DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Lois,If homosexuality lost all of it's NT references (relied only on OT), do you think you'd believe in its condemnation as strongly as you do with it in there?Just wondering. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 many of which I love to do, many things that I am not allowed to do that are second nature, I have to deny myself. Homosexuality is no different. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Lois,If homosexuality lost all of it's NT references (relied only on OT), do you think you'd believe in its condemnation as strongly as you do with it in there?Just wondering. I don't really know. Can't really quantify that,because in my mind it's sort of moot. You might as well say if the New Testament didn't corroborate the death,burial and ressurection of christ... see what I am saying? Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Then it's a good thing I stayed out of the argument, isn't it? Your a semi-rational thoughtful guy- I would have loved your take on it. I know you were raised catholic, and if I remember(I think) you stating that you had found a church where you could be who you are and nobody blinked. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 That's a long list,too. Trust me. Link to post Share on other sites
Loismustdie 0 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 When you say 'condemns homosexuality', what do you mean? I mean, like nay other sin, partake of it and you go to hell. Partake and repent, never to partake again, you got a shot. It's pretty cut and dry when it comes to sin/repentance. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Your a semi-rational thoughtful guy- I would have loved your take on it. I know you were raised catholic, and if I remember(I think) you stating that you had found a church where you could be who you are and nobody blinked.Yeah. The United Church of Christ and The Unitarian Church are both welcoming of homosexuals. Obviously this makes them more liberal churches.My take is that homosexuality isn't a sin. But, I believe that the Bible has been (mis)translated so many times and there have been so many scandals in so many churches that we can't take the book word for word anymore. It's an inspirational book for sure and I agree with the overall messages, but I don't believe we can condemn anybody solely based upon the words in the Bible. There are an incredible number of Catholic priests that believe homosexuality (the person and the acts) is not a sin, but they're not allowed to speak against the Vatican.I think that the movement we're seeing towards accepting (or, at the very least, tolerating) homosexuality is the correct movement and that this world is a better place because of it. I know that african-americans hate having their civil rights movement compared to the gay rights movement, but there are so many parrellels that it would be irresponsible not to. I believe in 50 years, most of us will look back on these times and wonder, "What the hell were we thinking?"And I'm completely rational. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 but I don't believe we can condemn anybody solely based upon the words in the Bibleso you think rejecting jesus doesn't necessarily condemn anyone? how do you think john 14:6 has been mistranslated? Link to post Share on other sites
Livaso 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Male dolphins routinely gang-rape female dolphins. Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 My take is that homosexuality isn't a sin. But, I believe that the Bible has been (mis)translated so many times and there have been so many scandals in so many churches that we can't take the book word for word anymore. It's an inspirational book for sure and I agree with the overall messages, but I don't believe we can condemn anybody solely based upon the words in the Bible.Just because you think there's definitely human influence on the Bible, doesn't mean that A. the consistent points are not accurate and B. because they're not accurate, the reverse must be true. As accepting, forgiving and loving as I try to be, and as bible-banging as I am not, there's really no way you can rationally say that the Bible does not speak against homosexual acts.I know that african-americans hate having their civil rights movement compared to the gay rights movement, but there are so many parrellels that it would be irresponsible not to. I believe in 50 years, most of us will look back on these times and wonder, "What the hell were we thinking?"I agree with you on the "what we were thinking" part, but the paralells are not to the same degree. Not being able to get a marriage license over a partner issue is not the same as segregated schools and water fountains. Link to post Share on other sites
Livaso 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I know that african-americans hate having their civil rights movement compared to the gay rights movement, but there are so many parrellels that it would be irresponsible not to. I believe in 50 years, most of us will look back on these times and wonder, "What the hell were we thinking?"I find it irresponsible to compare the freedom to exist to the freedom to file joint income tax and religious symbolic gestures. Its a lot like people that compare everything to Hitler. It cheapens the act.World Poker Tour release forms are a lot like cotton farm slavery....... Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 so you think rejecting jesus doesn't necessarily condemn anyone? how do you think john 14:6 has been mistranslated?This is why I didn't get into the topic. I'm not here for a scholarly argument. I have my beliefs and I have reasons behind my beliefs, but I really have no intention of arguing them to everyone else. I'm not an evangelist Christian. I'm not going to push my beliefs on others. When I'm asked, I'll tell you, but I certainly have no intention of trying to convince others. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 This is why I didn't get into the topic. I'm not here for a scholarly argument. I have my beliefs and I have reasons behind my beliefs, but I really have no intention of arguing them to everyone else. I'm not an evangelist Christian. I'm not going to push my beliefs on others. When I'm asked, I'll tell you, but I certainly have no intention of trying to convince others.that's fine for you personally if it makes you happy, but that's still the type of anti-intellectual position that can only hurt humanity in the long run. the words of the bible are either true or they're not. there are no "scholarly arguments" that allow you to randomly mix those two possibilities to meet your own personally-derived standards of common sense that have nothing to do with the bible in the first place. if you don't believe the bible condemns anyone there is no reason to believe any of it. Link to post Share on other sites
Livaso 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 that's fine, but the words of the bible are either true or they're not. there are no "scholarly arguments" that allow you to randomly mix those two possibilities to meet your own personally-derived standards of common sense that have nothing to do with the bible in the first place. if you don't believe the bible condemns anyone there is no reason to believe any of it.The Bible was written by hundreds of people over the course of thousands of years. There are thousands of new testament gospels alone. The Dead Sea Scrolls show similarities and differences from the Books of Moses and The Nag Hammadi gospels show similarities and differences from the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. All four of which were picked over hundreds of others at the First Council of Nicaea. Matthew 47:48, past down over 2000 years. Scribed and re-scribed and the first book of the New Testament: Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away.The Gospel of Thomas. Roughly 1900 years old, never seen by the eyes of man for almost a millenium. Recovered in 1945 and read the same way as it was written: And Jesus said, "The person is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of little fish. Among them the wise fisherman discovered a fine large fish. He threw all the little fish back into the sea, and easily chose the large fish. Anyone here with two good ears had better listen!" Whichever wording you prefer, a parable of a fisherman and its unique interpretation in the eyes of the reader is a saying of Christ. The interpretation of the individuals who passed it down is inextricably mended in the words used and the "further explanation" that all the new testament gospels contain. There are hundreds of similarities and hundreds of differences between every New Testament gospel. The similarities are dependent of one another as they were untampered and the differences are independent because the one's that were. Contrary to what you say, there are "Scholarly arguments" that allow you to mix those two however you please. Those arguments are called "the events verified by a multiple source."There was most certainly a war between Israel and the Phoenicians. How much of the Book of Samuel is philosophical padded allegory is up to the reader to decide since the accounts of the war are historical and the Dead Sea Scrolls shows similarities. Whether or not an event is true just because both say it doesn't matter. The point is its an intended part of the Torah. Just as the fisherman parable is an intended part of Christ's teachings. Only in Luke does it mention that Christ was a carpenter and not in as many words. If this same thing isn't mentioned in another book of the bible or a recovered middle-eastern manuscript it can be accepted or denied as much as the reader decides considering religion is a personal experience in the first place.To say the words of the Bible are "either true or they're not" is intellectually dishonest and shows a great deal of ignorance towards the book. Link to post Share on other sites
jmkiser 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Custom36,So what in the world do you believe? For a Christian to relate their beliefs to something, all they have is the Bible. What else can they go off of? And if you think the Bible has been wrongly translated (which I wouldn't disagree with you) or that it's archaic and not worthy of being taken literally, then you don't really seem to be a blindfolded Christian.I'm agnostic bordering atheism (only reason I'm not atheist is because I can't prove God doesn't exist... God existing just makes no sense at all), but I live in Indiana, on the Bible Belt, where a Christian is defined. It's right wing, it's conservative, it's strict in literal translations, and in the richer parts of town... they add a few feel good sermons here and there to seem light-hearted. But when did this new religion that everyone is calling Christianity come about? Did some weird form of the religion turn into a popular fad that I am unaware of? There seems to be an uprising of Americans that think gay people are ok, that the earth might possibly be older then 6500 years, that George Bush is a nutjob, etc... and they call themselves Christians? ;-) (sw)Honestly, though, I think it's time for society to come up with some new religion that actually fits into what they might believe. Call yourselves... Neophytes... or something... and Christians, please tell the Mormons to stop knocking on my ****ing door. Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 if you don't believe the bible condemns anyone there is no reason to believe any of it.I never said it doesn't condemn anyone. I'm sure, when it was first written, it did. Problem is...who? How many people are being condemmed now that weren't when it was written? How many aren't being condemmed that used to be? How do we know? Link to post Share on other sites
Livaso 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Custom36,So what in the world do you believe? For a Christian to relate their beliefs to something, all they have is the Bible. What else can they go off of? And if you think the Bible has been wrongly translated (which I wouldn't disagree with you) or that it's archaic and not worthy of being taken literally, then you don't really seem to be a blindfolded Christian.I'm agnostic bordering atheism (only reason I'm not atheist is because I can't prove God doesn't exist... God existing just makes no sense at all), but I live in Indiana, on the Bible Belt, where a Christian is defined. It's right wing, it's conservative, it's strict in literal translations, and in the richer parts of town...First of all, don't blame George Washington for the war in Iraq.Secondly, Its the Jehovah's witnesses Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Honestly, though, I think it's time for society to come up with some new religion that actually fits into what they might believe. Call yourselves... Neophytes... or something...Check out eastern religions and philosophies. You may find something you believe in there. Link to post Share on other sites
jmkiser 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Oh no no noI already know that I don't believe in mythsYou say you don't agree with the Bible and you're a Christian or am I just not understanding you right? Link to post Share on other sites
custom36 4 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Custom36,So what in the world do you believe? For a Christian to relate their beliefs to something, all they have is the Bible. What else can they go off of? And if you think the Bible has been wrongly translated (which I wouldn't disagree with you) or that it's archaic and not worthy of being taken literally, then you don't really seem to be a blindfolded Christian.I know this is pretty heavy in sarcasm, but Christians have much more than the Bible. We have faith and shared beliefs too. Not all of us are Bible-thumping evangelists. Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 To say the words of the Bible are "either true or they're not" is intellectually dishonest and shows a great deal of ignorance towards the book.to believe the words of the bible can be determined to be true or not based on any type of historical correlation of texts is intellectually dishonest and shows a great deal of ignorance for reality. Link to post Share on other sites
jmkiser 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 First of all, don't blame George Washington for the war in Iraq.Secondly, Its the Jehovah's witnesses George Washington? What? I was blaming someone for the war in Iraq? I'm so confused!and second, yeah yeah... the Mormons do it here, too, though. Or are they the same ? Ah, I don't know Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I never said it doesn't condemn anyone. I'm sure, when it was first written, it did. Problem is...who? How many people are being condemmed now that weren't when it was written? How many aren't being condemmed that used to be? How do we know?how do you know any of it is true (other than some trivial accuracy in people/places)? Link to post Share on other sites
jmkiser 0 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I know this is pretty heavy in sarcasm, but Christians have much more than the Bible. We have faith and shared beliefs too. Not all of us are Bible-thumping evangelists. Wait... Faith in what? If you don't believe in the Bible... then how are you a Christian? :-P Sorry, I seem to be having a confusing morning Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I know this is pretty heavy in sarcasm, but Christians have much more than the Bible. We have faith and shared beliefs too. Not all of us are Bible-thumping evangelists. what is the possible origin of faith and shared beliefs for christians if not the bible? there is nothing else (unless you want to create a new religion that isn't really christianity). Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now