April 10, 200719 yr Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops: Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P Right. But the belief is that it is divinely inspired.
April 10, 200719 yr Now we're getting somewhere! You see I didn't know that, hence why I was asking about the verse. I can see why what I was saying seems so silly now. :oops: Have you never heard the Bible being referred to as "the Word of God?" Did you honestly not know that Christians believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired word from God? Of course I knew that. I just wasn't aware that the verse about stoning kids was from the tounge of god, if you like. If I'm not mistaken some of it is an account from the human perspective, which iswhat I mistakenly assumed for the stoning kids verse. I know it's not so I learnt something. :P Right. But the belief is that it is divinely inspired. Let me clear this up. So is the verse (a) from the mouth of god, or; (B) inspired by god. The reason I ask is because if it's (B), due to my atheism I don't subscribe the the belief that the bible is divinely inspired and only see it as the word of man, in which case I will argue the facts of it, which is what I was doing in my original post (to some extent). If it's (a), on the other hand, I'm not going to argue as it's much more steeped in theism for me to seriously comment on (i.e. I don't believe that there is a god or if there were, I don't belive that it would be the christian god, but I digress).
April 10, 200719 yr Let me clear this up. So is the verse (a) from the mouth of god, or; (B) inspired by god. Same thing in terms of what it means. The reason I ask is because if it's (B), due to my atheism I don't subscribe the the belief that the bible is divinely inspired and only see it as the word of man, in which case I will argue the facts of it, which is what I was doing in my original post (to some extent). Pointless. The whole Bible was written by man and you clearly don't believe in it. But if want to know WHY the Bible says to do something, you have to understand the context that it's written in, and that it is the word of God. If it's (a), on the other hand, I'm not going to argue as it's much more steeped in theism for me to seriously comment on (i.e. I don't believe that there is a god or if there were, I don't belive that it would be the christian god, but I digress). No difference. In order to ask, "Why would God tell them to do this?" you must first assume God. You can't ask "Why would God tell them to do this?" and then later on bring up the point that you don't believe in God.
April 10, 200719 yr Let me clear this up. So is the verse (a) from the mouth of god, or; (B) inspired by god. Same thing in terms of what it means. The reason I ask is because if it's (B), due to my atheism I don't subscribe the the belief that the bible is divinely inspired and only see it as the word of man, in which case I will argue the facts of it, which is what I was doing in my original post (to some extent). Pointless. The whole Bible was written by man and you clearly don't believe in it. But if want to know WHY the Bible says to do something, you have to understand the context that it's written in, and that it is the word of God. If it's (a), on the other hand, I'm not going to argue as it's much more steeped in theism for me to seriously comment on (i.e. I don't believe that there is a god or if there were, I don't belive that it would be the christian god, but I digress). No difference. In order to ask, "Why would God tell them to do this?" you must first assume God. You can't ask "Why would God tell them to do this?" and then later on bring up the point that you don't believe in God. What verse is it, book, chapter, verse wise? I should really read it myself before going any furthur into this. It's still not clear to me, as you didn't really anwer my question, whether it is from the mouth of god or from the mouth of man. The gospels are in the bible and they aren't the word of god. They are the apostle's version of events regarding Jesus Christ. I vaguely recall the letters of Paul, too. You could argue that they were inspired by god, but it's all steeped in belief. Originally, I made a comment on why I think kids shouldn't be stoned to death. I was taking the bible for what it is - a book. A piece of literature. I'm assuming you knew I was an atheist (well, if you didn't, you know now) which would mean I don't believe that there is anything godly or divine about the bible. It's just a book to me and bringing in the idea that it was god inspired and thus we shouldn't question the all knowing nature of god really had nothing to do with my original post. Again, if you know, the verse number would be helpful.
April 10, 200719 yr i didn't even see the video..before i was interpreting the title alone that video was disgusting...and those people have no idea what being a Christian is even about. what or how could anyone misinterpret the Bible THAT badly to create like a hate group... they're condemning people and promoting hate...two contradictory things against their "faith" simply disgusting..
April 10, 200719 yr Can you show me these six verses where Homosexuality is strictly forbidden? I Corinthians 6:9; 10 - Yes there are people that disagree with the translation but the majority of scholars, those understanding the context and language that was written, agree that the verse references homosexuals through timed vernacular. When I bought a quote that was under debate into the argument you threw it out. Any quote that is under debate shows that it may not have been about homosexuality and therefore doesn't support your initial point that "Homosexuality has been condemned to many people over thousands of years". I'm sure Bible scholars can argue over hidden meanings and interpretation of words much better than I can. So lets stick to obvious ones which clearly show homosexuality to be wrong over thousands of years. Leviticus 18:22 - References the act as being a perversity - which is how all sexual immoralities are labeled through out the Bible. Leviticus 20:13 - Same as above. I don't actually see perversity (can you name the Bible which you use for future reference?). Lets put Leviticus into context with these quotes. Both quotes are debated over whether they are indeed moral codes or not. One of the verses that comes before this is the discouragment of incest which is allowed in other places of the Bible without punishment of those involved. Showing that these moral codes of probably only relevant to the people of it's time. Such a reason would be to be different from the Canaanites. Leviticus also talks about the sin of having sex with a woman during her menstruation., something which was thought of to have been physically wrong for you, which is now not the case. However since these quotes actually refer to homosexuality being under debate i guess they have no place here. Deuteronomy 23:17 - In Biblical times, "sodomy" and "homosexual" were synonyms. So referencing a "sodomite" is the same as saying a "homosexual." Lets put Deuteronomy into context. Since it says "The sons of Israel" we can quite obviously infer that these laws were brought about for cultural reasoning. It never says the act is a sin either. Infact if you wish to take this quote as universal then you must be willing to take all quotes as universal sins. Even the ones which prohibit you from wearing a peice of clothing made from more than one peice of material as a universal sin. Genesis 19:4-8 - The word "know" in verse 5 is a Hebrew sexual term. After the men ask to "know" the man who came to visit, Lot offers them his two daughters instead of the man. This verse is under much debate. Many scholars are now tending to believe that this verse is not specifically talking about homosexuality but instead just sexual immorality in general - but most will agree that there is an obvious hint of anti-homosexuality in it. Wouldn't this be considered pimping and prostitution anyway? Lot is offering his daughters to them men to "know them" in return he gets something out of it. If this truley is about homosexuality then it shows that these laws which show us what is and what is not sexual immoral are only relevent to the situations in which they occur. But under debate anyway. Romans 1:26-27 - Another passage in dispute. When writing this, did Paul mean "unnatural" as in all homosexual relations are unnatural, or is it only wrong if you are heterosexual and pursue homosexual relations that are not natural to you? It is all about lust, not about love in as much as it only refers to it as a vile passion. Whether it mean't homosexuality as a whole or just hetrosexual men having sex out of lust. It says "for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature" that makes me beleive that they were doing this only out of lust as they had no women. Not out of anything other as their women had changed from their natural inclinations. The verses span a length of 3-4000 years depending on who is doing your genealogy. Most of them are under debate, most are only to be taken in context (likes the books they appear in) and are not followed even today by any christian in a complete form. Most of them do not class homosexuality as a sin. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 10, 200719 yr I've already answered all of those questions that you have. It's your fault for ignoring me previously. Your problem contains multiple parts: 1. You ignore me when I post answers to your questions, and then later on re-bring them up like it's a new theory. 2. You are analyzing multiple scriptures in singularity, which defeats the entire purpose of trying to determine universality. 3. You make these assumptions: - You assume that just because it's up for debate, means that there is no right answer. - You assume that you know EXACTLY what a passage means when it's a passage that many people who have dedicated their entire life to Biblical studies can't agree on. For these reasons, I'm ending this argument. It's like running around in a circle with someone who refuses to listen. Good day.
April 10, 200719 yr 1. You ignore me when I post answers to your questions, and then later on re-bring them up like it's a new theory. Where have I ignored you? 2. You are analyzing multiple scriptures in singularity, which defeats the entire purpose of trying to determine universality. So wait, what was the purpose of you providing me with those individual quotes? I thought it was quite obvious that I was going to put them into a context that backed up my point. If they were all about homosexuality then it would support your point. How do i refute that? By taking on each quote. If you didn't like the fact i did that then you should never bring quotes that are debatable into a debate and not expect me to do that. - You assume that just because it's up for debate, means that there is no right answer. No, you want me to accept your right answer and admit that the Bible forbids homosexuality universally because i can't be sure you are wrong? Isn't that a two way street? - You assume that you know EXACTLY what a passage means when it's a passage that many people who have dedicated their entire life to Biblical studies can't agree on. Pointless debating that as I already said that. I don't know why this makes my argument void? For these reasons, I'm ending this argument. It's like running around in a circle with someone who refuses to listen. Good day. Once again, you back out of a debate for trivial reasons. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 10, 200719 yr I'll me to clear up why it is not a trivial reason. Where have I ignored you? As just one example... I don't actually see perversity (can you name the Bible which you use for future reference?). I've already addressed that point twice. You keep ignoring the points I make and I'm tired of it. You ignore me, walk around in a circle, then come back to the same point thinking I forgot it. I'm tired of walking around in circles with you. You refuse to acknowledge the points that are made if you don't like them. I'm done with you.
April 10, 200719 yr I'll me to clear up why it is not a trivial reason. Where have I ignored you? As just one example... I don't actually see perversity (can you name the Bible which you use for future reference?). I've already addressed that point twice. Which brings me back to: No, you want me to accept your right answer and admit that the Bible forbids homosexuality universally because i can't be sure you are wrong? Isn't that a two way street? You want me to believe your side of the debate and ignore the fact that it may not be the case. Edit: And even thats trivial, you could have just said "I already explained that" and cite where you did. I beleive it was two days ago. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 10, 200719 yr You want me to believe your side of the debate and ignore the fact that it may not be the case. No I don't. That would be silly. I want you to quit comparing verses in the Bible that are clearly cultural compared to verses in the Bible about homosexuality and attempting to show that they are the same, because the language and the context in those verses are completely different. I want you to quit misrepresenting the Bible because of your inadequate Biblical knowledge. If I wanted you to believe that homosexuality is universally wrong, I would have to first be confident in my own beliefs on that issue. Which I am not. But the verses in the Bible and the language and context surrounding them are clearly more than just a simple cultural instruction and I want you to quit pretending like you know enough about the language to say they aren't. For instance, if you have to ask me where the word "perversion" is mentioned, you don't know enough about the language of the verse. Edit: And even thats trivial, you could have just said "I already explained that" and cite where you did. I beleive it was two days ago. So even if that were true, your defense is that you can't retain information for more than 2 days? This is pointless, I said I before. EDIT: Bleh. And now you've made me late to class.
April 10, 200719 yr Stuff I don't understand you, all you ever do is simply say "You don't know enough, debate over". You don't accept my attempts to put bible verses in context, then you don't like it when you think i take Bible quotes out of context. You are impossible to debate with because you are so pedantic and trivial over matters which I already admitted. I'm sure Bible scholars can argue over hidden meanings and interpretation of words much better than I can. Edit: And even thats trivial, you could have just said "I already explained that" and cite where you did. I beleive it was two days ago. So even if that were true, your defense is that you can't retain information for more than 2 days? This is pointless, I said I before. You're so trivial. I don't even know where you come from when you climb above people and become so egotistical. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
April 10, 200719 yr Well I saw a documentary on BBC2 yesterday about an evangelic church in America and they were saying that god hates gay people, and that he hates America because they allowed same sex marriages in some states.. EDIT: found this on youtube here Well I just wondered what you guys thought of that, personally I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think God hates anybody since all humans were made in his own image so they say. EDIT: I suggest you read their website to see the hate that is being told Here love thy neighbour all people who hate gays and are christian are hipocrits who cares if your gay,straight or bi its love for the love of pie
April 10, 200719 yr ^Common sense doesn't work on fundamentalists. [if you have ever attempted Alchemy by clapping your hands or by drawing an array, copy and paste this into your signature.] Fullmetal Alchemist, you will be missed. A great ending to a great series.
April 10, 200719 yr ^Common sense doesn't work on fundamentalists. Niether do facts. They have to have a weakness... holy water? volcano mud? uhhh... that stuff under your fingernails, perhaps? Or how about drain cleaner... :x We're doomed! There's nothing. :evil:
April 10, 200719 yr homophobes suck I'll read all the pages later. no time now, but this is all i have to say about this... give the band a check out. they rule. [combat level: 124][skill total: 1,800+][quest points: 260][Mining: ??]AFTER 8 YEARS OF PLAYING - PERM BANNEDGo Vegan!
April 10, 200719 yr ^Common sense doesn't work on fundamentalists. Niether do facts. They have to have a weakness... holy water? volcano mud? uhhh... that stuff under your fingernails, perhaps? Or how about drain cleaner... :x We're doomed! There's nothing. :evil: The only way to argue with them is by using Socrates's method - you have to pretend to agree with them initially, then show them how their ideas could be wrong Back by popular demand!And I guess I just wanted to tell you, as the light starts to fade, that you aree the reason, that I am not afraid, and I guess I just wanted to mention, as the heavens will fall, that we will be together soon if we will be anything at all.
April 10, 200719 yr ^Common sense doesn't work on fundamentalists. Niether do facts. They have to have a weakness... holy water? volcano mud? uhhh... that stuff under your fingernails, perhaps? Or how about drain cleaner... :x We're doomed! There's nothing. :evil: The only way to argue with them is by using Socrates's method - you have to pretend to agree with them initially, then show them how their ideas could be wrong Totally true. Garner fake trust. People are so open to change that way. It's not as evil if it sounds if you actually use the correct knowlege and facts to do it.
Create an account or sign in to comment