Red Sea parting.

[Alg]

Interesting catch-22 then. Homosexual sex is immoral because it takes place out of marriage, but a homosexual couple can't marry because of how immoral it is.

[sk8dog]

Errr actually if you look it up from the original hebrew texts it didnt say red sea. It was Sea of Reads. It was mistranslated by the greeks and then everyone based their stuff from the greek versions.

 

So it was more likely and has been proven that they walked across a estuary that had receeded enough before being hit by tidal waves from the great volcanic eruption near greece. This also conincides with ash cloud and provides scientific evidence for all the stories told in that part of exodus.

[Saru Inc]

Eh, how much do you guys think a computer simulation actually costs? :unsure: And you read that this is all part of a greater study? "The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges."

 

You make it sound like they got a government grant for (dis)proving Biblical miracles.

 

Oh, I really just thought this article was interesting because I once had a debate a long time ago on this forum. And they had aid if there was proof that the miracles could have happened scientifically, then they'd believe. I think the user stopped coming here a while ago, but its still some nice food for thought.

 

Which leads to a question for Saru: How can you take the Bible literally, but be homosexual?

 

It isn't a case of being homosexual that is the problem. The problem instead would be if he were to actually have sex with another man.

He also understands the limits of it. I think he's said that Leviticus, which is the main book openly against homosexuality, was intended to be a set of guidelines for an ancient society wandering in the desert.

 

That is right. Leviticus outlines a very specific set of laws and it is odd that Leviticus 18:22 is still given with such authority in the Christian churches as a passage against homosexuality. That being said, in the New Testament there are few places where Jesus mentions homosexuality, but whether he explicitly does is up for consideration. Usually he will speak in general about sexual impurities and it is left ambiguous as to what he encompasses in that term. Some will say you must therefore go back to Leviticus to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sexual impurity and he means to encompass it in that term, and others that it is important simply to read what Jesus actually speaks of in the New Testament. There are other places that speak of it too, but then translations from ancient greek and hebrew become important. It doesn't really matter anyway because it is quite clear in the Bible that sex should only take place in marriage, and since that is between man and woman, if sex between male and male is not considered sin through it being homosexuality, it would nevertheless be considered sin because it is out of wedlock.

 

Edit, I was browsing the webs and found this. (off topic in a sense of the central OP, but relating to my 2nd to last post)

 

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

[Dupin]

Errr actually if you look it up from the original hebrew texts it didnt say red sea. It was Sea of Reads. It was mistranslated by the greeks and then everyone based their stuff from the greek versions.

 

So it was more likely and has been proven that they walked across a estuary that had receeded enough before being hit by tidal waves from the great volcanic eruption near greece. This also conincides with ash cloud and provides scientific evidence for all the stories told in that part of exodus.

Fakeitormakeit and I talked about this, and apparently "Red Sea" is a mistranslation of "Sea of Reeds", but the location of the actual crossing was at a smaller sea north of the current "Red Sea" which was also called "Sea of Reeds".

 

So proving that crossing the Red Sea is possible would be irrelevant because it was a different location.

 

This all really ties into the idea that if you want to take the Bible literally, you should learn to read it in its earliest versions and languages.

[Satenza]

 

Eh, how much do you guys think a computer simulation actually costs? :unsure: And you read that this is all part of a greater study? "The study is part of a larger research project by Mr Drews into the impacts of winds on water depths, including the extent to which Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges."

 

You make it sound like they got a government grant for (dis)proving Biblical miracles.

 

Oh, I really just thought this article was interesting because I once had a debate a long time ago on this forum. And they had aid if there was proof that the miracles could have happened scientifically, then they'd believe. I think the user stopped coming here a while ago, but its still some nice food for thought.

 

Which leads to a question for Saru: How can you take the Bible literally, but be homosexual?

 

It isn't a case of being homosexual that is the problem. The problem instead would be if he were to actually have sex with another man.

He also understands the limits of it. I think he's said that Leviticus, which is the main book openly against homosexuality, was intended to be a set of guidelines for an ancient society wandering in the desert.

 

That is right. Leviticus outlines a very specific set of laws and it is odd that Leviticus 18:22 is still given with such authority in the Christian churches as a passage against homosexuality. That being said, in the New Testament there are few places where Jesus mentions homosexuality, but whether he explicitly does is up for consideration. Usually he will speak in general about sexual impurities and it is left ambiguous as to what he encompasses in that term. Some will say you must therefore go back to Leviticus to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sexual impurity and he means to encompass it in that term, and others that it is important simply to read what Jesus actually speaks of in the New Testament. There are other places that speak of it too, but then translations from ancient greek and hebrew become important. It doesn't really matter anyway because it is quite clear in the Bible that sex should only take place in marriage, and since that is between man and woman, if sex between male and male is not considered sin through it being homosexuality, it would nevertheless be considered sin because it is out of wedlock.

 

Edit, I was browsing the webs and found this. (off topic in a sense of the central OP, but relating to my 2nd to last post)

 

http://www.gaychristian101.com/Homosexual-Eunuchs.html

 

 

I read it! In fact I read Matthew 19:11-12 in four different translations. I can't see how it illustrates the authors point.

 

It is also a strange article in all honesty. The Eunuch tradition and the role they played in society has continued in some places up until the late 19th century, so I struggle to understand how Eunuch could have been synonymous with homosexual.

[Saru Inc]

Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.

[Satenza]

Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.

 

But just on the point of Matthew 19:11-12, the author of the article writes "It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles." I don't read Matthew 19:11-12 as saying anything about Eunuchs having a loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.

[Pirate_Felix]

coolio but one thing

 

pics or it didnt happen.

[Saru Inc]

Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.

 

But just on the point of Matthew 19:11-12, the author of the article writes "It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles." I don't read Matthew 19:11-12 as saying anything about Eunuchs having a loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.

 

Well that's because you have to study the entire Bible to get the context right. I mean there are verses in the Bible in Proverbs stating "Food is better stolen. Steal your money and let loose your sexual inhibitions, these are indeed great things" (Or something along the lines of that, forgot the exact verse.) But when taken in context with the entire chapter it's frowning upon all of those things. This is also why I have a problem with Churches, Pastors in general tend to do that as well. Not take context in mind, or use all the wrong context.

 

coolio but one thing

 

pics or it didnt happen.

 

 

If the pics do not exist, I must acquit? Bah.

[Giordano]

Nothing personal to ALG (ilu bro yeshomo) but Pasta, you're taking an Agnostic's word on how the Bible happened, shouldn't you be taking the Christian point of view if any? (And what I mean by that is if an Atheist says something happened in the BIble, and the Christian disagrees, go with the Christian. Even if they are a "foool" they've studied that book long enough as it is.)

 

I'm taking a realistic word on what happened. It seems almost next to impossible for the waters of the Red Sea to be split in half giving access to the sea floor so they could cross, not to mention it happened at the very exact time they arrived. Plus all the killing of the first born child, Jesus' body disappearing, and God being perfect yet makes mistakes when creating [developmentally delayed]ed babies. You, in my eyes, have a strong lack of intelligence when you believed that [cabbage] be true because your parents, some guy in church, and popular opinion told you it was. Being inspired or motivated by it like any other tale is perfectly fine, but you just cannot believe that actually happened.

 

Can someone give me a bunch of money to find out if the massive battle in Lord of the Rings happened in real life?

This is exactly what I mean. Take the Bible as a story of morals and to give you inspiration but not as a god damn history book.

[Saru Inc]

And that's the clincher. That's actually not true at all as to why I believe as I do. In fact, you could not go farther from the truth. And the mere fact that you would state something like that clearly lets me know, that in all honesty, you're just saying stuff to say it.

[Giordano]

Ok, slide away and save yourself by claiming that's not how you think, but it still applies to every religion and every fool that literally believes it.

[Satenza]

Because "many eunuchs tended to be homosexual." As well as the fact that since a marriage isn't a marriage until consummated, so since eunuchs and homosexuals could consummate in the same way a heterosexual couple could, they are not bound by the same point.

 

But just on the point of Matthew 19:11-12, the author of the article writes "It seems clear in Matthew 19:11-12, that Jesus did not expect homosexual eunuchs, born eunuchs, gay people, to abstain from loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles." I don't read Matthew 19:11-12 as saying anything about Eunuchs having a loving, committed, same sex, marriage relationships which observe Biblical moral principles.

 

Well that's because you have to study the entire Bible to get the context right. I mean there are verses in the Bible in Proverbs stating "Food is better stolen. Steal your money and let loose your sexual inhibitions, these are indeed great things" (Or something along the lines of that, forgot the exact verse.) But when taken in context with the entire chapter it's frowning upon all of those things. This is also why I have a problem with Churches, Pastors in general tend to do that as well. Not take context in mind, or use all the wrong context.

 

I agree, perhaps the man who wrote that commentary should be reminded of this. Especially since Jesus is saying the exact opposite of all that he has written regarding that verse.

[magekillr]

It was a bad paper, and I gave the reasons why it was so awful: it was poorly justified, it was not addressing an even remotely significant question, and the logic of the work and the conclusions was lacking. Connolley also doesn't seem to understand why it is objectionable and serves an ideological purpose for the creationists. Yes, as I pointed out, finding natural causes makes miracles irrelevant, but that logic doesn't matter. The point of this paper was very simple: to allow creationists to make the claim that science supports the truth of the Bible.

 

Right there, that defeats his claim that this work was "harmless". I'd also add that this paper was remarkably widely publicized by the media everywhere, far more so than your typical obscure bit of part-time climate modeling work. Somebody should be countering this sloppy and contrived nonsense, and if we're going to insist that cranky scientists give it a pass, who will? A credulous media? How bad does sloppy science need to be before it's legitimate to criticize it? Or is it the case where once purported science becomes so absurd that we're supposed to patronizingly overlook the pathetic clown who did it?

 

I guess that means I should just look away and not criticize this other paper that just turned up. It's by Stuart Pivar, proponent of imaginary embryology, world's greatest expert in the development and evolution of balloon animals, author of a failed lawsuit for $15 million against me, and persistent crank. He has managed to get himself published in a peer-reviewed journal.

 

But gosh, it's harmless. It's just another kook getting published in a science journal. Let's all wink and look away and pretend it isn't happening we wouldn't want to seem strident, after all. Closing our eyes to it all is the best response to bad science, I understand now.

PZ Myers