PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Opinions

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry for the delay

The smarter you are, the less the chances that you're a Christian. That is a fact.


I would add to that and say the being religious in general has a negative correlation with intelligence and education, especially when talking about the hard sciences.

If you tell me that he walked on water, turned water into whine, cured people (even from a distance), that his mother got magically impregnated by her ear, and that he died and resurrected, i'm not buying. It's indeed quite hard for smart people to believe that.
Yet many do.
Stop it already!!
Dodging is not cool.


I agree, it is hard to believe in such things because they go against the natural order of the world as we know it. You have already said that you believe in God, does that also mean you believe in the supernatural?

You don't have to be a scientist to be smart, scientists are by nature skeptical, so it doesn't surprise me that scientists are more likely to be atheists than other people in different professions.
Ok! This was exactly where i was driving at!

No, wait...
Do you deny that skepticism is smart?


Skepticism doesn't mean that you are smart or not smart, I think it is a trait shared by people of all intelligence levels. Scientists usually are very skeptical which means they need a lot of proof, usually in the form of hard evidence, before they accept anything as truth. And because of this most of them are atheists.

God is the ultimate reality. God is Love. God is knowledge. (Love is knowledge, knowledge is Love.) God is consciousness. God is the unbreakable law. God is bestowal. God is Unity. God is not so much what appears to your senses, but your senses. God is not so much something understandable, but your understanding. God is not so much what causes you to grow, but your growth.


Christianity proclaims that God is love, and gives a definition of love in 1st Corinthians 13:4-8; which would be a definition of God.

There's a site that lists religious Nobel Prize winners (6).
Four of them turned out to be no Nobel Prize winners.
One of the remaining two is a non-believer that goes to church for social reasons.
I don't know the other guy. But it would be just one out of several hundreds of Nobel Prize winners.
Interesting, specifically what point are you trying to make?
Sigh... That the smarter you are the less the chances that you'll be religious.


So I can use the same argument for you being religious, or are you more spiritual? Either way you believe in something that is not scientifically verifiable, and the same does apply to your beliefs as well. So unless you recant all your religious beliefs, your argument has no weight for me. I don't deny what you have posted is true, but you yourself must not consider this a real threat. Your conviction is hollow to me and I don't feel that it is your own argument. So you have found a way around this 'problem' for your own religious and/or spiritual practice, and I have as well.

That is a fact, and my question is: Why would Yahweh devise such a plan?
If he wanted the smart people to be converted, Yahweh could have told Yeshua (or told himself, if they were the same person) to say: "My disciples, i say unto thee that Energy is mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself. Mark these words, for they will save many souls."

It would have saved mine.


I think that God wants people to have a choice in what they believe, sane choices by the way. And if Jesus said that... well... what sane person wouldn't convert? I also believe that God is present, and works through all the religions of the world, and I wouldn't be quick to say that you yourself are not saved. God is love, and all those who abide in love must also abide in God. And the way to be saved is through Jesus, which is love, so long as you show compassion and love you are doing Gods' work. It doesn't matter if you are Christian or not. Whether you are saved or not, only God knows and it is He who will decide.

Does Yahweh change his plans?
No
If he doesn't, your statement makes no sense.

Because many people have no children. So either Yahweh has failed plans for the unborn children, or he planned people's celibacy/infertility/etc.

And if it's up to you to follow Yahweh's plans, and he planned that you had no children, your children will be out of his plans!!
Your sons, grandsons, grand grand grand grand grandsons...
He has plans for all those people, but God's plans does not equate to them actually happening.
Ok, first: that sounds like failure. So your god is not God.
Second: NO!!! NO WAY!!

A single person who was planned to die young, or to have no children by any means, and did have children, fucks up everything. EVERYTHING!!

NOT A SINGLE LIVING PERSON TODAY COULD BE A PART OF YAHWEH'S ORIGINAL PLAN!!

Don't you understand that if you go back some time in the past every person that had children is your ancestor?

Didn't you see "The Butterfly Effect"?
(Ok, that movie sucks, but perhaps you need it to see the point)
Never saw the movie actually, but I understand the concept.

Don't you understand that if Yahweh didn't plan Abel's death without children none of us could be a part of his unchanging plan?

Ok, you proly don't believe in Abel, but it doesn't matter. It works for any person from the past.

You managed to believe in the most unreasonable combination: almighty god, all knowing, planing, failing, still not changing his plan...

What does it mean to be all knowing and making plans that can fail?

That wouldn't be a plan. It would be just a wish (well, if Yahweh wasn't supposed to be almighty).

You don't understand your own beliefs. If you did, you wouldn't believe them.
I make this claim, i claim that there's no way around it, and i can always back it up.

Let your priest, minister, pastor or whatever take my challenge, if he has access to internet.


I doubt my pastor does anything like this online. God ascends time, He is timeless. Perhaps He doesn't want you to have a child, and you do, that child is not cut out of His plans, because God knows that you would have this child He already has plans for him/her and any of their children ect., even though He didn't want you to have this child. No one can fully understand God, his plans, will ect, and I believe that trying to fully understand it is futile, because we simply cannot. And the same applies to the connection between free will and God's plans.

Christian beliefs are a big blur. They tend not to know what to believe about specific (IMPORTANT) issues. They pick and choose, but they don't make sense.

They have tried to make sense for 1.6k years. Nobody ever could.
And you don't seem to be the one that will.
Perhaps God's message is made in a way that it is hard to understand in full,
And that would be the "God's mysterious ways" argument.

But can you back it up?

I know it's not even a claim, but still.

What makes you give that hypothesis any credit?

To me it's not hard at all. It's very easy: it's contradictory, and makes no sense.


I believe that God cannot be fully known, and when you try to fully understand God it doesn't make any sense. I also think that God is multi-facet and reveals Himself differently to different people and different cultures. And because of this many people have different approaches to God, and those who study many faiths in-depth do end up being agnostic, and I think this is why.

but easy to understand at the basic level.
Care to demonstrate this basic level of understanding?

Because this is a positive claim (not only it's understandable, but it's EASY!). And i don't see it. Well, in no way that makes sense at least.


The two laws that sum up all of the laws; Love God and love each other including yourself.

That way the meaning of the specific messages can change from culture to culture while retaining that which is necessary to be considered Christian.
And what would that be?


Love

Would you say that the inspired writers screwed it when they said that Yahweh commanded ugly things like stoning people to death for violating the sabbath?
No,
A straightforward answer! Nice! Thanks!

So Yahweh did mean for people to be put to death by stoning when they violated the sabbath, right? Just to leave that clear.

but obviously people that take your view on it will be troubled by it.
Yeah. It's not only about the view. I'm a sensitive person.

So you're not troubled by people dying such deaths for such reason?


I am troubled by such death, and I don't think God wants them to die because they prepared their meal on the sabbath ect. You know they tried to get Jesus for working on the sabbath as well.

Did you question your religion?
Did someone give you good answers?


Yes, but I'm not big on theology, and I think people read into it way too much. Just FYI, I'm still asking.

Er... I distinctly remember that you did not read the whole thing.


Correct, but I know people that have read it all and understand it well, and I feel safe relying on them for understanding the bible.

So you don't decide what it means, but you do decide that it came God Himself?


I never said God wrote the bible, only that it was inspired by God. God gave us many things, but humans wrote the bible.

You don't understand them, or do you?
Again, I don't know everything.
I didn't mention knowledge.


If you understand something, then you have knowledge on that topic, otherwise you wouldn't be able to understand it.

But i have good reasons to believe in Evolution, and i can show them to you.

You can't say the same about your beliefs.


Evolution is not a belief system, it is science, you cannot approach religion in the same way. If you did you must give up all religion, all spirituality and embrace naturalism.


Besides it's not about you. Nobody can give me the answers, because they don't exist.


My guess is that Christianity will not draw you near God, as I said before it is a calling, not a choice. If your calling is to something else then I would tell you to pursue that, which it seams you already have.

The different sects are quite different in many aspects, but they're consistently narrow.


Not true, some sects say that you must be of that sect and no other in order to earn salvation. While others are more lenient in how one obtains salvation.

You'd like to think otherwise, because you're a christian (or at least you like to call yourself that, even if you don't believe in the Bible, probably don't believe in angels, demons and witches, and have little respect for what good John said).
Yes, and all that is necessary for one to be Christian?
I shouldn't have to respond to this. IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF "CHRISTIAN"!!!


A Christian is someone who follows Christ. Or if you want, someone who believes in Jesus and accepts Him into their hearts as their savior.

Just as a little side note, I saw an interview with a bishop who said that you don't have to believe in the virgin birth to be a Christian. It is not essential to the faith.
I also saw it, probably. The Anglican Bishop of Oxford, Richard Harries, interviewed by Richard Dawkins in "The Root of All Evil".


I think that is it, it has been a while since I saw it, but that part got my attention.

My guess is that he doesn't believe in the virgin birth, but likes to call himself a christian.

Wanna bet?

Oh, too late, found the answer... I was correct...

Well, the source is answersingenesis.com, so it could all be a lie, but i see no reason why they would lie on this.

The article starts with a lie:
"The series’ title itself, The root of all evil? is jarring. The title is borrowed from 1 Timothy 6:10 and the teaching that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Dawkins instead is suggesting that religion itself (especially Christianity) can be the root of all kinds of evil."

Everyone knows that Dawkins didn't want this title. That he fought against this title, but it was imposed to him by Channel 4. He could manage to add a question mark at the end of the title tough.


Freaky, didn't know that.

I don't understand why timbrx still reads from there.


Because it is considered a reliable source by creationists. And every one knows creationists are very honest people.


To me, if you don't believe in Evolution, you don't understand Evolution.
With christianism it's quite the opposite.
To me, if you understand Christianity you are either a Christian or you don't mind that others around you are.
The second option shouldn't be available if your beliefs are correct.


What part of my beliefs would prevent people from understanding Christianity and not being one and not minding those who are?

But nevermind that. The issue is backing up your own claims.

Please, proceed to back up your claim.


Christianity is founded on love, if you understand this why would you have a problem with Christians in general?

At the very least tell me what i don't understand, instead of just suggesting that i don't.


You don't seem to understand that Christianity is about love for God and one another. Not on bigotry and hate for all those who don't share that world view.

The mainstream Christianity is cherry picking. They don't like the whole package. So they should drop it.

The non-insane parts of Christianity are not Christianity.

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, your religion is both good and original, but the part that is good is not original and the part that is original is not good.


The foundation of Christianity is love, that is original, so how is that not good?

[color=teal]But you said that he didn't change them. And by praying that's what you're asking him to do.

Pay attention!


You pay attention, praying is not about asking God for this or that, or changing plans. There are many reasons why people pray, but these are not it. I think most prayers are asking for understanding, acceptance, strength, protection ect.

The Lord's prayer is kind of standard, do you have anything against it?

On a side note, you refuse to call him Yahweh.
Why is that?


I don't refuse to call God Yahweh, Yahweh means God as far as I know. It's like asking me why don't I call God Allah. And when I talk to friends I use all three.

It is about a personal relationship with God.
On whose terms? Yours or His?


Yours: Really? You don't sound like a freethinker. Freethinkers are not christians.


Why not say every one who is religious or spiritual is not a freethinker?

His: Then you're speaking for God. GOTCHA!


The terms are His, but Christianity is not about speaking for God on every matter, but a personal relationship.

Someone else's: Is this the case?
Well, i know that this IS the case. This is one of those questions i make whose answer i know, just to know YOUR answer.

Christianism is about speaking for God. Adopting it means speaking for God. Some christians put more words in His mouth than others, but they all do to some extent. And that's being a christian.


It is all about a personal relationship with God. And yes, as Christians you do talk about God, therefore you talk for Him, but that is not what it is all about.

The smartest Christians (who tend not the be among the smartest humans) manage to make a partition in their brains, devoid of reasoning, devoted to their faith.


I disagree as usual, what do you have to back up your claim, or is it something you just believe to be true.

[color=teal]And probably preventing you from having openly homosexual friends.
Interesting stance, you do know that there are multiple stances on homosexuality among the Christian religion, right?
Yes.
Mine just happens to be of the more liberal approach, and I do have several openly gay friends who I don't deny that are my friends.
Ok, i did say "probably", but nevertheless i was wrong (meaning that i would have lost that bet).

So congratulations. You're too open minded to be a Christian.

But what you you mean by "mine"? Does your minister agree with you, did you found your own sect, or what?


Don't know what my pastor thinks about gays, I'll ask on Sunday and see what I get.

Hum... Now that i think about it, you did say, some time ago, that your church accepts gay people, right?


Don't think I have, my church is split on the issue, some people are okay with it while others are not.

[color=teal]Perhaps you're spirit dead in a sense more real than that of christianism. Perhaps it prevents your spiritual growth.
It all sounds quite possible.
I don't quite follow, please explain.
I mean that, since christianity is essentially narrow (not that all christians are), it would tend to make you narrow. Prevent your spiritual growth (love, understanding, consciousness, awareness, all that).


I think fundamentalist Christianity can do that to people, and I know a few who grew up in a fundamentalist house, left the church and came back as mainstream to liberal Christians. I don't think that the sect of Christianity that I belong too is doing that to me. I have talked to several fundamentalists and I can tell that if I join my spirit will die in a sense because of what you said.

Nono. I meant, for example, deeming swingers as sinners.

Well, you proly deem EVERYONE a sinner... but you know what i mean. I hope.


The short answer is no. I judge people (I don't think judge is the right word, but it is the closest I can think right now) based on if they are a good person or not, irrelevant what Christianity would say is good or not. On your example of swingers, I would say that if both people in the relationship are fine with the other going out and swinging, neither one of them are doing anything wrong. I hope that answers it?

Well, always according to YOUR version of christianism. Your version proly makes you look good.


Me? I'm a horrible Christian. Granted a fundamentalist probably would think much worse of me.

More fundamentalist christians would measure you according to THEIR version of christianity, that wouldn't make you look that good. Just like muslims measure people according to their religion, and so on. That is fundamentally wicked. That's why (most) religions must be denounced.


How do you measure/judge people? And what religions would you keep?

It's quite possible that you contribute to an environment of discrimination, self-righteousness  and hate (in spite of Jeshua speaking about love).

Discrimination lies at the core of Christianity.
Jeshua does not.
Interesting. What is the basis of this claim?
The evolution of religions in general, and the christian texts in particular (i've already quoted some passages). *See Edit.



Outside the context of the fundamentalist movement, how does faith alone hurt anyone?
By making you make wrong choices, of course.
What kinds of wrong choices?
Imagine that you won't have an eternal life after you die. Just for one second.
Would you make the same choices?
If I 100% knew that there was no afterlife? No,
Ok, so there you have at least ONE way that could make you make the wrong choices, if the christian notion of an afterlife is wrong


Okay, and if your version of the afterlife is wrong and Christianity is right, then your religion is screwing you instead, and you've gotten no where.

Actually i don't really believe that your faith is strong enough for you to assume that everything will be ok after you die.
I believe that you're afraid.
I am not afraid of death.
I don't buy it.
I do not know what awaits after death,
Do you believe that there's Heaven and Hell? Any ideas on what they would be like?


Not really, but I'm not afraid to die, I know God will take care of everything.


but I do believe that it will be okay.
"Believing" is not "assuming".

I believe that you look both sides when crossing the street.
Of course, what is faith if it is never tested?
Yeah, like Yahweh refusing to answer to prayers. That's a good test!


Never said God tests people by not answering prayers.

I believe that you're lucky enough to be a reasonably good person, and a lousy christian.
Just a tiny bit paradoxical there.
You forgot to explain why.


Christianity is based on love, if you are a good Christian than you should base your life on love, if your life is based on love for one another then wouldn't that be a good life?

And I do believe that a good Christian would be a good person,
I claim that's impossible.


My statement above works for this too I guess.

[color=teal]Do you get it?

Saying that faith is ok is just what fundamentalists need.
All it takes to fly into the twin towers is the right amount of faith.


It also took faith and courage for Gahndi to fight against the British occupation of India, which inspired Martin Luther King Jr. to do similar actions to move the civil rights movement foward in America. Faith works both ways, it is what you do with that faith that makes it good or bad, not the faith itself.

Many mainstream religious people and organizations condemn the actions of fundamentalists when it comes to violence.
Aha.

So...

Your point?


Mainstream religions have faith but are not dangerous. I'm sure you have faith, but does that make you dangerous? Again, it is not faith that is bad, it is what you do with that faith.

Perhaps you too have a faith partition in your brain, devoid of reason. So you wouldn't be rational, but wouldn't be irrational as a whole either.


No, no part of my brain is void of reason or rational thought.

Next time I'll do the third half




-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 03:57 AM on June 3, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
The bible certainly teaches people a lot about God and is a good moral guide to how we live our lives



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:07 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, you said that "you don't read a chapter in a book and decide what it means without reading the whole thing."

You also said that you didn't read the whole thing.

Can you join the dots?

You also said:
Quote from Fencer27 at 10:08 AM on April 28, 2009 :
Quote from JSF16 at 11:12 PM on April 17, 2009 :
What are your opinions on Christianity? I hope not as bad as hers.

http://www.evilbible.com/
I have always found that those who attack the bible in such a way don't understand what it actually says, and those that do either believe or realize that it is not cynical, and don't have a problem with those who believe.
I think that's just a logical fallacy. It's called "no true Scotsman". You just define reality away.

You don't clarify how you "found" that. You just claim you do (and without even understanding the Bible yourself, according to the standard you apply to others).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 11:15 AM on January 12, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 10:07 AM on January 12, 2010 :
Fencer
The bible certainly teaches people a lot about God and is a good moral guide to how we live our lives



Haha, I agree the Bible is okay with one of them, but somehow I don't think it is the one you're thinking of. The Bible is okay with you being a homosexual (all the attacks on homosexuality in the Bible go after the lust involved, not the actual sexual orientation, and it is the same lust that the Bible attacks heterosexuals with). While the Bible condones slavery, the slavery used is more closely in-sync with indentured servants than the horrific atrocities committed in the African slave trade. I contend that if the Biblical writers knew of the African slave trade, they would be against it.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 05:37 AM on January 20, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer
Haha, I agree the Bible is okay with one of them, but somehow I don't think it is the one you're thinking of.
Remember that you didn't read it, and i did.
Fencer
The Bible is okay with you being a homosexual (all the attacks on homosexuality in the Bible go after the lust involved, not the actual sexual orientation, and it is the same lust that the Bible attacks heterosexuals with).
In order to be able to talk about "all the attacks" you must first read them.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.


Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.




Fencer
While the Bible condones slavery, the slavery used is more closely in-sync with indentured servants than the horrific atrocities committed in the African slave trade. I contend that if the Biblical writers knew of the African slave trade, they would be against it.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Seriously, Fencer... WTF are you talking about? ^_^

(Edited by wisp 1/20/2010 at 8:16 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 8:04 PM on January 20, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 8:04 PM on January 20, 2010 :
Remember that you didn't read it, and i did.


It isn't just about reading it, it is understanding the doctrine, culture ect.

In order to be able to talk about "all the attacks" you must first read them.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.


Yes, as it violates the sanctity of marriage.

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Again, this says nothing of homosexuals per se, only that they cannot partake in any sexual relations with other men.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (TNIV), Paul says:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


"practicing homosexuals", meaning they fornicate which is a sin. Any sexual activity outside of marriage (defined as between a man and a women) is condemned in the Bible.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Seriously, Fencer... WTF are you talking about? ^_^

(Edited by wisp 1/20/2010 at 8:16 PM).


I don't have a good answer for you at the moment, Christian apologetics is not my forte. I'll get back to you on this.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 3:49 PM on January 26, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oooh...

So it's ok for them to BE homosexuals, as long as they don't ACT homosexual!

Well, the guys from the pic were acting pretty gay.

So you say their existence is ok. It's just that they should lead a life of torture.

We have a semantic discordance here.

The first definition my dictionary gives me is:
1 Someone who practices homosexuality

The second one is:
2 Having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

You chose the second, apparently.

But then we have that Lust = sexual attraction.

So homosexuals are those who have a lust for members of their own sex.

But you had previously stated that the problem the Bible had with homosexuals was the lust.

Now you say that it's ok if they are homosexuals.

Well, if a homosexual doesn't practice homosexuality and has no lust for members of his/her own sex... WTF is a homosexual???

Remember that you didn't read it, and i did.
It isn't just about reading it,
I know.
it is understanding the doctrine, culture ect.
It sounds like you have a better chance at that if you actually read it.

If you don't you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you. Like creationists do.

In order to be able to talk about "all the attacks" you must first read them.
Leviticus 18:22
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.
Yes, as it violates the sanctity of marriage.
-It doesn't happen.
-Yes it does. Look!
-Yes, as it violates blah blah blah.

Tha's not the issue. I'll stay with the "yes".

I know that your first denial was that the Bible was against "being" a homosexual, but still.
I don't know what made you think that the picture depicted "homosexuals" deprived of lust who didn't have sex.

The Bible is not ok with you being a homosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "homosexual".

Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Again, this says nothing of homosexuals per se, only that they cannot partake in any sexual relations with other men.
Again, actions are wrong, lust is wrong.

There's nothing left for the Bible to be ok with.

"practicing homosexuals", meaning they fornicate which is a sin.
You indulge in the logical fallacy of "equivocation".

You give "sin" different meanings to suit each situation.

I never knew what "sin" is.

You had told me that it was what separate us from God, which is almost a reasonable concept.

But now you tell me that having sex works differently in your relationship with God if some priest gave you a magical symbolic status involving some other person who must be from the opposite sex.

Where did your critical thinking go, man?

Religions want straight acting people to spread the infection more efficiently (since children are the most prone to infection).

If you're a good talker your religion might deem it better to castrate you so you you can focus on spreading the infection to even MORE people than just your kids.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Seriously, Fencer... WTF are you talking about? ^_^
I don't have a good answer for you at the moment,
Thank you for the honesty.
Christian apologetics is not my forte.
Don't be hard on yourself. It's nobody's forte.

This has happened to each and every christian i've discussed with (only that most aren't as honest as you are, so they play dumb, deflect, dodge, yell, send me to Hell, etc).
I'll get back to you on this.
Haha! I think i might deconvert you. ^_^

You're too smart and honest, even if you do have an emotional investment in this religion.


(Edited by wisp 1/26/2010 at 7:13 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 7:04 PM on January 26, 2010 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer, I have to say that I'm with Wisp on this.
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

Yes, as it violates the sanctity of marriage.

No, there is no reference to marriage, it does not say that a  married man should not lie with a man, or that a man should not lie with a man, it says that a man should not lie with a man.
Leviticus 18 basically lists all of the people that you cannot have intercourse with. Brother's wife, father's wife blah blah, all of the females that you cannot have sex with are very explicitly explained (except that it appears to be ok to fiddle with your daughter...) but when it comes to men... None, no categorization of those that you cannot sleep with, blanket ban (just as with animals)and Leviticus 20 lays down the punishemnts for breaking those rules as set out in L18. The bible is clear in its stance on man love. It's wrong, but it's very clear.


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 07:37 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 7:04 PM on January 26, 2010 :
oooh...

So it's ok for them to BE homosexuals, as long as they don't ACT homosexual!

Well, the guys from the pic were acting pretty gay.


As far as I know the Bible doesn't condemn holding hands with the same sex.

So you say their existence is ok. It's just that they should lead a life of torture.

We have a semantic discordance here.

The first definition my dictionary gives me is:
1 Someone who practices homosexuality

The second one is:
2 Having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

You chose the second, apparently.

But then we have that Lust = sexual attraction.

So homosexuals are those who have a lust for members of their own sex.

But you had previously stated that the problem the Bible had with homosexuals was the lust.

Now you say that it's ok if they are homosexuals.

Well, if a homosexual doesn't practice homosexuality and has no lust for members of his/her own sex... WTF is a homosexual???


It is also a sin for men to lust after women, does this mean that all heterosexuals are condemned? No. Christians aren't saved through works, or obeying the commandments, but through the grace of God. You brought up wabi-sabi in another thread (imperfect beauty), in many ways I see humans as being imperfectly beautiful to God. In Romans Paul talks about a thorn in his side that he can't get rid of, meaning that there is a sin that he can't get rid of. After praying, God told him that he wouldn't get rid of his imperfection. For me this implies an imperfect beauty of humans in God's sight. The lust is always going to be there, it is how we deal with that lust that determines whether or not it is sinful. And even if it is sinful, it is not an automatic condemnation. As long as that person is Christian (by "Christian" I mean someone whom Christ has claimed through baptism. Yay, I smell another question(s) coming up about this.) they are spared hell and brought into God's Kingdom, both on Earth and Heaven.

Remember that you didn't read it, and i did.
It isn't just about reading it,
I know.
it is understanding the doctrine, culture ect.
It sounds like you have a better chance at that if you actually read it.

If you don't you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you. Like creationists do.


I've read sections of the Bible, but never the whole thing. I'm not sure what you are implying by saying "you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you." I've never looked through a microscope and seen the double helix of DNA, I know DNA is a double helix
because those who know what they are talking about have told me so. Similarly, I understand Christian doctrine because I've read what people who know what they are writing about have written on the subject. And I've had conversations with people who know what they are talking about when it comes to Christian theology/doctrine.

I know that your first denial was that the Bible was against "being" a homosexual, but still.
I don't know what made you think that the picture depicted "homosexuals" deprived of lust who didn't have sex.


It was clear the depiction was that homosexuality in of itself is a sin in the Bible, and I disagree.  

The Bible is not ok with you being a homosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "homosexual".


Then the Bible is not okay with us being heterosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "heterosexual". As heterosexual lusts are sinful by nature.

Again, actions are wrong, lust is wrong.

There's nothing left for the Bible to be ok with.


I don't think this adequately describes the conclusion in Christian doctrine. Or perhaps I'm just too liberal for Christianity. Personally I see the homosexual condemnations to be more cultural than anything else. Now, in the modern age, we know better.

"practicing homosexuals", meaning they fornicate which is a sin.
You indulge in the logical fallacy of "equivocation".

You give "sin" different meanings to suit each situation.

I never knew what "sin" is.

You had told me that it was what separate us from God, which is almost a reasonable concept.


"Sin" is somewhat an umbrella term, and there are several types of sin, and unless specified (or you just know) it can be hard to understand what falls into what category.

But now you tell me that having sex works differently in your relationship with God if some priest gave you a magical symbolic status involving some other person who must be from the opposite sex.


It doesn't work exactly like that. Even under the protection of marriage you still get sinful lust and sinful sex. In essence, what you describe is the 'Biblical' idea, but it fails to capture the collective theology on the subject.

Where did your critical thinking go, man?


Ignorance is bliss  
To have a full understanding of homosexuality and God you have to look at sources outside of the Bible. From that I have concluded that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. What I have done is try to show the Biblical stance on homosexuality which is that being attracted to the same sex is not a sin, it is what you do with that lust that can make it a sin.

Religions want straight acting people to spread the infection more efficiently (since children are the most prone to infection).

If you're a good talker your religion might deem it better to castrate you so you you can focus on spreading the infection to even MORE people than just your kids.
[/color]


That is a fairly glib interpretation, especially since the Bible doesn't say that clergy must be celibate or eunuchs. In fact the Jewish policy was to forbade those who have been castrated from participating in Jewish congregations, and one of God's commandments is to 'be fruitful and multiply'.

Christian apologetics is not my forte.
Don't be hard on yourself. It's nobody's forte.


I view Christian apologetics as almost pointless, you are supposed to be a Christian because you believe, not because it can answer every single question and intellectually destroy all competition. If that were so it wouldn't require faith, but it clearly does, and is clearly an important aspect of Christianity.

This has happened to each and every christian i've discussed with (only that most aren't as honest as you are, so they play dumb, deflect, dodge, yell, send me to Hell, etc).
I'll get back to you on this.
Haha! I think i might deconvert you. ^_^

You're too smart and honest, even if you do have an emotional investment in this religion.[/color]
(Edited by wisp 1/26/2010 at 7:13 PM).


It is very hard to deconvert people in my experiences. I doubt I'm much different, it is the subjective experiences perceived as objective that hold people's faith together, at least that is what I've seen. I, like many Christians, have had powerful experiences that will not be undercut lightly.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 07:42 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JimIrvine at 07:37 AM on January 27, 2010 :
Fencer, I have to say that I'm with Wisp on this.

No, there is no reference to marriage, it does not say that a  married man should not lie with a man, or that a man should not lie with a man, it says that a man should not lie with a man.
Leviticus 18 basically lists all of the people that you cannot have intercourse with. Brother's wife, father's wife blah blah, all of the females that you cannot have sex with are very explicitly explained (except that it appears to be ok to fiddle with your daughter...) but when it comes to men... None, no categorization of those that you cannot sleep with, blanket ban (just as with animals)and Leviticus 20 lays down the punishemnts for breaking those rules as set out in L18. The bible is clear in its stance on man love. It's wrong, but it's very clear.


All lust under any sexual preference is condemned outside of marriage, and even within marriage there is unlawful lust. If I'm not mistaken the reason why Leviticus has 'rules' on whom you can sleep with, is because polygamy was practiced amongst the ancient Hebrews and there were rules on how to go about this. Although I'm not sure if Liv 18 is it though. Anyway, since marriage is defined as a man and a women, any same sex relationship is automatically prohibited. Yet, I contend that being homosexual will not bar anyone from salvation according to Christian theology, doctrine and scripture. Even if I can't defend it very well. There are people who can do it much better than I can, maybe I can get one of them to get on the forum, or at least give me a crash course in this.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 08:13 AM on January 27, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Seriously, Fencer... WTF are you talking about? ^_^


I finally have an answer for you. This passage, surprisingly, is actually a verse that protects the slaves. In Hebrew culture you are supposed to be kind to your slaves, because you are also considered a "slave" to God; and as God is supposed to loving towards you, so are you to be loving towards your slaves. The "rod" is not a daily thing, unlike the whips we picture with American slaves, but instead is used as a punishing devise for misbehavior, and Jewish children would have also felt the rod if they got out of line. This passage condemns harsh punishments of slaves seen at that time. While it may seem inhumane to us, for them it was a step up.

(Edited by Fencer27 2/4/2010 at 11:33 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 11:32 PM on February 4, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 08:13 AM on January 27, 2010 :
Quote from JimIrvine at 07:37 AM on January 27, 2010 :
Fencer, I have to say that I'm with Wisp on this.

No, there is no reference to marriage, it does not say that a  married man should not lie with a man, or that a man should not lie with a man, it says that a man should not lie with a man.
Leviticus 18 basically lists all of the people that you cannot have intercourse with. Brother's wife, father's wife blah blah, all of the females that you cannot have sex with are very explicitly explained (except that it appears to be ok to fiddle with your daughter...) but when it comes to men... None, no categorization of those that you cannot sleep with, blanket ban (just as with animals)and Leviticus 20 lays down the punishemnts for breaking those rules as set out in L18. The bible is clear in its stance on man love. It's wrong, but it's very clear.


All lust under any sexual preference is condemned outside of marriage, and even within marriage there is unlawful lust. If I'm not mistaken the reason why Leviticus has 'rules' on whom you can sleep with, is because polygamy was practiced amongst the ancient Hebrews and there were rules on how to go about this. Although I'm not sure if Liv 18 is it though. Anyway, since marriage is defined as a man and a women, any same sex relationship is automatically prohibited. Yet, I contend that being homosexual will not bar anyone from salvation according to Christian theology, doctrine and scripture. Even if I can't defend it very well. There are people who can do it much better than I can, maybe I can get one of them to get on the forum, or at least give me a crash course in this.


Fencer, I agree with you.  I find it difficult to believe that God would condemn homosexuals for a trait they cannot help having.  That would be like saying that God is going to condemn everyone who has brown eyes!

I read an interesting article this evening regarding the evolutionary role of same-sex attraction.

Here:
Potential Evolutionary Role for Same-Sex Attraction


Male homosexuality doesn't make complete sense from an evolutionary point of view. It appears that the trait is heritable, but because homosexual men are much less likely to produce offspring than heterosexual men, shouldn't the genes for this trait have been extinguished long ago? What value could this sexual orientation have, that it has persisted for eons even without any discernible reproductive advantage?

One possible explanation is what evolutionary psychologists call the "kin selection hypothesis." What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being "helpers in the nest." By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own.


That is very interesting about how gays are reconized in Samoan culture.  It seems like a much more mature way of dealing with differences in sexual orientation, I think.  

(Edited by orion 2/5/2010 at 01:26 AM).
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:23 AM on February 5, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Fencer27
wisp
oooh...

So it's ok for them to BE homosexuals, as long as they don't ACT homosexual!

Well, the guys from the pic were acting pretty gay.
As far as I know the Bible doesn't condemn holding hands with the same sex.
Come on. Cut the crap. You know what those guys do while you're not looking.
So you say their existence is ok. It's just that they should lead a life of torture.

We have a semantic discordance here.

The first definition my dictionary gives me is:
1 Someone who practices homosexuality

The second one is:
2 Having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

You chose the second, apparently.

But then we have that Lust = sexual attraction.

So homosexuals are those who have a lust for members of their own sex.

But you had previously stated that the problem the Bible had with homosexuals was the lust.

Now you say that it's ok if they are homosexuals.

Well, if a homosexual doesn't practice homosexuality and has no lust for members of his/her own sex... WTF is a homosexual???
It is also a sin for men to lust after women, does this mean that all heterosexuals are condemned? No.
Are you answering the question? No.

Are you weaseling out? Yes.

The Bible clearly states that it's ok for you to have slaves, and hit them. And it clearly says that practicing homosexuals are to be killed.
Christians aren't saved through works, or obeying the commandments, but through the grace of God.
So you say, and you're not alone with this. And i'm sure you can find passages that support it. It's just as true that i can find passages that support the opposite.

I don't know what "grace" is, but it doesn't look like it has much to do with this subject.

I don't know what "works" have to do with having sex with men, or hitting your slaves.
You brought up wabi-sabi in another thread (imperfect beauty), in many ways I see humans as being imperfectly beautiful to God.
I like the analogy. I'm not sure about it, but it's nice.

Except that it applies to everybody. And the Bible doesn't seem to treat everybody in the same way.

I'm sure you've realized.
In Romans Paul talks about a thorn in his side that he can't get rid of, meaning that there is a sin that he can't get rid of. After praying, God told him that he wouldn't get rid of his imperfection. For me this implies an imperfect beauty of humans in God's sight.
What's your interpretation of "If a man lies with a man as you lie with a woman, they are to be put to death, and the blood will be on their heads"?

Does that translate as "Everyone is imperfectly beautiful, except that those who hit their slaves have the right to do so, and are not to be punished, but those imperfectly beautiful faggots are to be slain because i want them here in Heaven sooner"?
The lust is always going to be there, it is how we deal with that lust that determines whether or not it is sinful.
It looks like straight men have this neat solution: Getting married.

Gay men have this neat solution too: Getting killed.

That's how the Bible deals with that lust.

And even if it is sinful, it is not an automatic condemnation. As long as that person is Christian (by "Christian" I mean someone whom Christ has claimed through baptism. Yay, I smell another question(s) coming up about this.)
Nah... The silliness stands on its own, and i'm sure you're aware of it (which is why you expect a question).

By the way, i was baptized by a gay priest (when i wasn't old enough to resist the superstitious deed).
I heard that his baptisms were revoked or something, after they found out he was gay.

It's all very funny. I hope you don't think i'm lying.

they are spared hell and brought into God's Kingdom, both on Earth and Heaven.
Great... But if my unbaptized kid goes to Hell and i go to Heaven, i'm gonna punch your god in the face. =D

Remember that you didn't read it, and i did.
It isn't just about reading it,
I know.
it is understanding the doctrine, culture ect.
It sounds like you have a better chance at that if you actually read it.

If you don't you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you. Like creationists do.
I've read sections of the Bible, but never the whole thing. I'm not sure what you are implying by saying "you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you."
Sure you do.

They tell you stuff about it, and you repeat it.
They tell you where to look.
They tell you what it means.

I've never looked through a microscope and seen the double helix of DNA, I know DNA is a double helix
because those who know what they are talking about have told me so.
Haha!

But you know what doesn't happen with the double helix?

Its support by people from that field of knowledge doesn't depend on geography.

It's testable (meaning that there's an objective way to determine if those who support it know what they're talking about).

That knowledge comes from observations made under the Scientific Method.

It doesn't rely on authority.

It passes peer review every time.

If your handlers told you "Sure. God told me last night." you'd probably have no better reasons to trust them than the actual reasons they give you.



Good christians are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (or so i've been told). So next time ask him directly. Cut the middle man.

Similarly, I understand Christian doctrine because I've read what people who know what they are writing about have written on the subject.
Who are you to say that they know what they're talking about?

There are many sects, you know?

And I've had conversations with people who know what they are talking about when it comes to Christian theology/doctrine.
If they don't know why it doesn't work, then they don't know what they're talking about.

You should trust me. I know what i'm talking about. =D

I know that your first denial was that the Bible was against "being" a homosexual, but still.
I don't know what made you think that the picture depicted "homosexuals" deprived of lust who didn't have sex.
It was clear the depiction was that homosexuality in of itself is a sin in the Bible, and I disagree.
Why is it then that, according to the Bible, gay men to be put to death?

Your biblical references tend to be obscure. And mine look quite clear.
The Bible is not ok with you being a homosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "homosexual".
Then the Bible is not okay with us being heterosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "heterosexual". As heterosexual lusts are sinful by nature.
Ok, i'll let you weasel out for a second.

Yes. Let's say that does sound subjective.

Now let's weasel back in and look for some objective parameter.

Which ones can be united in holy marriage, and which ones are to be put to death?


Again, actions are wrong, lust is wrong.

There's nothing left for the Bible to be ok with.
I don't think this adequately describes the conclusion in Christian doctrine.
Two things:
1) You talk about it as if such a thing (a single Christian doctrine) existed.
2) You talk as if that (supposedly existent) Christian Doctrine was the issue here.

This is about the Bible. You can have the Christian Doctrine tell you that you should ignore it entirely. I don't care. Not the issue. Focus.

Or perhaps I'm just too liberal for Christianity.
For the Bible, sure. For Christianity? It depends on the sect.

There's a big range of superstition/reason, which comes in many flavors.

Most flavors in the most superstitious shade of Christianity tell you that the rest are not true Christianity.

Personally I see the homosexual condemnations to be more cultural than anything else.
So are religions. And, again, this (personal opinion, in this case) isn't a part of the present discussion.

It is very interesting, true. Actually more interesting than the present discussion.
Now, in the modern age, we know better.
You say it as if we didn't know better than being Christians.

Some of us do, some of us don't.

"practicing homosexuals", meaning they fornicate which is a sin.
You indulge in the logical fallacy of "equivocation".

You give "sin" different meanings to suit each situation.

I never knew what "sin" is.

You had told me that it was what separate us from God, which is almost a reasonable concept.
"Sin" is somewhat an umbrella term,
Not what you had told me.
and there are several types of sin,
Not what you had told me either, if i remember correctly.
and unless specified (or you just know) it can be hard to understand what falls into what category.
I categorize those whose punishment is death as "deadly sins".

Does that sound right to you?

It doesn't work exactly like that. Even under the protection of marriage you still get sinful lust and sinful sex. In essence, what you describe is the 'Biblical' idea, but it fails to capture the collective theology on the subject.
The 'Biblical' idea...

Kinda what the subject was about. Remember? xD

In any case, it doesn't matter if my description fails to capture the 'collective theology' on the subject. It does matter if the 'collective theology' fails to make sense of the sacred book it's based upon.

To have a full understanding of homosexuality and God you have to look at sources outside of the Bible.
Ok. I sure do. I always have.

But before that, concede defeat. The Bible is NOT ok with homosexuality.

Then we can move on to those sources outside of the Bible.

From that I have concluded that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Well the guys who wrote the Bible concluded something else. And THAT is the issue under discussion here.

I thought you said homosexual sex was as sinful as eating chocolate.

Are you now saying there's nothing wrong with sin, or do i remember wrong?

Looking it up...

Oh, i was wrong... It was dijonaise... I think you never met him. He was a biblical literalist who used to post here. His biblical and Christian knowledge was really great. He was a very tough adversary.

He said it here:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=27856&page=3

What I have done is try to show the Biblical stance on homosexuality which is that being attracted to the same sex is not a sin,
But they should be killed just because?

No, Fencer. What you tried to do, mostly, was escaping from the clear biblical texts.
it is what you do with that lust that can make it a sin.
Jesus disagrees.


Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


You have this escape clause: saying that "looking" is "doing". But you know you're not much into the Bible in any case. You just like the nice parts of your whole religion, which includes some seriously nasty crap.

It all comes in a single package. If you pick and choose (you know you do), then you do it using criteria from outside. And if you do that you don't need that religion.

Religions want straight acting people to spread the infection more efficiently (since children are the most prone to infection).

If you're a good talker your religion might deem it better to castrate you so you you can focus on spreading the infection to even MORE people than just your kids.
That is a fairly glib interpretation,
Saying stuff like that is easy. Lester does it all the time.

I can say it's a very smart interpretation. =D
especially since the Bible doesn't say that clergy must be celibate or eunuchs.
Especially my ass. I said "your religion might".

Suddenly it's good to "especially" talk about the Bible.

It is a good strategy. Other parasites do it, and i can show you. Religious memetic infections have found the same.

In fact the Jewish policy was to forbade those who have been castrated from participating in Jewish congregations, and one of God's commandments is to 'be fruitful and multiply'.
I said "your religion might". I don't know if "Jewish policy" qualifies, but i'm talking about memetic evolution here.

Christian apologetics is not my forte.
Don't be hard on yourself. It's nobody's forte.
I view Christian apologetics as almost pointless, you are supposed to be a Christian because you believe, not because it can answer every single question and intellectually destroy all competition. If that were so it wouldn't require faith, but it clearly does, and is clearly an important aspect of Christianity.
Yeah. Faith is pretty much exempt from reasoning.

Yet here you are.

It is very hard to deconvert people in my experiences. I doubt I'm much different, it is the subjective experiences perceived as objective that hold people's faith together, at least that is what I've seen. I, like many Christians, have had powerful experiences that will not be undercut lightly.
I bet those experiences don't point to the Bible.

I wonder if they point to Christianity at all.


(Edited by wisp 2/7/2010 at 6:55 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:16 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Fencer, I agree with you.  I find it difficult to believe that God would condemn homosexuals for a trait they cannot help having.  That would be like saying that God is going to condemn everyone who has brown eyes!
The issue wasn't God. It was the Bible.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:22 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Fencer27 at 02:32 AM on February 5, 2010 :
Fencer
While the Bible condones slavery, the slavery used is more closely in-sync with indentured servants than the horrific atrocities committed in the African slave trade. I contend that if the Biblical writers knew of the African slave trade, they would be against it.
Exodus 21:20-21 NAB
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Seriously, Fencer... WTF are you talking about? ^_^
I finally have an answer for you. This passage, surprisingly, is actually a verse that protects the slaves.
That's quite obvious. It's not surprising to me.

The Bible tries to protect those slaves it's ok with and whose rights deny from death, and not from suffering.

This was said:
Fencer
wisp
Fencer
The bible certainly teaches people a lot about God and is a good moral guide to how we live our lives
Haha, I agree the Bible is okay with one of them, but somehow I don't think it is the one you're thinking of. The Bible is okay with you being a homosexual (all the attacks on homosexuality in the Bible go after the lust involved, not the actual sexual orientation, and it is the same lust that the Bible attacks heterosexuals with). While the Bible condones slavery(...)
Seriously, Fencer. WTF are you talking about? ^_^
This passage condemns harsh punishments of slaves seen at that time. While it may seem inhumane to us, for them it was a step up.
You're weaseling out of the fact that the Bible is ok with slavery and you said it wasn't.

Stop weaseling.

While it may seem inhumane to us
The bible certainly teaches people a lot about God and is a good moral guide to how we live our lives
Come again?
inhumane to us
a good moral guide to how we live our lives
inhumane to us
a good moral guide to how we live our lives
inhumane to us
a good moral guide to how we live our lives
inhumane to us
a good moral guide to how we live our lives


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2010 at 02:23 AM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:43 PM on February 7, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oh, damn...

I got two words mixed up. You wrote "condones" and i read "condemns". =/

My mistake. I take the "WTF are you talking about?" back. Sorry... Heh...

But you still said it wasn ok with homosexuality, and wasn't ok with slavery. It's just the WTF that i take back. xD

Why on Earth do two opposite words sound so similar?

I bet it's a trick the Devil played.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 02:31 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Wisp

orion

Fencer, I agree with you.  I find it difficult to believe that God would condemn homosexuals for a trait they cannot help having.  That would be like saying that God is going to condemn everyone who has brown eyes!


The issue wasn't God. It was the Bible.


Yes, but we all know the Bible is full of errors and out-dated moral values.  Why nit-pick it?  Fencer has already demonstrated that he/she doesn't take the Bible literally.  My wife considers herself a very spiritual person and a Christian.  But she doesn't accept the image of God that the Bible portrays - petty, vengeful, wrathful, egotistical, limited, etc, etc.  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:18 AM on February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

orion
Fencer, I agree with you.  I find it difficult to believe that God would condemn homosexuals for a trait they cannot help having.  That would be like saying that God is going to condemn everyone who has brown eyes!
The issue wasn't God. It was the Bible.
Yes, but we all know the Bible is full of errors and out-dated moral values.
Yes indeed.
Why nit-pick it?  Fencer has already demonstrated that he/she doesn't take the Bible literally.
This isn't about biblical literalism. It's about this:

Fencer
a good moral guide to how we live our lives


Get it? ^_^

My wife considers herself a very spiritual person and a Christian.  But she doesn't accept the image of God that the Bible portrays - petty, vengeful, wrathful, egotistical, limited, etc, etc.
I bet she doesn't say the Bible is a good moral guide to how we live our lives either.

Hey, i like Fencer too, you know?


(Edited by wisp 2/8/2010 at 12:50 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:49 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ummm, no - I wouldn't call the Bible a particularly good moral guide.  I see what you're getting at, Wisp.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 8:19 PM on February 8, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'm also getting at the difference between how he feels the Bible treats homosexuals, and how it actually does.

Same with slaves.

But yeah, these two arose because of his claim that it's a good moral guide. ^_^



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 12:56 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 6:16 PM on February 7, 2010 :
Fencer27
wisp
oooh...

So it's ok for them to BE homosexuals, as long as they don't ACT homosexual!

Well, the guys from the pic were acting pretty gay.
As far as I know the Bible doesn't condemn holding hands with the same sex.
Come on. Cut the crap. You know what those guys do while you're not looking.


Cutting the crap that is basically what the Bible says. This is because back then they didn't know the genetic factors involved, but today we do, and it is a real shame that fundamentalists have the audacity to condemn them.

Are you answering the question? No.

Are you weaseling out? Yes.


It's not weaseling out, it is taking a parallel scenario to show you that being attracted to any sex is not a condemnation, otherwise we'd all be cast down into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels. This is obviously not the case, so why not extend it to homosexuals if heterosexuals have this right? God is fair and unbiased, if it is genetic (which it is, just for the record do you accept that too?) then there is no sin in being homosexual.

The Bible clearly states that it's ok for you to have slaves, and hit them. And it clearly says that practicing homosexuals are to be killed.


Yes, the Bible states that "practicing" homosexuals are to be killed, not those who are innately homosexual.

Yes, the Bible says you can have slaves, but it is not the same connotation that has permeated our culture. A Jew, and latter Christians, are "slaves" to God in a similar way. One of the ways to tell a slave from a non-slave is by pierced ears. And your slaves would have pierced their ears to show that they serve you just as kings would pierce their ears to show that they are slaves to God. The "rod" is used as a punishment for misbehavior, it was used on slaves as well as Jewish children. And unlike the view of slavery that is held in the west, slaves had rights, and were to be treated with a certain respect, as God is supposed to be good to you, so were you supposed to be good to your slaves. It wasn't this barbaric picture you present.

You brought up wabi-sabi in another thread (imperfect beauty), in many ways I see humans as being imperfectly beautiful to God.
I like the analogy. I'm not sure about it, but it's nice.

Except that it applies to everybody. And the Bible doesn't seem to treat everybody in the same way.


It is clear that the Bible continuously states that we are not perfect, for all have sinned. There was actually a debate within the Church on whether any human could not sin, or if it is an impossible task. Although it is somewhat irrelevant with regards to the Biblical text, theology doesn't discount the imperfect beauty idea.

What's your interpretation of "If a man lies with a man as you lie with a woman, they are to be put to death, and the blood will be on their heads"?


If two men have sex with each other they will be killed, most likely by stoning.

It looks like straight men have this neat solution: Getting married.

Gay men have this neat solution too: Getting killed.

That's how the Bible deals with that lust.


Unfortunately that would appear to be the case; Thank God Christian theology has matured a little since then.

And even if it is sinful, it is not an automatic condemnation. As long as that person is Christian (by "Christian" I mean someone whom Christ has claimed through baptism. Yay, I smell another question(s) coming up about this.)
Nah... The silliness stands on its own, and i'm sure you're aware of it (which is why you expect a question).


Nope, because I don't think you know what I meant by "baptism". I'll give you a hint, it isn't a ritual or sacrament.

By the way, i was baptized by a gay priest (when i wasn't old enough to resist the superstitious deed).


I was baptized when I was an infant, I don't even remember it.  

I heard that his baptisms were revoked or something, after they found out he was gay.

It's all very funny. I hope you don't think i'm lying.


I have no reason to think that you are lying, and I too find it funny.

Great... But if my unbaptized kid goes to Hell and i go to Heaven, i'm gonna punch your god in the face. =D


Lol, there are many misconceptions of Hell. If it makes you feel better your baptism didn't count as you weren't old enough to make a real decision it looks like. Getting baptized like that is not the way to Heaven.

[color=teal]It sounds like you have a better chance at that if you actually read it.

If you don't you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you. Like creationists do.


I suppose you are correct, but memorizing the entire Bible without understanding the theology will lead you with many misconceptions. Perhaps the most obvious is that theology takes into account the culture and the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) so misconceptions are minimalized.

I've read sections of the Bible, but never the whole thing. I'm not sure what you are implying by saying "you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you."
Sure you do.

They tell you stuff about it, and you repeat it.
They tell you where to look.
They tell you what it means.


Of course, but why not extend it to every field of human inquiry? Remember, where talking about the Bible, and a little bit of theology, not so much belief/faith in God. There is a reason why I trust educated theologians on theological matters in the same way I trust educated scientists in their respected fields. Everyone posits arguments from authority, it is an inevitable; we can not be experts in everything, and most people aren't experts in anything.

Haha!

But you know what doesn't happen with the double helix?

Its support by people from that field of knowledge doesn't depend on geography.

It's testable (meaning that there's an objective way to determine if those who support it know what they're talking about).

That knowledge comes from observations made under the Scientific Method.

It doesn't rely on authority.

It passes peer review every time.

If your handlers told you "Sure. God told me last night." you'd probably have no better reasons to trust them than the actual reasons they give you.



I thought we were talking about what the Bible said, not about faith. Otherwise I could discount the Bible as I see fit according to my personal beliefs on the grounds of culture influence and not divine revelation; or outdated revelations, in which we have (as a species) evolved past the primitive 'convert or burn for ever' state as well as valuable knowledge, like homosexuality has a genetic component.

Good christians are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (or so i've been told). So next time ask him directly. Cut the middle man.


Hm, <chuckle>, would you be surprised if I told you I have had revelations/realizations from God and have been moved by the holy spirit?

Similarly, I understand Christian doctrine because I've read what people who know what they are writing about have written on the subject.
Who are you to say that they know what they're talking about?

There are many sects, you know?


You do realize that you can get degrees in theology? All the pastors that I've had had a masters in theology. And a friend, who leads the on-campus Bible study, has a BA in religion with a focus on Judaism and Christianity.

I'm well aware there are many sects, in my family alone we have United Methodist, Southern Baptist, Free Methodist, Episcopalian, (ex) Catholic, and some others I can't remember. And when you add in my friends the list goes up dramatically from other various Protestant-like sects to various Orthodox sects. So yes, I'm very aware of the different sects in Christianity. But, all Christians are considered to be one body.

If they don't know why it doesn't work, then they don't know what they're talking about.

You should trust me. I know what i'm talking about. =D


I'm sure you do,

[color=teal]I know that your first denial was that the Bible was against "being" a homosexual, but still.
I don't know what made you think that the picture depicted "homosexuals" deprived of lust who didn't have sex.
It was clear the depiction was that homosexuality in of itself is a sin in the Bible, and I disagree.
Why is it then that, according to the Bible, gay men to be put to death?


Because they thought that it was a choice, and it didn't occur to them that it was an innate characteristic of the person. So they never made the distinction between being gay, and acting gay, but everything that they written was about acting gay.

Ok, i'll let you weasel out for a second.

Yes. Let's say that does sound subjective.

Now let's weasel back in and look for some objective parameter.

Which ones can be united in holy marriage, and which ones are to be put to death?


Isn't this redundant? Marriage is between the opposite sex, same sex relationships are to be put to death.

Two things:
1) You talk about it as if such a thing (a single Christian doctrine) existed.


Should this surprise you? There is one truth, why shouldn't I talk as if there is one doctrine in the matter? Yes there are multiple sects/doctrines within Christianity, but this isn't a compare and contrast essay.

2) You talk as if that (supposedly existent) Christian Doctrine was the issue here.

This is about the Bible. You can have the Christian Doctrine tell you that you should ignore it entirely. I don't care. Not the issue. Focus.


I'm pretty sure it's been answered several times, but for the sake of clarity, the Bible is okay w/homosexuals as long as they don't act gay. If you want to discuss it further than that, then theology must be implemented in order to understand modern Christian thinking on the subject. Otherwise we indulge in half-truths regarding Christianity; and lets face it, this is an attack on Christianity in general. Or is it?

Or perhaps I'm just too liberal for Christianity.
For the Bible, sure. For Christianity? It depends on the sect.

There's a big range of superstition/reason, which comes in many flavors.

Most flavors in the most superstitious shade of Christianity tell you that the rest are not true Christianity.


True, but I wouldn't say "superstitious", rather "conservative" shades. But that's probably just my biased stance kicking in.

You indulge in the logical fallacy of "equivocation".

You give "sin" different meanings to suit each situation.

I never knew what "sin" is.

You had told me that it was what separate us from God, which is almost a reasonable concept.


It is not equivocation, there are different meanings to the word "sin". Unfortunately English doesn't distinguish between them, and I'm not sure if Greek, Hebrew or Latin make the distinction either, or if they just have different definitions. Again, sin is anything that separates us from God, but because there are different ways to do so, there are different types of sin.

I categorize those whose punishment is death as "deadly sins".

Does that sound right to you?


All sin results in death; "for the wages of sin is death."

Ok. I sure do. I always have.

But before that, concede defeat. The Bible is NOT ok with homosexuality.


The Bible is not okay with people doing homosexual acts. If you want to extend it to mean that it is not okay with homosexuals in general than I'll agree.

I thought you said homosexual sex was as sinful as eating chocolate.

Are you now saying there's nothing wrong with sin, or do i remember wrong?

Looking it up...

Oh, i was wrong... It was dijonaise... I think you never met him. He was a biblical literalist who used to post here. His biblical and Christian knowledge was really great. He was a very tough adversary.

He said it here:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=27856&page=3


I've never met him. I also see that that thread was the first thread you posted in. It was funny skimming your post, especially when you said that you were surprised creationists could use a computer. It reminded me of what my dad thought about them. He knew they were out there (he grew up in the glorious south and many of his neighbors were the typical racist creationists) but he always viewed at them as in the background. He was very surprised to see that it was a large percentage of Americans and that some of them could actually function in the real world.

But they should be killed just because?

No, Fencer. What you tried to do, mostly, was escaping from the clear biblical texts.
it is what you do with that lust that can make it a sin.
Jesus disagrees.

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


You have this escape clause: saying that "looking" is "doing". But you know you're not much into the Bible in any case. You just like the nice parts of your whole religion, which includes some seriously nasty crap.

It all comes in a single package. If you pick and choose (you know you do), then you do it using criteria from outside. And if you do that you don't need that religion.


You don't need the religion to be a good person, or to even be saved. But to say that you must accept it all or none of it is a false dichotomy, and one that creationists implement when talking to TEs in hope that they will abandon evolution and become YECs. Although you, obviously, are hopping that TEs abandon the faith instead.  

Religions want straight acting people to spread the infection more efficiently (since children are the most prone to infection).

Saying stuff like that is easy. Lester does it all the time.

I can say it's a very smart interpretation. =D
especially since the Bible doesn't say that clergy must be celibate or eunuchs.
Especially my ass. I said "your religion might".

Suddenly it's good to "especially" talk about the Bible.

It is a good strategy. Other parasites do it, and i can show you. Religious memetic infections have found the same.


Haha, I'm sure I can cherry pick my way out of this one ;) Then call further discussion taboo and claim indisputable victory.

I said "your religion might". I don't know if "Jewish policy" qualifies, but i'm talking about memetic evolution here.


Jewish policies are part of the history of the religion, some have been retained others thrown out. By "memetic evolution" I assume you mean memetic religion? Which implies an evolution of sorts when dealing with religion.

[color=teal]Yeah. Faith is pretty much exempt from reasoning.

Yet here you are.


It is very hard to deconvert people in my experiences. I doubt I'm much different, it is the subjective experiences perceived as objective that hold people's faith together, at least that is what I've seen. I, like many Christians, have had powerful experiences that will not be undercut lightly.
I bet those experiences don't point to the Bible.

I wonder if they point to Christianity at all.


(Edited by wisp 2/7/2010 at 6:55 PM).


They don't necessarily point to the Bible, or Christianity specifically.

(Edited by Fencer27 2/11/2010 at 5:44 PM).


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 5:38 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
Fencer27

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 02:31 AM on February 8, 2010 :
Oh, damn...

I got two words mixed up. You wrote "condones" and i read "condemns". =/

My mistake. I take the "WTF are you talking about?" back. Sorry... Heh...


No problem.

But you still said it wasn ok with homosexuality, and wasn't ok with slavery. It's just the WTF that i take back. xD


Understood

It is not that the Bible is against slavery, only that it is against the connotations of slavery that have become the norm in the west.  

Why on Earth do two opposite words sound so similar?

I bet it's a trick the Devil played.



Welcome to the English language. I'll be sure to submit a request for an exorcism to the Catholic church to get that Devil out of here.

I should have made it clear earlier; the Bible is a good moral guide in the right spirit. I know you'll view it as a cop-out, cherry picking etc, but just thought I'd throw it out there.


-------
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." - Jesus (Matthew 7:12)
 


Posts: 551 | Posted: 6:00 PM on February 11, 2010 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oooh...

So it's ok for them to BE homosexuals, as long as they don't ACT homosexual!

Well, the guys from the pic were acting pretty gay.
As far as I know the Bible doesn't condemn holding hands with the same sex.
Come on. Cut the crap. You know what those guys do while you're not looking.
Cutting the crap that is basically what the Bible says.
Sorry, i didn't get that part.
You mean the Bible says gays are crap?
This is because back then they didn't know the genetic factors involved, but today we do, and it is a real shame that fundamentalists have the audacity to condemn them.
Well yeah, but your religion is based upon what those guys (who didn't know much) thought.
Are you answering the question? No.

Are you weaseling out? Yes.
It's not weaseling out, it is taking a parallel scenario
Well exactly. That's what i meant.
to show you that being attracted to any sex is not a condemnation,
Lust is. Remember Matthew 5:28?

But heterosexuals have a way out. Homosexuals don't.

And, way or no way, homosexuals are to be killed, and heterosexuals aren't.
otherwise we'd all be cast down into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels.
You can adjust your interpretations so as to make that hypothesis correct.
This is obviously not the case,
Well, yeah, because Christianity is obviously wrong.
so why not extend it to homosexuals if heterosexuals have this right?
Because Christianity isn't right.
God is fair and unbiased,
Yahweh isn't.
if it is genetic (which it is, just for the record do you accept that too?) then there is no sin in being homosexual.
There are genetic factors to each and every act you would consider a "sin".

Lust, curiosity (it killed Adam), gluttony, wrath, stealing, lying... You name it.

If by "genetic" you mean "can't be avoided", well you can always try.

According to Christianity homosexuals should try, and heterosexuals should just get married.


The Bible clearly states that it's ok for you to have slaves, and hit them. And it clearly says that practicing homosexuals are to be killed.
Yes, the Bible states that "practicing" homosexuals are to be killed, not those who are innately homosexual.
Yeah, but those who are innately homosexual will burn in Hell.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or 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, (...)

The greek words used are malakos and arsenokoites.

Some believe it refers to the passive and the active party in male homosexual intercourse. I say it says what it says. Malakos means "effeminate" (and also "soft", so you get its origins as an euphemism, just like "gay").

Yes, the Bible says you can have slaves, but it is not the same connotation that has permeated our culture.
The Bible is ok with you having slaves and hitting them with a rod until you almost kill them. I don't know about the rest of what you're saying, and i don't know how relevant it may be.

A Jew, and latter Christians, are "slaves" to God in a similar way.
OK.
One of the ways to tell a slave from a non-slave is by pierced ears. And your slaves would have pierced their ears to show that they serve you just as kings would pierce their ears to show that they are slaves to God.
Sounds like a red herring, even if it's interesting.
The "rod" is used as a punishment for misbehavior, it was used on slaves as well as Jewish children.
I don't remember that, but that's not a good defense for the book you thought "a good moral guide", nor anything close to a rebuttal of the fact that the Bible is OK with slavery.
And unlike the view of slavery that is held in the west, slaves had rights, and were to be treated with a certain respect, as God is supposed to be good to you, so were you supposed to be good to your slaves. It wasn't this barbaric picture you present.
In this barbaric picture they were being treated better than what the Bible allows.

They are not beaten almost to death.

You brought up wabi-sabi in another thread (imperfect beauty), in many ways I see humans as being imperfectly beautiful to God.
I like the analogy. I'm not sure about it, but it's nice.

Except that it applies to everybody. And the Bible doesn't seem to treat everybody in the same way.
It is clear that the Bible continuously states that we are not perfect, for all have sinned.
You're weaseling out again.

Your analogy applies to everybody. The Bible doesn't treat everybody in the same way. So your analogy doesn't seem right.
There was actually a debate within the Church on whether any human could not sin, or if it is an impossible task.
Interesting, even if it doesn't address my claim.
Although it is somewhat irrelevant with regards to the Biblical text, theology doesn't discount the imperfect beauty idea.
OK. But even if that idea was harmonious with the biblical text (it's not), it still doesn't treat everybody in the same way so, again, it doesn't seem relevant.

What's your interpretation of "If a man lies with a man as you lie with a woman, they are to be put to death, and the blood will be on their heads"?
If two men have sex with each other they will be killed, most likely by stoning.
OK, good!

Now, you have no reasons to assume that the guys in my pic were celibate. And i don't know how many rights did the slaves in the Bible have, but the fact is that the Bible is ok with slavery (forced labor; you can even beat them half to death) and it's not ok with homosexuality (effeminates don't go to Heaven, practicing homosexuals are to be killed).

Why is not the discussion settled then?

The lust is always going to be there, it is how we deal with that lust that determines whether or not it is sinful.
It looks like straight men have this neat solution: Getting married.

Gay men have this neat solution too: Getting killed.

That's how the Bible deals with that lust.
Unfortunately that would appear to be the case;
Thanks for the honesty.

Can we conclude that the Bible is not OK with homosexuality, and that you were wrong?

You already admitted what seems to be enough. After admitting that those who wrote it could have been wrong since they didn't know things we know now... Well... You don't even need to keep defending the Bible.
Thank God Christian theology has matured a little since then.
Why is Yahweh to be thanked?

If he's responsible for that, why didn't he do it earlier?

And even if it is sinful, it is not an automatic condemnation. As long as that person is Christian (by "Christian" I mean someone whom Christ has claimed through baptism. Yay, I smell another question(s) coming up about this.)
Nah... The silliness stands on its own, and i'm sure you're aware of it (which is why you expect a question).
Nope, because I don't think you know what I meant by "baptism". I'll give you a hint, it isn't a ritual or sacrament.
Being born again by a decision to believe (as if you could easily decide to believe)?
Is water a part of the deal?


Great... But if my unbaptized kid goes to Hell and i go to Heaven, i'm gonna punch your god in the face. =D
Lol, there are many misconceptions of Hell.
Of course.

Some people believe IT EXISTS!

Go figure.
If it makes you feel better your baptism didn't count as you weren't old enough to make a real decision it looks like.
Nah. I was kidding. I don't care if they baptized me when i was a baby.
Getting baptized like that is not the way to Heaven.
I know.

There are no other ways of baptism that get you into Heaven though.

It sounds like you have a better chance at that if you actually read it.

If you don't you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you. Like creationists do.
I suppose you are correct, but memorizing the entire Bible without understanding the theology will lead you with many misconceptions.
I suppose you are correct, but i'm not sure if that's relevant to the issue.
Perhaps it is. I don't see it though.
Perhaps the most obvious is that theology takes into account the culture and the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) so misconceptions are minimalized.
True.

It should be called "Yahwehology" though.
I've read sections of the Bible, but never the whole thing. I'm not sure what you are implying by saying "you don't have much choice but to believe whatever they tell you."
[color=teal]Sure you do.

They tell you stuff about it, and you repeat it.
They tell you where to look.
They tell you what it means.
Of course, but why not extend it to every field of human inquiry?
Because i can make my own inquiry about factual (real) things.

I have researched Evolution on my own. Sometimes watching documentaries, sometimes in my back yard.

Objectively testable and repeatable stuff, unlike the kind of personal experiences christians get (which can make them certain that they can't be wrong if they say something as silly and ignorant as that we can't make water even if we know its chemical composition).
Remember, where talking about the Bible, and a little bit of theology, not so much belief/faith in God. There is a reason why I trust educated theologians on theological matters in the same way I trust educated scientists in their respected fields.
I didn't trust the guys orion showed us who thought ("demonstrated") we were closer to orangutans than chimps.

I would rather trust the data instead of humans.
Everyone posits arguments from authority, it is an inevitable; we can not be experts in everything, and most people aren't experts in anything.
You're right.

But (there had to be a "but") some of us try to minimize that. I prefer independently verified data.

If three different guys get the same results, i can forget their names. And that pleases me.

I've never looked through a microscope and seen the double helix of DNA, I know DNA is a double helix
because those who know what they are talking about have told me so.
Haha!

But you know what doesn't happen with the double helix?

Its support by people from that field of knowledge doesn't depend on geography.

It's testable (meaning that there's an objective way to determine if those who support it know what they're talking about).

That knowledge comes from observations made under the Scientific Method.

It doesn't rely on authority.

It passes peer review every time.

If your handlers told you "Sure. God told me last night." you'd probably have no better reasons to trust them than the actual reasons they give you.

I thought we were talking about what the Bible said, not about faith.
You brought up theologians. And those you take as your source rely on faith, i bet.

Even if i'm wrong, theologians are not the Bible, so no, we weren't just talking about the Bible anymore.
Otherwise I could discount the Bible as I see fit according to my personal beliefs on the grounds of culture influence and not divine revelation; or outdated revelations, in which we have (as a species) evolved past the primitive 'convert or burn for ever' state as well as valuable knowledge, like homosexuality has a genetic component.
I am so very sorry, but i didn't get your point...

[color=teal]Good christians are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit (or so i've been told). So next time ask him directly. Cut the middle man.
Hm, , would you be surprised if I told you I have had revelations/realizations from God and have been moved by the holy spirit?

Dunno.

I've have had revelations myself.

Very sporadic, but very cool.

The last one of them was about the "function" of predation in the Universe. It changed my mind in a very powerful way.

Depending on the definition of "God", i could say it came from Him, but that would be very confusing. Everything comes from Him.
 

Similarly, I understand Christian doctrine because I've read what people who know what they are writing about have written on the subject.
Who are you to say that they know what they're talking about?

There are many sects, you know?
You do realize that you can get degrees in theology?
Yes i do.

A science with a fictional object. It's interesting what human minds can create.
All the pastors that I've had had a masters in theology.
Part of the what Theology studies is religious truth.

To me, that looks like reification.

By mentioning something you make it appear out of thin air, and you get to study it.

Weird.

And a friend, who leads the on-campus Bible study, has a BA in religion with a focus on Judaism and Christianity.
That's probably cool.

I don't know what BA stands for, but if it involves actual (factual) study, i'm all for it.

Do they let you get a degree on Theology if you don't believe in any gods?

Wikipedia says:

Since the early nineteenth century, various different approaches have emerged in the West to theology as an academic discipline. Much of the debate concerning theology's place in the university or within a general higher education curriculum centres on whether theology's methods are appropriately theoretical and (broadly speaking) scientific or, on the other hand, whether theology requires a pre-commitment of faith by its practitioners, and whether such a commitment conflicts with academic freedom.

I'm well aware there are many sects, in my family alone we have United Methodist, Southern Baptist, Free Methodist, Episcopalian, (ex) Catholic, and some others I can't remember.
That's amazing!

Actually it's quite amazing that you can be in one of those sects and don't get to look around and conclude that your particular one probably isn't too special.

And when you add in my friends the list goes up dramatically from other various Protestant-like sects to various Orthodox sects. So yes, I'm very aware of the different sects in Christianity. But, all Christians are considered to be one body.
"Are considered"?

Those are weasel words.


Considered by whom?


I know that your first denial was that the Bible was against "being" a homosexual, but still.
I don't know what made you think that the picture depicted "homosexuals" deprived of lust who didn't have sex.
It was clear the depiction was that homosexuality in of itself is a sin in the Bible, and I disagree.
Why is it then that, according to the Bible, gay men to be put to death?
Because they thought that it was a choice, and it didn't occur to them that it was an innate characteristic of the person.
Most of them did (and still do) think that we're innately sinners, so that doesn't seem to be quite relevant...

But even if that wasn't the case, you're just telling me WHY the Bible isn't OK with homosexuality. You're explaining to me the very thing you denied, but without conceding defeat, for some reason i don't get.

In another forum i asked why Yahweh doesn't cure amputees. They gave me several tentative answers, took them all back and proceeded to explain that the fact that i didn't see or hear or read about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Then they settled and just said they believed Yahweh DID cure amputees.

It's the opposite of what you did. You started by denying my claim, and now you try to explain its factuality.

At least that's what it looks like to me.

So they never made the distinction between being gay, and acting gay, but everything that they written was about acting gay.
Even if that was true, the pic is still right.

And 1 Corinthians 6:9 says you're wrong, in my opinion.

Ok, i'll let you weasel out for a second.

Yes. Let's say that does sound subjective.

Now let's weasel back in and look for some objective parameter.

Which ones can be united in holy marriage, and which ones are to be put to death?
Isn't this redundant? Marriage is between the opposite sex, same sex relationships are to be put to death.
I don't think "redundant" is the right word... Anyway, this started by you weaseling out from the issue: The Bible is not ok with you being a homosexual, under any reasonable definition of the word "homosexual".

You said it was.

I'd say Corinthians backs me up.



Two things:
1) You talk about it as if such a thing (a single Christian doctrine) existed.
Should this surprise you?
No. Christians tend to be wrong about Christianity.
There is one truth,
You can't back that up.
why shouldn't I talk as if there is one doctrine in the matter?
Because of this simple fact: There isn't.
Yes there are multiple sects/doctrines within Christianity,
That's what you were negating in your last phrase.
but this isn't a compare and contrast essay.
Even if you don't compare them, there are many, and you talked about them as if they were one. You talked about "the conclusion in Christian doctrine", which was a mistake (because of what you just admitted).

2) You talk as if that (supposedly existent) Christian Doctrine was the issue here.

This is about the Bible. You can have the Christian Doctrine tell you that you should ignore it entirely. I don't care. Not the issue. Focus.
I'm pretty sure it's been answered several times, but for the sake of clarity, the Bible is okay w/homosexuals as long as they don't act gay.
Gay people act gay.
The guys in my pic were acting gay.
In the old testament they probably didn't have a word for what we call "gay".
In the new testament (Corinthians) they did, and they used it: malakos (soft). It's quite equivalent to "gay".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malakos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_definition_of_effeminacy

The greeks still use "malakia" in the same derogatory way. They use it in the same way as the word "gay" in the phrase "That's too gay".

What else do you need?

Do they need a specific word that has been defined in the Bible as "a man who feels sexually aroused by other men but don't necessarily have sexual intercourse"???

Even if you made that farfetched demand, the pic would still be right because they WERE acting gay (otherwise how would you know what the pic was about?).

If you want to discuss it further than that,
I actually might. Perhaps in some other thread, after you admit defeat in this one.
then theology must be implemented in order to understand modern Christian thinking on the subject.
There isn't ONE unified Christian thinking on the subject.
Otherwise we indulge in half-truths regarding Christianity; and lets face it, this is an attack on Christianity in general. Or is it?
Yes, but by attacking it's first brick.

You try to defend it with patches, make believing christians agree on them.

Christianity started with the wrong foot. There is no reason to keep patching it. There are plenty of reasons to put it away and make something actually good to start with.

Or perhaps I'm just too liberal for Christianity.
For the Bible, sure. For Christianity? It depends on the sect.

There's a big range of superstition/reason, which comes in many flavors.

Most flavors in the most superstitious shade of Christianity tell you that the rest are not true Christianity.
True, but I wouldn't say "superstitious", rather "conservative" shades.
It's my phrase, and i was talking about superstition.
But that's probably just my biased stance kicking in.
That would be my guess.

I meant superstition.


I meant superstition.


I meant superstition.


You indulge in the logical fallacy of "equivocation".

You give "sin" different meanings to suit each situation.

I never knew what "sin" is.

You had told me that it was what separate us from God, which is almost a reasonable concept.
It is not equivocation,
You won't be able to back this up.
there are different meanings to the word "sin".
That's not a refutation. That's actually a requisite for the fallacy of equivocation.

*Light can't be dark.
*Feathers are light.
*Feathers can't be dark.

If there was just one definition of sin then you wouldn't be able to switch among them (which is what the fallacy consists of).
Unfortunately English doesn't distinguish between them, and I'm not sure if Greek, Hebrew or Latin make the distinction either, or if they just have different definitions.
Unfortunately?

It's what allows you to be unclear, so you can weasel out. Just like when creationists say "information".

It doesn't seem unfortunate for christians. It's like a christian superpower.

Again, sin is anything that separates us from God, but because there are different ways to do so, there are different types of sin.
Like a deadly separation, and a regular one?
All sin results in death; "for the wages of sin is death."
All sin results in death because "insert religious metaphor".

Can you talk real, please?

You christians can even have many definitions of "death".

It's hard to argue against so many equivocation fallacies.

Ok. I sure do. I always have.

But before that, concede defeat. The Bible is NOT ok with homosexuality.
The Bible is not okay with people doing homosexual acts. If you want to extend it to mean that it is not okay with homosexuals in general than I'll agree.
How is that different from conceding defeat?

It was funny skimming your post, especially when you said that you were surprised creationists could use a computer.
It's funny because it's true.
It reminded me of what my dad thought about them. He knew they were out there (he grew up in the glorious south and many of his neighbors were the typical racist creationists) but he always viewed at them as in the background. He was very surprised to see that it was a large percentage of Americans and that some of them could actually function in the real world.
Same here...

Perhaps i wrote it in that post: i just started seeing humorous pictures about creationism. I thought to myself "How cruel of them to mock this poor ignorant superstitious little people who can't even defend themselves". To me it looked like bullying the Amish.
I had not considered the possibility that they could be on the offensive.

But they should be killed just because?

No, Fencer. What you tried to do, mostly, was escaping from the clear biblical texts.
it is what you do with that lust that can make it a sin.
Jesus disagrees.

Matthew 5:28 (New International Version)

But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.


You have this escape clause: saying that "looking" is "doing". But you know you're not much into the Bible in any case. You just like the nice parts of your whole religion, which includes some seriously nasty crap.

It all comes in a single package. If you pick and choose (you know you do), then you do it using criteria from outside. And if you do that you don't need that religion.
You don't need the religion to be a good person, or to even be saved.
According to what religion?

By the way, you omitted my rebuttal from Matthew 5:28.
But to say that you must accept it all or none of it is a false dichotomy,
And THAT would be a straw man. Because i'd never say such a thing.

I have actually taken from the Bible some things that suited me. So how could i?
and one that creationists implement when talking to TEs in hope that they will abandon evolution and become YECs.
True.
Although you, obviously, are hopping that TEs abandon the faith instead.


Especially my ass. I said "your religion might".

Suddenly it's good to "especially" talk about the Bible.

It is a good strategy. Other parasites do it, and i can show you. Religious memetic infections have found the same.
Haha, I'm sure I can cherry pick my way out of this one ;)
[color=teal]Hahaha!
Then call further discussion taboo and claim indisputable victory.
You're scaring me.

I said "your religion might". I don't know if "Jewish policy" qualifies, but i'm talking about memetic evolution here.
Jewish policies are part of the history of the religion, some have been retained others thrown out.
By "your" i was referring to the generic "you". You know, when you use the word "you" but you don't really mean "you"?
In any case i do believe that some branches of christianity have.
By "memetic evolution" I assume you mean memetic religion?
Mmm... No... I meant "memetic evolution"... "Memetic religion" is a tautology. There are no other kinds of religion that i'm aware of.
Which implies an evolution of sorts when dealing with religion.
Perhaps there have been a couple of religions which didn't evolve (that were invented by someone and stood unchanged, even if it doesn't seem very likely). They could spread like memes, but without evolving. That would be as atypical as a virus created in a lab.

Yeah. Faith is pretty much exempt from reasoning.

Yet here you are.
It is very hard to deconvert people in my experiences. I doubt I'm much different, it is the subjective experiences perceived as objective that hold people's faith together, at least that is what I've seen. I, like many Christians, have had powerful experiences that will not be undercut lightly.
I bet those experiences don't point to the Bible.

I wonder if they point to Christianity at all.
They don't necessarily point to the Bible, or Christianity specifically.
Then they are not a sufficient excuse to become a christian.


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:26 AM on February 27, 2010 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.