Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sighh.. I just spent a long time typing a reponse to frigs when it got lost in the warp.

Bottom line, Old testament (which those quotes you typed were from) was a precursor covenent to be followed by the Hebrews. Jesus fulfilled the law by being the ultimate sacrifice creating a New covenent, thus the Law is no longer needed. I'm not being selective since the New testement writers such as Paul repeated the condemnations of certain sins such as homosexuality. So the Bible makes it plain that some things such as stoning people for adultery is gone as prescribed by the law. Homosexuality is still sin, but you don't stone people for it any more than you would stone an adulterer anymore.

I'm tired, gnight.

GG

actually.... if you are a true follower of "jesus" then you should know that no where in the NT did "jesus" ever condemn homosexuality.

sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...

all know a racist grampa somewhere.

Yes I just related the gospel writers to racist grampas. (but merely to shed light on why they would do what jesus didn't. )

I guess in the end it ties into the original topic. intolerance leading to the breeding of more intolerance

I can't find any gay apostle jokes :(

JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually it does. If you will look up 1 Corinthians 6:9 (the irony of this verse number is not lost on me) St. Paul clearly states that, among many other things, homosexuality is a sin, and those offenders will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Which translation? 1 Corinthians 6:9 is probably the most ambiguous of the clobber passages because there is no direct translation for the word utilized in the original Greek.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
Now, I really hate it when people focus on just one aspect of Biblical morality: ie abortion, homosexuality, abstinence, etc. There is a spectrum of items that Christians are commanded not to do, but I do not see anywhere how this applies to non-believers. Scripture is very clear in that it commands us to not judge those outside the Faith, because God has already done so.

It gets complicated when you start to introduce ownership with regard to social institutions, or really any political matter at all.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
This is also another reason that I left the Evangelical/Fundamentalist movement. They were too focused on single issues and they interpreted the Scripture literally. Using Church tradition is essential to helping to provide context and scope to the meaning of the Bible.

Yes, it is. However, the judicious use of context doesn't make for easily remembered rhetoric. That's why nearly all of histories truly earth-shattering movements have been fundamentalist in some sense.

Its the difference between saying: "The Bible is the word of God, read this book and you will be saved." and "The Bible is the word of God, read this book and you will be saved. Oh, you'll also need these 32 other books chronicling Church history to understand it."

JEB_Stuart wrote:
As a reference to the pork thing, God specifically told St. Paul that it was ok to eat "unclean" meets since the Law was no longer the harsh task master it once was. And yes I do know Christians who live together out of wedlock, that doesn't make it ok. All sins will be judged in the end, and to me I tolerate hypocrisy as little as possible. I am a forgiving person, but if one will not try to amend their ways, I will not hesitate to confront them with their own sin.

I simply find it easier to assume that the doctrine of progressive revelation didn't stop with the end of the New Testament.

frgsinwntr wrote:
sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...

And now you've hit on one of key components of the Christian theological debate: the veracity of divine inspiration.

frgsinwntr wrote:actually.... if you are a true follower of "jesus" then you should know that no where in the NT did "jesus" ever condemn homosexuality.

What about the Christian that was just saved 2 seconds ago, and hasn't read the Gospels yet? are they a "true" follower of Jesus?
What about the Christian who is illiterate and can't yet read, thereby not having a chance to read the Gospels, are they a "true" follower of Jesus?
What about the millions of Christians who just plain haven't studied the issue, are they "true" followers of Jesus?
What about the homosexual apologists that may think they know this, are they "true" followers of Jesus?

See.. sweeping generalizations don't work. I hope you see where I'm going with this.

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (MAT 19:4,5-KJV)

Jesus said that God made them male and female (not male and male) a man shall cleave to his WIFE, (not his boyfriend).

So you are correct in that the Gospels don't show Jesus outright condemning homosexuality, however the above passages do show his confirmation of God's intended plan of marriage. Also don't forget that the Gospels don't show every last word that Jesus ever said, so it's a fallacy to imply that "just because Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality in the Gospels, this means Jesus is OK with it".

frgsinwntr wrote:

sure the apostles may have, but they must surely, as not "divine" be subject to the frailness of the human mind. They unfortunately were raised to hate... and so still hated what they were told to hate as they grew up. Just like racism in the Southern US...

all know a racist grampa somewhere.

Yes I just related the gospel writers to racist grampas. (but merely to shed light on why they would do what jesus didn't. )

I guess in the end it ties into the original topic. intolerance leading to the breeding of more intolerance

Of course that type of thinking is coming from a narrow minded view that totally washes away the doctrine of Divine inspiration. In other words Christians believe that the books of the Bible are Divinely inspired, so Paul and others were inspired by God to write what they did. In fact Jesus said this very thing

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (JN 16:13-15-KJV)

Jesus states that God will show truth unto his followers. Paul was a follower, and therefore a truth bearer.

If you really believe that Paul and the apostles were racist, then you are really saying that God is racist.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
Jesus said that God made them male and female (not male and male) a man shall cleave to his WIFE, (not his boyfriend).

So you are correct in that the Gospels don't show Jesus outright condemning homosexuality, however the above passages do show his confirmation of God's intended plan of marriage. Also don't forget that the Gospels don't show every last word that Jesus ever said, so it's a fallacy to imply that "just because Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexuality in the Gospels, this means Jesus is OK with it".

I believe if you are saying Jesus was against homosexuals, it is your job to prove he did this. Jesus makes no mention of marriage in that statement. All he does is refer to the genesis story. A story that has been disproved for a VERY long time (we will get to that on another debate tho!)

generalgrog wrote:
Of course that type of thinking is coming from a narrow minded view that totally washes away the doctrine of Divine inspiration. In other words Christians believe that the books of the Bible are Divinely inspired, so Paul and others were inspired by God to write what they did. In fact Jesus said this very thing

di·vine (d-vn)
adj. di·vin·er, di·vin·est
1. a. Having the nature of or being a deity. b. Of, relating to, emanating from, or being the expression of a deity: sought divine guidance through meditation. c. Being in the service or worship of a deity; sacred.
2. Superhuman; godlike.
3. a. Supremely good or beautiful; magnificent: a divine performance of the concerto. b. Extremely pleasant; delightful: had a divine time at the ball.
4. Heavenly; perfect.

The definition of this term "devinely inspired" comes from. The Second Epistle of Peter claims that "no prophecy of Scripture ... was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20–21).

If you assume that these books are divinely inspired then there should be no mistakes. If we assume Jesus is divine he should make no mistakes.

Yet... he does and there are many mistakes in the bibles.

in Prov. 15:10 NIV [New International Versison] ("he who hates correction will die") and Prov. 12:1 NASB ("he who hates reproof is stupid") because I seek to "Prove all things" (1 Ths 5:21).

1) First off! Except for those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing outside the bible in all of ancient history that clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

2) Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried 3 days and 3 nights as Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is only 1 1/2 days.

3) Another prophecy by Jesus in John 13:38 ("The cock shall not crow, TILL THOU (Peter) HAST DENIED ME 3 TIMES") is false because Mark 14:66-68 shows the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.

4) In 1 Cor. 1:17 ("For christ sent me (Paul--Ed.) NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel") Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them..." So how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?

5) How could Jesus, whom the NT repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our saviour when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, nor in THE SON OF MAN in whom there is no help") and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm? and THE SON OF MAN, which is a worm")?

6) Jesus told us to "honor thy father and mother" (Matt. 15:4) but contradicted his own teaching in Luke 14:26 ("If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother...he cannot be my disciple").

7) In John 3:13 ("And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man....") Jesus erred because 2 Kings 2:11 ("...Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven") shows Elijah went earlier.

8) In Matt. 16:28 Jesus said, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Yet, they all died and he never came.

9) Even many of the staunchest defenders of Jesus admit that this comment in Matt. 10:34 ("I came not to send peace but a sword") contradicts verses such as Matt. 26:52 ("Put up again thy sword into his place: FOR ALL THAT TAKE THE SWORD SHALL PERISH WITH THE SWORD").

10) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Rom 1:3, Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet the requirement since his genealogies in Matt. 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David THROUGH JOSEPH who was not his natural father (The Virgin Birth).

11) Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whosoever will come after me let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." What cross? He hadn't died on the cross yet. There was nothing to take up. That man would have had no idea what he was talking about.

12) In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the commandments. Yet, one of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not" which isn't even an Old Testament commandment.

13) In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb 3 days?

Mind you these are just a few instances of mistakes/errors simple proof reading would catch that I had saved on my computer a long time ago from a web site. There are MANY more.

OK soo.....

GG, you mention being divinely inspired... this leaves me with

1) Either Jesus was not divine and made misstakes OR 2) jesus was divine and the writers of the books make mistakes.

I cant believe I actually managed to read that enormous amount of information...



That is my brain right now... you compilation of fact not fiction just took the shine of my boots...

What does that have to do with intolerance? Why does everything come down to a discussion of Christianity and an attack on the Bible?

This thread is closed.

Edit: after drunkenly discussing with Iorek and some of the posters here, will re-open.

Gentlemen, lets steer this clear of attacks on a particular faith or its doctrines shall we...especially as this is a thread on intolerance.

No its not

ok, GG, we were talking in PMs so lets keep it there.

It is impossible for us to continue this debate in open with out attacking documents of faith.

Your argument, IMHO is that the bible allows for intolerance.

My argument, is that the book, being 2000+ years old has been translated many times, published by numerous people, and can no longer be assumed to be infallible and thus can not be strictly adhered to but instead should be debated upon the meaning (but no real conclusion should ever be made!). So I am attacking your argument... not the book.

As this could be rough in an open forum and easily misunderstood as attacking faiths/articles of faith, lets take the debate to PM's as frazzle suggested where I welcome your intellectual challenge : )

P.S. too bad I didn't get to debate with you at the necro!

I believe that the bible is a book that should be read with a grain of salt. Some stories are true and others are false, literal and illiteral.

Other than that, its like the quran and the torah and dianetics and that one book that the mormons read and the other book hindus read and the book that buddhists read and the book that atheists read and the book that satanists read and the wiican stuff and such. I believe that I have covered all religions, remember if you bash one religion you must bash them all or else your intolerant.

you left out Zoroastrianism...

ANYWAYS.

How about in schools. How have you guys seen intolerance in a school system? (sorry... i work in a school so i am interested in this)

frgsinwntr wrote:you left out Zoroastrianism...

ANYWAYS.

How about in schools. How have you guys seen intolerance in a school system? (sorry... i work in a school so i am interested in this)

Define intolerance in this context froggy. I'm going to say froggy because I type your user name-you've seen me type!

Does that even count anymore?

I see intolerance in removing holloween, christmas trees, and ,in later institutions, affirmative action.

Personally I don't get why people don't like christmas trees(guess what people, they're just evergreens with decorations) and I also don't see why holloween offends people.

Halloween was banned in our school system because it potentially offended witches. No joke.

Every witch I talked to loves Halloween...

The answer to intolerance isn't removal, its exposure to said cultures. I wouldn't mind a menorah sitting next to a manger scene. The thinking is that if they remove all culture then they don't have to worry about hurt feelings, and so when the kids leave school and enter the real world they have, surprise surprise, no culture.

I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.

Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.

Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.

Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.

Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.

It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.

OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.

paulguise wrote:I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.

Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.

Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.

Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.

Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.

It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.

OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.

Wow Paulguise wins the thread! and with only 7 postcount.

I just wanted to say that I am not personally offended by the challenges to the Bible that some people have posted. I of course believe they are misinformed and as frgs stated we will keep our discussion to pm's as to not totally derail the thread.

I hope that anyone that has seen me post, realizes that I don't get offended that easily. In fact the only poster that has offended me that I can remember, is Gwar, and that was becuase his attacks were pure intolerant spite and had nothing to add to an open measured discussion. I don't have a problem with what frgs posted, as I take at face value that he genuinely believes what he copied and pasted.


And as paulguise so eloquently pointed out. I tolerate him. :-)

GG

paulguise wrote:I dont have time to read the 10 pages of posts, so I'll just chime in with my 2 cents.

Intolerance, or tolerance, in regards to racial/gender/religion view, is a silly thing. Tolerating something is not the same as accepting it. Those folks over there are how they are. Its as simple as that. You either accept it or you dont.

Now, if they start spouting their stuff at you (as in the case of some religious groups), and you just nod and smile until they go away, then you are tolerating them. When you start turning the hose on them, you are intolerating them.

Point being, "tolerating" someone on the basis of who they are, and not from what they do, is not really the enlightened view you thing it to be.

Example; I accept that some folks are short tempered. Thats fine. I tolerate it when they start raising their voice because, say, their dice are rolling badly for them. However, I will not suffer their attitude when they start throwing their dice around the shop in frustration. I dont dislike them for who they are, I dislike them for what they do.

It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.

OK, so that was more like $3.47. Sorry for the rant.

EPIC THREAD TKO BY FROGGY!!!

The day peace broke out in OT!





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's not forget Jainism, Shinto and Bahai.

The quality of this thread just went up 1000%. Keep posting Kil.

M.

I don't know, when it comes to kids on x-box live isn't it pretty safe to assume they're idiots and wait for evidence to the contrary? (speaking of intolerance... whoops)

Your talking about a place where trashtalking is very much part of the culture. Also you are talking about a group of people who don't really have fully matured social skill and yet you expect them to to act in a mannersimilar to that of a older adolescent. FOr younger people it is expeceted and not socially condemning because htey have the excuse of being young. For the older popuylation on xbox live it is mostly just the trashtalking and snonymity speaking. They propably jknow what they say is wrong or hihgly ignorant bythtey say it anyways to get your goat and throw oyur intoa a fit or get you off your game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It is our actions that define us, not the random collections of molecules that make up our bodies.

But our genes, made up of those little molecules may and do attribute certain character defining actions. You may have inherited the anger problems that lead to your thorwing the dice aroundthe shop. So in that case your would be tolerating or not tolerating htat persons actions based upon something they cannot contorl or that may be inherent in their makeup. Does that make them blameless? Or if that trait is inherent to an entire people does that make it racist to expect them to be an angry person?

And these may also be attributed to culturally inhereted traists as well. For instance some cultures expect the man to have the ocassional rage and loses all control damage things, throw stuff and be an all around ass for a while. Should you be called racist for calling that culture an angry culture? And then not let them borrow somehitng based on the risk that they may get into a tantrum and brake it?

If you go down that route, being intolerant and racist can easily be excused as something you have no control over as well.

Isn't that the idea of the internet though, to be intolerant douchebags and not to let people find out?

Orkeosaurus wrote:If you go down that route, being intolerant and racist can easily be excused as something you have no control over as well.

Cultural factors are not a cause of loss of control, they are an excuse for not controlling oneself, or some other form of behaviour.

I agree. (I think.)

What I mean is that in a culture which condones or encourages misogynism (for example) the men of that culture have a greater tendency to become misognistic compared to non-misogynistic cultures because any tendencies they may already have are given free reign, and if they do not have tendencies, they are encouraged to act that way by peer group pressure.

Ah, well I certainly think that's true.