the other.

And I don't think I have ever met a perfect person, thus I would treat a homosexual no differently to an adulterer or even my friends. But I would have even more sympathy for someone who I knew to have a homosexual orientation. But blame God I would not.

Half right. Adultery and fornication are not equal sins with 'lust'... they ARE lust, and that is WHY they are sin.

So - gay sex that is promiscuous - sinful. Gay sex within the bonds of matrimony... peachy keen. The difference is 'lust'.

Reread your bible... Jesus is very clear about the lust part... it is your own choice to try to finesse down his arguments to lesser specifics.

No - not at all - the posters in this thread seem to have sucked down a two-thousand year tradition of interpretation... apparently without question.

How many Christians can read Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic? Personally, I think they all SHOULD, just so that they can read the text as written.

Would you accept a translation of the scripture written by me? Most probably wouldn't... maybe because they don't know my credentials, or maybe because they think they know them too well - but so many carelessly place their faith in the hands of translators of time past, that they couldn't even name.



I say to you also then, you are NOT debating the homosexual issue. You are also questioning what christians put their faith in.

It's a good question, one I have been personally engaged in for some time. It's just not the point of this thread. Pentcostalism has a particular view on scripture. I don't agree with it either, but you can't pretend to debate the issue of homosexuality in Pentacostalism when you are really debating what Pentacostalism is in the first place, along with many other christian faiths.


You present some verses here - and I could start debating them point on point... but Galatians 5 means I don't even HAVE to touch the Hebrew ones... and the simple fact that Paul invents his own phrase (arsenokoites), which appears at no other single point in the entirety of scripture, means I don't really have to contend much with Paul, either.... in as much as his text cannot be comparatively translated... so 'my word' is as good as 'yours'.

I only present the verses to put some context for those saying the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. For the Evangelicals, it most certainly does.

I'm well aware of how different this question becomes when you set aside their straight forward take on scripture.

Worthwhile? How so?
You don't respect what they believe (mythology being your choice of label) and yet you want them to hear you.

When has that ever worked for anyone?

You don't have to agree with people to respect their belief.

Mythology is not disrespectful - it IS mythology.

Mythology: "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes."

Myth: "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society."

Don't allow your own perspective to blind you - Christianity IS mythology, whether or not you might think it is (also) 'true'.

I say to you also then, you are NOT debating the homosexual issue. You are also questioning what christians put their faith in.

It's a good question, one I have been personally engaged in for some time. It's just not the point of this thread. Pentcostalism has a particular view on scripture. I don't agree with it either, but you can't pretend to debate the issue of homosexuality in Pentacostalism when you are really debating what Pentacostalism is in the first place, along with many other christian faiths.

I only present the verses to put some context for those saying the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality. For the Evangelicals, it most certainly does.

I'm well aware of how different this question becomes when you set aside their straight forward take on scripture.

If the issue is - do a lot of Christians bash on homosexuality, then, obviously, the answer is yes.

But - I don't think that is what the original post is getting at.

If the question is a little deeper - like SHOULD they... then the answer is 'no' on so many levels, not least being a flagrant disregard for the values of Jesus, or the fact that a lot of what fundamental groups teach is NOT in the original text.

Pay lipservice to the traditions of fundamentalism if you wish. I, on the other hand, will try to actually provide some answers to those who seek.

Mythology is not disrespectful - it IS mythology.

Mythology: "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes."

Myth: "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society."

Don't allow your own perspective to blind you - Christianity IS mythology, whether or not you might think it is (also) 'true'.


I also know the actual meaning of the word 'retard', but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't know exactly what people that refer to my sister as 'retard' actually mean and their intent.

Choosing to refer to the beliefs of others as mythology when addressing those people is inflammatory. It is also foolish if you are hoping they will pay attention to a single word AFTER mythology.

If the issue is - do a lot of Christians bash on homosexuality, then, obviously, the answer is yes.

But - I don't think that is what the original post is getting at.


Nor do I.


If the question is a little deeper - like SHOULD they... then the answer is 'no' on so many levels, not least being a flagrant disregard for the values of Jesus, or the fact that a lot of what fundamental groups teach is NOT in the original text.


But you're not answering no to this question, you're answering NO to almost the entirety of Pentacostalism, it just so happens that a by product of your belief on this issue has implications to the homosexuality issue.


Pay lipservice to the traditions of fundamentalism if you wish. I, on the other hand, will try to actually provide some answers to those who seek.

It's not lipservice, it's simply recognising what we are talking about.

You are not providing a Pentacostal convert with any answers on homosexuality other than to just not be a Pentacostal. If the OP had asked for advice as to whether he should continue on his chosen path then your so-called answers would be pertinent. If you feel the issue is important enough to break into the thread to explain why the OP should reject being a Pentacostal, then by means, take the floor. Just recognise that you're not actually talking about homosexuality as anything more than one example of where you feel this denomination has strayed.

You are free to find their religion silly, that would be why you disagree with them. But if you are attempting to persuade them from what you find to be inequities, then you will do nothing more than turn them away from whatever message you think you have if you use ridicule as your primary, or secondary, or tertiary... weapon.

If people of faith ridicule you for your lack of faith, how likely are you to suddenly adopt their point of view? Or even listen for a moment?

I always listen ...

But in the end by in large for this or any of my religous debates how many mock or ridicule them

What maybe 1 percent MAYBE ... I have to be pretty frustrated with their atitude to get that far ... very frustrated indeed

I always listen ...

But in the end by in large for this or any of my religous debates how many mock or ridicule them

What maybe 1 percent MAYBE ... I have to be pretty frustrated with their atitude to get that far ... very frustrated indeed

Really? That is your honest take on it? I'd venture to say that if you actually asked them, their perspective would be somewhere well above the majority line and no where near 1%.

Really? That is your honest take on it? I'd venture to say that if you actually asked them, their perspective would be somewhere well above the majority line and no where near 1%.

Oh? Of my posts? Please do find them … I would love to correct my behavior if I have acted in error because for the most part it is not intentional.

But on a debate forum every once and a while a person gets fed up with a non pliable and non sensical response and makes a hard line comment myself. I know that , but those type of posts are in no way the majority

Hell even in this thread I have applauded people like LG and Depublicants in their ability to combine reason with a deep faith.

So please do show me how a majority of my posts were attacking them rather then debating their religion (unless you are counting them one in the same … if so then that is silly how are we supposed to discuss anything without it being considered a personal attack.

I also know the actual meaning of the word 'retard', but that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't know exactly what people that refer to my sister as 'retard' actually mean and their intent.

Choosing to refer to the beliefs of others as mythology when addressing those people is inflammatory. It is also foolish if you are hoping they will pay attention to a single word AFTER mythology.

You might perceive it as inflammatory - but I'd suggest that might be a problem of over-sensitivity, rather than necessarily 'baiting'.

I'm sure you would admit that the average christian believes all other religions to be mythological, no?

It's not lipservice, it's simply recognising what we are talking about.


No - it is what 'recognising' what you think we are talking about.


You are not providing a Pentacostal convert with any answers on homosexuality other than to just not be a Pentacostal.


I said no such thing.


If the OP had asked for advice as to whether he should continue on his chosen path then your so-called answers would be pertinent. If you feel the issue is important enough to break into the thread to explain why the OP should reject being a Pentacostal, then by means, take the floor. Just recognise that you're not actually talking about homosexuality as anything more than one example of where you feel this denomination has strayed.

No matter which denomination you belong to, (and, the scripture specifically states christians should consider themselves one denomination, rather than this current multiplicity of 'schools of thought'), a Christian should read the scripture with DISCERNMENT. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc - ALL Christians should be interpreting God's Word for themselves... not toeing a party line.

If the OP is Pentecostal, good for him (or her?)... that doesn't mean he should take TRADITIONS as gospel.

Follow your heart.
But I also want to follow gods will too...but i dont know if my heart is "right" on this topic!

Dude, you're gay. Deal with it.
Deal with it if it is a "sin"!! I dont like commiting sins.And I cant stop being myself!

But I also want to follow gods will too...but i dont know if my heart is "right" on this topic!


Deal with it if it is a "sin"!! I dont like commiting sins.And I cant stop being myself!

I know its hard ... but you are who you are. We all do things we like or dont like. But as long as they don’t hurt others we can take our time and evaluate how we feel and make a good decision.

I am being blunt I don’t believe in your god, and I don’t believe that any loving god would damn his creations for finding a loving fulfilling relationship with another person weather that person be gay bi or strait.

But that’s me … you have to find your own way in this. And realize even by your own religion you are a constant sinner. There is absolutely no way for you to be NOT a sinner. Committing or not committing this sin will not make one bit of difference really in your final salvation by faith. And frankly with the fact that it was never once mentioned by JESUS the one that was IN CHARGE of re-affirming or reshaping the law of the OT, maybe it is best you put your faith in the son of god rather then the men that are claimed to have written the bible (with all the error of men and whos later translations and intentions could have further skewed your gods true message)

But I also want to follow gods will too...but i dont know if my heart is "right" on this topic!


The scripture will tell you the heart is a liar.

Read the scripture, but read it honestly. Read it with an open mind, not clouded by what you want it to say. It's not easy.

If you have questions about what you read, look for the earliest forms (the Greek, the Aramaic, the Hebrew) and see what the 'original' documents said. Pray.

Read the scripture 'in the spirit', not in the flesh. Seek divine guidance in your reading. Do not just accept what 'some guy' in a church says something 'means'. Decide for yourself.


Deal with it if it is a "sin"!! I dont like commiting sins.And I cant stop being myself!

We all sin, my friend. None were created perfect. But, Jesus preached love before ALL else... love God, and love thy neighbour.

Oh? Of my posts? Please do find them … I would love to correct my behavior if I have acted in error because for the most part it is not intentional.

But on a debate forum every once and a while a person gets fed up with a non pliable and non sensical response and makes a hard line comment myself. I know that , but those type of posts are in no way the majority

Hell even in this thread I have applauded people like LG and Depublicants in their ability to combine reason with a deep faith.

So please do show me how a majority of my posts were attacking them rather then debating their religion (unless you are counting them one in the same … if so then that is silly how are we supposed to discuss anything without it being considered a personal attack.

My apologies UT, you stepped into my train of thought and I didn't account for the fact that I was talking to you now.
I wasn't intending for it to refer specifically to YOUR posts, or any singular person, but generally how these threads go. The fact that I said it in response to your posts obviously means though that I was including you in that group and that was both unfair and untrue.

To backtrack and be sure of what I'm saying now, I reread every post you made in this thread and I can honestly say that you have no behaviour that I can see, either unintentional or not that needs remediation.

You might perceive it as inflammatory - but I'd suggest that might be a problem of over-sensitivity, rather than necessarily 'baiting'.


Allow me to be clear.
I am NOT feeling baited.
You clearly don't feel that any baiting is happening.

But neither you nor I are the opinions that matter on the issue. If you want to write it off as others being over-sensitive, that's your perogative, but if they aren't listening, you might want to re-consider.


I'm sure you would admit that the average christian believes all other religions to be mythological, no?

Absolutely, and I have told average christians the same kind of thing before. Disagree with their beliefs, but don't show them disrespect if you want them to listen to you.

Allow me to be clear.
I am NOT feeling baited.
You clearly don't feel that any baiting is happening.

But neither you nor I are the opinions that matter on the issue. If you want to write it off as others being over-sensitive, that's your perogative, but if they aren't listening, you might want to re-consider.


They?


Absolutely, and I have told average christians the same kind of thing before. Disagree with their beliefs, but don't show them disrespect if you want them to listen to you.

And the simple fact that most christians consider OTHER religions as mythology (fairly - the definition IS met), should be a guiding light as to why it is an appropriate term for someone to use when discussing christianity, also, no?

But I also want to follow gods will too...but i dont know if my heart is "right" on this topic!


Deal with it if it is a "sin"!! I dont like commiting sins.And I cant stop being myself!
Think of it this way:

God made the world and all who live in it. Homosexuality happens in the world in many animals and in humans. Would God condem you to a life of torment for something he created?

Think of it another way, if you will: The bible states how many times that homosexuality is a sin? And of those fewer than 5 references, how many can be interpreted to mean something else (like inhospitability for Soddom and Gomorreah)? You'll find that Jesus was more critical of the merchant in the temples than of your sexual orientation.

I mean, look at the Song of Solomon as an example...

I mean, look at the Song of Solomon as an example...

Seriously. Best porn in the Bible!

I said no such thing.


You didn't explicitly state, but you did by implication.
In order for the OP to follow the advice you are giving, he/she would need to cease being Pentacostal.
That may not be a bad thing at all, it's just more than remaing Pentacostal and coming to terms with varying views on homosexuality.


No matter which denomination you belong to, (and, the scripture specifically states christians should consider themselves one denomination, rather than this current multiplicity of 'schools of thought'),

Absolutely. I personally rejected the notion of considering myself any denomination years and years ago.


a Christian should read the scripture with DISCERNMENT. Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc - ALL Christians should be interpreting God's Word for themselves... not toeing a party line.


While I don't disagree with that at all, it does have implications. If you want to be a Pentacostal, there are some issues that your discernment needs to line up with accepted Pentacostal discernment on.


If the OP is Pentecostal, good for him (or her?)... that doesn't mean he should take TRADITIONS as gospel.

Amen. ;)

And the simple fact that most christians consider OTHER religions as mythology (fairly - the definition IS met), should be a guiding light as to why it is an appropriate term for someone to use when discussing christianity, also, no?

No.
I don't believe it is ever an appropriate term when discussing any religion, chritianity or otherwise, that was kind of my point.

Well, maybe with Hellenic Reconstructionists, but the application is fairly obvious there.

Think of it another way, if you will: The bible states how many times that homosexuality is a sin?

How many times is required?

You didn't explicitly state, but you did by implication.
In order for the OP to follow the advice you are giving, he/she would need to cease being Pentacostal.
That may not be a bad thing at all, it's just more than remaing Pentacostal and coming to terms with varying views on homosexuality.




Absolutely. I personally rejected the notion of considering myself any denomination years and years ago.




While I don't disagree with that at all, it does have implications. If you want to be a Pentacostal, there are some issues that your discernment needs to line up with accepted Pentacostal discernment on.




Amen. ;)

I think Deism has taken over the title of "true Christian" in the sense that is focuses on nothing but the message of Jesus - his love, and his reassurance of there being a god that actually gives a damn. Forgiveness, acceptance, tolerance. Deism rejects the bible and the church in favor of the message itself, so there can be no interference between you and god.

How many times is required?

Of all the sins in the bible, homosexuality is possibly the one who's the least mentionned, after wearing two pieces of fabric in the same cloth. And of those references, most (if not all) can be attributed to something else in the context. So I very much doubt that "homosexuality is a sin" is as definitive an interpretation of the bible as "murder is a sin", "lying is a sin", hell even "eating pork is a sin".

Now, if you have a verse to bring forward, we'll be happy to discuss it.

I think Deism has taken over the title of "true Christian" in the sense that is focuses on nothing but the message of Jesus - his love, and his reassurance of there being a god that actually gives a damn. Forgiveness, acceptance, tolerance. Deism rejects the bible and the church in favor of the message itself, so there can be no interference between you and god.
In the end it makes the most sense to me

Think of it this way:

God made the world and all who live in it. Homosexuality happens in the world in many animals and in humans. Would God condem you to a life of torment for something he created?

Think of it another way, if you will: The bible states how many times that homosexuality is a sin? And of those fewer than 5 references, how many can be interpreted to mean something else (like inhospitability for Soddom and Gomorreah)? You'll find that Jesus was more critical of the merchant in the temples than of your sexual orientation.

I mean, look at the Song of Solomon as an example...

Jesus mentioned homosexuality exactly 0 times if I remeber right

In the end it makes the most sense to me

Though Deism creates an odd quandry for me - I'd like to start up a Deist church, but Deism itself is against churches. I wouldn't have any dogma or rules or restrictions or anything like that, but I'd at least like to have some kind of a location where people can learn about it if they want. No candles, no crosses, no podiums, no pews all facing one direction - rather, tables, like a restaurant, so that people can sit together instead of just next to eachother.

What do you think?

Jesus mentioned homosexuality exactly 0 times if I remeber right

(I said it earlier, but it looks like it needs to be said again...)

The problem with using a negative as a positive argument is that it never ends and never proves itself: In the same way that Jesus NEVER said anything directly about why Christians shouldn't buy other people's term papers and purchasing an undeserved diploma either.

We could make that argument, but it doesn't make it right. The scripture and Jesus say a Christian marriage should not have divorce AND marriage is the only acceptable place for sexual relations between people AND a man will leave his family for his wife (making it one man and one woman relationship)... the entirety of the Christian relationship endorsed by Jesus and the scripture leaves no room for sexual relations outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship.

Here's some confirmation in Jesus’ own words...

In regards to Extra-marital sex, Mathew 5:27-28
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In regards to Male and Female (one man one woman) Marriage:
Matthew 19:4-6
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In regards to No Divorce:
Matthew 19:7-9
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

FYI: additional scriptural instruction regarding sex and marriage:
Hebrews 13:4
4Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

Though Deism creates an odd quandry for me - I'd like to start up a Deist church, but Deism itself is against churches. I wouldn't have any dogma or rules or restrictions or anything like that, but I'd at least like to have some kind of a location where people can learn about it if they want. No candles, no crosses, no podiums, no pews all facing one direction - rather, tables, like a restaurant, so that people can sit together instead of just next to eachother.

What do you think?

It sounds like you are describig the church of Universalism.

Instead, just go pray, ask God to forgive you, you will feel better.

You forget where it says not to lie in the same bed as a woman has lied in while she's had her period, lest ye be stoned - or something to that effect.

It sounds like you are describig the church of Universalism.

Instead, just go pray, ask God to forgive you, you will feel better.

That's another thing Deism doesn't advocate - prayer. God knows what you're thinking, and what you're feeling. You needn't get on your knees and hold your hands together for your message to reach him. He hears all and knows all, so he understands - praying is pointless.

We do, however, advocate speaking to god. This is not to say that we can listen to or even understand god, but that we feel that in speaking to him, out loud or in your head, as one person would speak to a friend, you can become closer to him, and more at peace with yourself.

EDIT: Also, there is no need for forgiveness. Whatever you've done, god has already forgiven you for it, no matter if you think you should be forgiven or even if you think you've done anything wrong - god will never put guilt upon you, because you're his creation, and you can only act within your own limits, that which god has set for you.

(I said it earlier, but it looks like it needs to be said again...)

The problem with using a negative as a positive argument is that it never ends and never proves itself: In the same way that Jesus NEVER said anything directly about why Christians shouldn't buy other people's term papers and purchasing an undeserved diploma either.

We could make that argument, but it doesn't make it right. The scripture and Jesus say a Christian marriage should not have divorce AND marriage is the only acceptable place for sexual relations between people AND a man will leave his family for his wife (making it one man and one woman relationship)... the entirety of the Christian relationship endorsed by Jesus and the scripture leaves no room for sexual relations outside of a one man one woman marriage relationship.

Here's some confirmation in Jesus’ own words...

In regards to Extra-marital sex, Mathew 5:27-28
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In regards to Male and Female (one man one woman) Marriage:
Matthew 19:4-6
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

In regards to No Divorce:
Matthew 19:7-9
7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

FYI: additional scriptural instruction regarding sex and marriage:
Hebrews 13:4
4Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

First of all, I'd like a source. Is that from the KJV? That'd be helpfull in the discussion.

Second, seems that Jesus was fine with divorce according to your own source which I took the liberty to bold.

Third, your references are about adultery and unfaithfullness, not homosexuality.

First of all, I'd like a source. Is that from the KJV? That'd be helpfull in the discussion.

NIV

Second, seems that Jesus was fine with divorce according to your own source which I took the liberty to bold.

He is alright with divorce due to sexual immorality of your spouse... think about it for a few minutes.

Third, your references are about adultery and unfaithfullness, not homosexuality.

The references are about the acceptable place for sex. In the marriage, not outside of it AND the reference to Jesus saying marriage was created as a man and a woman so that they can be joined and become one flesh... Leaving no room for pre-marital sex, extracurricular marriage sex or homosexual sexual relationships.

NIV
Thanks


He is alright with divorce due to sexual immorality of your spouse... think about it for a few minutes.
So divorce is alright for certain situations, no matter that "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate"?

This is why I say that the statement is more about unfaithfullness than the sanctity of marriage.



The references are about the acceptable place for sex. In the marriage, not outside of it AND the reference to Jesus saying marriage was created as a man and a woman so that they can be joined and become one flesh... Leaving no room for pre-marital sex, extracurricular marriage sex or homosexual sexual relationships.

One has to wonder if homosexual marriage existed back then or if Jesus mentionned the only marriage existing legally at the time. It was you you said that prooving a postive by a negative is night-impossible. You cannot proove that Jesus did not aproove of homosexuality by looking only at marriage, and by showing that he never mentionned homosexual marriage. Odds are, there was no such thing as an homosexual union back then (but homosexuality DID exist, though).

...
One has to wonder if homosexual marriage existed back then or if Jesus mentionned the only marriage existing legally at the time. It was you you said that prooving a postive by a negative is night-impossible. You cannot proove that Jesus did not aproove of homosexuality by looking only at marriage, and by showing that he never mentionned homosexual marriage. Odds are, there was no such thing as an homosexual union back then (but homosexuality DID exist, though).

How does one get to wonder about it at all? Jesus made an absolute statement... Haven't you read, he said, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?... How is there any room for an interpretation outside of that? There is no room for a man and man or a woman and woman situation given the parameters Jesus laid out. He said, at the beginning they were made this way, and then, for that reason they will get married.

How does one get to wonder about it at all? Jesus made an absolute statement... Haven't you read, he said, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?... How is there any room for an interpretation outside of that? There is no room for a man and man or a woman and woman situation given the parameters Jesus laid out. He said, at the beginning they were made this way, and then, for that reason they will get married.

First of all, context. That statement could have been as an answer to a bloke saying "hey Jesus, how come a guy has to leave his home when he weds?"

Second of all, parable. Jesus was fond of them. He was definitively speaking in parables there because he goes to say "at the beginning..." instead of just answering with a yes or no.

Third of all, this statement is about FAITHFULNESS. Surely you cannot find an answer to a question about the flood in a passage about genesis. Neither should you define an answer to homosexuality based on a question about faithfulness.

Also, what is a wife? Does the bible specifically state that only women can be wives and men be husbands? If it dictates a husband must be with a wife, then it should dictate that the man is the husband and the woman is the wife - otherwise it could just be another metaphor, seeing as how there are so many of them in the bible.

*Bumpsted: You know, Squish, you're pretty smart for a guy that lives in the bathroom.*

You didn't explicitly state, but you did by implication.


No, I really didn't.

In order for the OP to follow the advice you are giving, he/she would need to cease being Pentacostal.
That may not be a bad thing at all, it's just more than remaing Pentacostal and coming to terms with varying views on homosexuality.


Again, I disagree. He or she would just have to work out what being Pentecostal means to him/her, and whether they can 'get along' with that.

One could easily, for example, consider oneself Pentecostal, and yet not associate with the particular assembly he/she has been associating with - or even, not attend a church at all.


While I don't disagree with that at all, it does have implications. If you want to be a Pentacostal, there are some issues that your discernment needs to line up with accepted Pentacostal discernment on.


This is perhaps true to an extent... but I'm inclined to believe that that extent is fairly minimal.. and one can 'bump along' on a lot of issues, provided one finds the core doctrine believable.

No.
I don't believe it is ever an appropriate term when discussing any religion, chritianity or otherwise, that was kind of my point.

Well, maybe with Hellenic Reconstructionists, but the application is fairly obvious there.

And, I don't care if you find it appropriate. I will use the phrase 'mythology' to discuss ANY mythology... there are no sacred cows here. I won't do it deliberately to cause friction with your delicate sensibilities, but your delicate sensibilities are not going to be enough of a concern to stop me using the correct terms to describe things.

How does one get to wonder about it at all? Jesus made an absolute statement... Haven't you read, he said, that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'?... How is there any room for an interpretation outside of that?

Simple. He doesn't say that this will be the ONLY case.

Indeed, if one looks at the Edenic example, Adam married absolutely everybody that was available at the time, of every gender he could find.

you have opened yourself up to a bunch of bashing here on NSG. not the whole "gay" thing. the relgion thing. there are some types of people here who seem to have a problem with people beleiving anything other then their own beleifs/"facts". (yes atheist do that too)

Again, I disagree. He or she would just have to work out what being Pentecostal means to him/her, and whether they can 'get along' with that.

One could easily, for example, consider oneself Pentecostal, and yet not associate with the particular assembly he/she has been associating with - or even, not attend a church at all.



Oh.
Well then.
That I can't agree with. You can't sit home and cal yourself a Pentacostal and not associate with Pentacostals or believe what Pentacostals believe.

And, I don't care if you find it appropriate. I will use the phrase 'mythology' to discuss ANY mythology... there are no sacred cows here. I won't do it deliberately to cause friction with your delicate sensibilities, but your delicate sensibilities are not going to be enough of a concern to stop me using the correct terms to describe things.

I don't have any delicate sensibilities.
I personally don't care if you use the term.

I do find it ironic though that while I'm suggesting that it is better to NOT bait people that you are hoping will listen to you that you attempt to bait me with remarks about delicate sensibilities.

Perhaps you just can't help it.

Though Deism creates an odd quandry for me - I'd like to start up a Deist church, but Deism itself is against churches. I wouldn't have any dogma or rules or restrictions or anything like that, but I'd at least like to have some kind of a location where people can learn about it if they want. No candles, no crosses, no podiums, no pews all facing one direction - rather, tables, like a restaurant, so that people can sit together instead of just next to eachother.

What do you think?

Sounds quite a bit like the group I fellowship with actually.

Simple. He doesn't say that this will be the ONLY case.

Indeed, if one looks at the Edenic example, Adam married absolutely everybody that was available at the time, of every gender he could find.

Obviously you are mistaken, it seems you are losing your clairvoyant ability. How could Adam leave his parents to be united with his wife? He could not. Jesus could not have been talking about Adam and Eve. There were more than just the two of them that Jesus was talking about.

Similarly, when he mentioned divorce and the law of Moses allowing divorce, he made the comment that it was not always so. Jesus made an absolute statement. Men and women were made for each other by their creator to become man and wife and become one flesh and divorce was not an option (outside of infidelity, which breaks the marriage bond).