This thing has gone all over the net, because, you know, that's just comedy gold. But the funny thing about it to me is that everywhere this was posted everyone assumed the guy in question is an Evangelical Christian. It doesn't say that anywhere in the video, people just assumed it because he's anti-gay.
It turns out it is fairly sensible to assume an anti-gay bigot is a christian. That gets me to wonder if there should be any concern among Evangelicals, or Christianity as a whole, that people are basically assuming anti-gay = christian. That we shall know them by their box of flaming cheerios.
Because the Christians are just straight up on the losing side of this, in part because they've been forced to retreat by a box of cereal, in part because there are no anti-gay arguments of any substance outside of 'don't like them', and mostly because the numbers are steadily moving against them and that trend is accellerating.
When all this finally shakes itself out of the system, do Christians really want to be known as the guys who tried to hold on to anti-bigotry as long as possible?
Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.
But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.
xole wrote:Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.
Sure, every religion is incredibly diverse. But as much as people can and should think 'this person is an individual therefore I won't assume elements of the stereotype apply to him', the stereotype still exists. The question is whether Christianity should be comfortable that their collective stereotype is having 'anti-gay' attached to it.
But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.
You'd think so, but I suspect people who have some kind of notion of shame don't end up that incompetent.
I like his statement where he says Cheerios is the treat of homosexuals. It put me in mind of an old style cerial commercial where, instead of kids running eagerly to the table to partake in milk sodden goodness, it's a bunch of stereotypical flamboyant gays running up in their silken pj's to the table to enjoy a homosexual treat.
xole wrote:Depends on the church. Unity, while big in Christianity, is not big in Christianity. The label Christian is about as diverse as the label Hindu.
Sure, every religion is incredibly diverse. But as much as people can and should think 'this person is an individual therefore I won't assume elements of the stereotype apply to him', the stereotype still exists. The question is whether Christianity should be comfortable that their collective stereotype is having 'anti-gay' attached to it.
But that was awesome. I imagine if General Mills was angry enough they could do something about the guy setting their grass on fire.
I think being on youtube is punishment enough.
You'd think so, but I suspect people who have some kind of notion of shame don't end up that incompetent.
Then it depends who the christians are. I would imagine the anti-gays would be proud, while the pro-gay christians would be unhappy. I was unhappy with it when I identified as a Christian. Some people may not see a "christian" stereotype, as they associate themselves more with a specific church therein.
It still makes me a little sad. There's so much potential in religion being wasted on intolerance.
xole wrote:Then it depends who the christians are. I would imagine the anti-gays would be proud, while the pro-gay christians would be unhappy.
Point is all the rest of the world who isn't Christian and what they think of those who are matters, because it affects the ability of Christians to bring people into the faith, and to argue from a position of moral authority.
In this modern age, where branding is everything, it seems we're at a point where the Christian brand, or specifically the Evangelical Christian brand, is so closely tied to the anti-gay thing that when people see anti-gay rhetoric they assume the guy is a Christian. And in at least this case that branding seems to be right.
I'd think that'd be a problem for Christians who don't want to be a ghetto for the ever shrinking bigot demographic.
It still makes me a little sad. There's so much potential in religion being wasted on intolerance.
True.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:To be honest, after all is said, this pro gay guy is on the same plane as the cereal burner. What could be surmised of his group?
Is it sad that most are much more anti-Christian than anti-gay simply because how Christians handle themselves in this regard?
I also don't trust the bible, it's been re-written so many times and translated so many times, with lots of the original parts left out that looking at the current state of the church, it's obvious they are missing important parts.
What, Sebster, so you're arguing that Christianity should be about accepting and sharing Jesus Christ's love and tolerance, and helping out other human beings?
Well, that sounds nice, but it doesn't get you in the news...
No open flames near grain silo I understand. I didn't think that applied to a box of Cheerio's. So one's explode and the other a flamer.....great "pinkshirt" just gave arsonist a new toy
Melissia wrote:What, Sebster, so you're arguing that Christianity should be about accepting and sharing Jesus Christ's love and tolerance, and helping out other human beings?
Well, that sounds nice, but it doesn't get you in the news...
Depends on how you do it. Stephen Colbert, of course, does it best.
Colbert decided to go directly to the source. "I would like to read to you what the Jesus said about homosexuality," he declared, breaking out his trusty Bible. "I would like to, but he never said anything about it. Evidently Jesus was so filled with rage that he was speechless."
juraigamer wrote:Is it sad that most are much more anti-Christian than anti-gay simply because how Christians handle themselves in this regard?
I also don't trust the bible, it's been re-written so many times and translated so many times, with lots of the original parts left out that looking at the current state of the church, it's obvious they are missing important parts.
Like the part where jesus fought dragons as a toddler(Note, im not joking)
But in all Reality, Im still forced to go to church, and there are still things about protecting marriage there. Even in the middle of the bay area.
But when you get into a sociology and gender politics you can really see why the people who believe the most in gender roles, are anti-gay.
Of course its sensible to assume they are Christians. There is a perfectly logical pathway from devout theistic belief and homophobia and any fair minded observer can see it, you wont get any argument from me. People don't like it when you mention facts they don't like though.
Oh while you are on, don't forget the Muzzas though, I don't like threads like this without my acid-throwing pals in Afghanistan getting a mention. Funny thing they arent too hot for Gays either, as evidenced by the ridiculously absurd fact that the men in charge handed the World Cup to Qatar.
I would point out that at least some anti-gay gak from Christians is merely words 99.9% of the time, If you want to get outraged about this type of illogical brain washing gak, again, I suggest you look at the face burning Taliban, or the numerous British Muslims that are being busted for raping and prostituting little girls, clearly because they view them as less valuable than believers, but again, watch out, people don't like facts if they aren't ridiculously PC.
There was another two on the BBC website today, I actually keep count.
Any one can win a debate that is not actually happening.
In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video. Sort of like "Angry Grandpa" and similar stuff, except Angry Grandpa eventually figures out that his real personality can be amped up into an act. (This guy only has one video at the moment.) So it's a wee bit absurd to look at this guy and say "people who disagree with me clearly have no arguments and are clearly morons" as if this guy stands for every viewpoint that doesn't coincide with yours.
But that's what is presumed -- so much so that OP can ironically pat himself on the back for presuming it in the first place. There is no real debate because the terms are pre-loaded. One side is for "freedom and equality" and the other side are "bigots" before the first word is spoken. The coherency/plausibility of any argument put forward is pre-conditioned by these parameters. The same thing has always been the case; the only difference now is that the tables have turned. This is no triumph for reason and dialogue. This is yet another fundamentalist rant about the eternal battle of good against evil. Fifty years ago, almost everyone was convinced homosexuality was on the side of evil. Nowadays, homosexuality is widely conceived of as being on the side of good. But it's the same old fundamentalist worldview that has no room for anything else but it's own "common sense."
A little research goes a long way. i don't see any real signs of being mentally impaired and this man has made other videos against gays and other things. I don't see anything to suggest this video is other than legitimate.
Well, if he's not an 'out' gay man, he seriously needs to ask himself a few questions. He's as camp as a row of tents. Perhaps that explains his strength of feeling towards gays - he is one, and hates himself for it.
Squigsquasher wrote:Come on, setting fire to a box of Cheerios is a bit "special".
And a waste of food.
Given all the chemicals that go into consumer cereals, it barely counts as food. Unless you count the allowable percentages of insect parts and rat droppings. Mmmm mmm... rat droppings.
I don't quite get the connection between homosexuality and cheerios.
But according to sebster since I am an evangelical Christian and actually believe the Bible and don't buy into all of the politicking/proselytizing being done by the homosexual lobby, who are so desperate for society at large to accept their behavior..I'm an "Autobigot" so I guess I should think like cereal burner guy.
When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
mattyrm wrote:Of course its sensible to assume they are Christians. There is a perfectly logical pathway from devout theistic belief and homophobia and any fair minded observer can see it, you wont get any argument from me. People don't like it when you mention facts they don't like though.
Oh while you are on, don't forget the Muzzas though, I don't like threads like this without my acid-throwing pals in Afghanistan getting a mention. Funny thing they arent too hot for Gays either, as evidenced by the ridiculously absurd fact that the men in charge handed the World Cup to Qatar.
I would point out that at least some anti-gay gak from Christians is merely words 99.9% of the time, If you want to get outraged about this type of illogical brain washing gak, again, I suggest you look at the face burning Taliban, or the numerous British Muslims that are being busted for raping and prostituting little girls, clearly because they view them as less valuable than believers, but again, watch out, people don't like facts if they aren't ridiculously PC.
There was another two on the BBC website today, I actually keep count.
So why are you sitting around in your underwear watching the BBC and not out cracking skulls Punisher style?
generalgrog wrote:I don't quite get the connection between homosexuality and cheerios.
General Mills supports gay marriage.
generalgrog wrote:
But according to sebster since I am an evangelical Christian and actually believe the Bible and don't buy into all of the politicking/proselytizing being done by the homosexual lobby, who are so desperate for society at large to accept their behavior..I'm an "Autobigot" so I guess I should think like cereal burner guy.
Yeah, that pretty much makes you a bigot. More precisely, the use of "politicking/proselytizing" makes you a bigot by way of deliberately denying the ability of ~50% of the country to make a rational choice.
generalgrog wrote:
When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
That was Satre interpreting Ivan Karamazov, not Dostoevski.
And everything is permitted even if there is a God, what with that whole "free will" thing.
Karamozov was ambiguous and undecided about the concept. Dostoevsky was making an existentialist point about personal freedom and responsibility, as well as expressing some ideas on faith, through his characters.
I'm not particularly fond of how sebster's raised the subject. There are reasonable questions about how and whether it bothers moderate, ethical and moral people for their religion to be identified with ignorant bigots. We hope for members of a group to police their own; for Muslims to speak out against violent Islamists. For Christians who believe in love and acceptance to speak out against those who pervert their religion into bigotry and hatred. In the Neopagan community we expect our folks to speak out against frauds and charlatans who invent credentials and swindle people, using the mystery and decentralization of a small religion's communities to conceal criminal or at least dishonest behavior. In practice there are thorny challenges involved in correcting people who are (in theory) part of "your" group, and those actions may not be easily visible from the outside.
Many Christians try to counter the actions of bigots by not being bigots themselves, and by participating in their church and speaking up against bigotry within that framework. If I were a Christian it would certainly bother me for bigots and psychos to claim to be the same thing as me. Just as in real life it bothers me when I see an idiot or jackass claiming to be a Druid. That's just a lot less common, because Christianity's a vastly larger and more powerful religion.
generalgrog wrote:But according to sebster since I am an evangelical Christian and actually believe the Bible and don't buy into all of the politicking/proselytizing being done by the homosexual lobby, who are so desperate for society at large to accept their behavior..I'm an "Autobigot" so I guess I should think like cereal burner guy.
Its your right to believe that, its not your right to force your beliefs down others throats and force them to live their lifes in a style of your choosing.
Mannahnin wrote:Karamozov was ambiguous and undecided about the concept. Dostoevsky was making an existentialist point about personal freedom and responsibility, as well as expressing some ideas on faith, through his characters.
I'm not particularly fond of how sebster's raised the subject. There are reasonable questions about how and whether it bothers moderate, ethical and moral people for their religion to be identified with ignorant bigots. We hope for members of a group to police their own; for Muslims to speak out against violent Islamists. For Christians who believe in love and acceptance to speak out against those who pervert their religion into bigotry and hatred. In the Neopagan community we expect our folks to speak out against frauds and charlatans who invent credentials and swindle people, using the mystery and decentralization of a small religion's communities to conceal criminal or at least dishonest behavior. In practice there are thorny challenges involved in correcting people who are (in theory) part of "your" group, and those actions may not be easily visible from the outside.
Many Christians try to counter the actions of bigots by not being bigots themselves, and by participating in their church and speaking up against bigotry within that framework. If I were a Christian it would certainly bother me for bigots and psychos to claim to be the same thing as me. Just as in real life it bothers me when I see an idiot or jackass claiming to be a Druid. That's just a lot less common, because Christianity's a vastly larger and more powerful religion.
Are you saying that you're a druid Mannahnin?
That’s kind of cool… except that it means that I am off to Wikipedia to see exactly what the druidic religion entails.
Mannahnin wrote:Karamozov was ambiguous and undecided about the concept. Dostoevsky was making an existentialist point about personal freedom and responsibility, as well as expressing some ideas on faith, through his characters.
Thanks for the correction, its been a while since I read Brothers, and I went off the same website.
Mannahnin wrote:
There are reasonable questions about how and whether it bothers moderate, ethical and moral people for their religion to be identified with ignorant bigots.
My father (UCC minister) hates conservative evangelicals more than any militant atheist I've ever met, specifically because he believes that they're destroying the religion. Conversely, I imagine conservative evangelicals feel much the same about him, even if they to couch it in loving terminology.
There can be real pressures from inside a community not to make waves or make members of the same (or similar) faith look bad to outsiders, too. My mom encountered a good bit of resistance from some quarters in exposing these folks:
http://www.neopagan.net/DCSG.html http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos300.htm
From Isaac's article:
Several people have sent me email over the last few years, asking me why I keep saying negative things about Janette Copeland and her Divine Circle of the Sacred Grove. “After all,” they ask me, “doesn’t everybody have something worthwhile to teach?” and, “Can’t we all just be friends?” My response, of course, to the first question is, “Maybe, but not always on what they think they can teach,” and to the second, “Friends don’t cheat, steal from, or lie to each other if they’re really friends.” Thus, this essay.
That's a good point actually. How this can be taken as anything but some kids making sport of an overly earnest but ... challenged individual is beyond me. Do people really think this guy has any understanding of Christianity? I guess if you think those Westburo fethers do, then why not this guy, too, huh?
Manchu wrote:That's a good point actually. How this can be taken as anything but some kids making sport of an overly earnest but ... challenged individual is beyond me. Do people really think this guy has any understanding of Christianity? I guess if you think those Westburo fethers do, then why not this guy, too, huh?
Man, the Bible is crazy. It contradicts itself a lot and some parts (esp Leviticus) have all sorts of inane and insane laws. That's part of why Christianity is so varied. This crazy guy could understand his version of Christianity is what I'm gettin at.
anyone who reads a book that has been interpreted so many times and takes it for fact is simply an idiot
how many versions of one book are needed?
quite simply, the fact that they believe that they can do anything, even really bad things, and just go to confession and tell God you did it, and all will be OK, makes me say bull fething gak
I asked my priest in grade school a question, "If a person is born in a place that doesn't know about Jesus lives a great life, taking care of the sick and poor, but doesn't know Jesus, and think of him as God, will they go to Heaven?"
NO was his simple answer. At that point of time I realized this whole thing was BS. So because someone has never heard your story they are doomed for eternity? and people actually believe this gak? I figured it out around the age of 9, there are people who fething have been living by this book their whole lives, and believe every word.
Ever play the game of "Telephone?" One person tells the person next to them a sentence. Then that person tells the person next to them, and so on around in a circle. Well just imagine the last 2000 years as a circle, and this story was made up by the second person, cause they were a prankster who wanted power
Automatically Appended Next Post: the one thing I really wonder about is
since the beginning of time people have been either straight or gay
young boys were the treat of most sailors throughout history
why the hell is it an issue now?
my theory is because there are a few men who are afraid to admit that they are actually GAY
Manchu wrote:So you think you figured it all out at nine based on one question answered by one person, huh? How impressive!
really?
is that all you have?
lets debate then
I'll start
"It's all a lie. Many men in power have altered history to make the population their sheep. In order to control the herd they need to know the rules, so you make them up."
"God" is US. collective consciousnesses is real, and that is "GOD" We are all 1
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
are there any other groups bashing gay marriage?
seriously?
any?
so yea, it does
JESUS said to love one another, but priests say hate the gays, so..............................................................
"It's all a lie. Many men in power have altered history to make the population their sheep. In order to control the herd they need to know the rules, so you make them up."
"God" is US. collective consciousnesses is real, and that is "GOD" We are all 1
You're clearly a genius and I can only bow before your superior wisdom.
I just think going the pretty common route of "Christians are stupid" that is so very prevalent on Dakka seems to go against rule 1.
You can say that certain groups of Christians don't like gays, you can talk about their theology all you want.
But posts like "people believe this gak" "people are stupid for being Christians" and the other stuff that way too often shows up around here is getting pretty tiresome. Maybe I am wrong here but if Christians put up as many threads about "gays believe their livestyle is natural, what kind of gak is that" or "gays are stupid for thinking that they are not going to hell" then there would be plenty of warnings issued and threads closed (not my personal thoughts on gays BTW).
Just tired of the attacks and the hostility that seems to go without punishment. I know moderation is private, but the fact that it has been going on for almost 3 months now without any sign of letting off makes me feel like it is okay. Maybe I just need to take more chill pills until the summer vacation is over and people have more important things to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
are there any other groups bashing gay marriage?
seriously?
any?
so yea, it does
Have you spoken with every denomination and every Christian to know that we are all bashing gay marriage? Cause I didn't get the survey.
If you are generalizing you just make yourself look foolish.
d-usa wrote:Maybe I just need to take more chill pills
Yep, that's the answer. I have my prescription refilled hourly.
But honestly, if I were to start as many threads talking about "gays are stupid for not believing in God and their sins" as there are threads talking about "Christians are stupid" I wouldn't get in trouble?
I am always pretty dang good with not being all up in people's faces about my religion, but people who are always all up in people's faces about how stupid their religion is never seem to stop.
Sebtser will be along shortly to explain that he nowhere stated that Christians are dumb. The ... er, quality of DIDM's posts on this issue speaks for itself.
d-usa wrote:I just think going the pretty common route of "Christians are stupid" that is so very prevalent on Dakka seems to go against rule 1.
You can say that certain groups of Christians don't like gays, you can talk about their theology all you want.
But posts like "people believe this gak" "people are stupid for being Christians" and the other stuff that way too often shows up around here is getting pretty tiresome. Maybe I am wrong here but if Christians put up as many threads about "gays believe their livestyle is natural, what kind of gak is that" or "gays are stupid for thinking that they are not going to hell" then there would be plenty of warnings issued and threads closed (not my personal thoughts on gays BTW).
Just tired of the attacks and the hostility that seems to go without punishment. I know moderation is private, but the fact that it has been going on for almost 3 months now without any sign of letting off makes me feel like it is okay. Maybe I just need to take more chill pills until the summer vacation is over and people have more important things to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
are there any other groups bashing gay marriage?
seriously?
any?
so yea, it does
Have you spoken with every denomination and every Christian to know that we are all bashing gay marriage? Cause I didn't get the survey.
If you are generalizing you just make yourself look foolish.
maybe you didn't read my post?
can you tell me another group doing this?
maybe you folks should DISTANCE yourselves from these nutjobs that are ruining your good name as a Christian
as far as I have heard, No ONE is stepping in to cut any of these crazy groups out of YOUR Religion. So in my opinion, they are accepted as part of YOUR GROUP
seriously, does THE CHURCH denounce them? I'm pretty sure they are strongly supported by Christians, as they are a Christian group. Maybe if all other Christians stood up to these idiots then maybe, just maybe I'd listen. But I still won't believe in a book written by men in power. I'm not a slave to superstition, but I try and help others and be a decent human. Why anyone started treating a figment of their imagination better than their neighbor is beyond even my imagination.
DIDM wrote:I try and help others and be a decent human
Next step: stop painting a huge swath of people as ignorant bigots.
like I said, NO ONE is distancing themselves from this group
does that mean you support them, or not?
IMO, if the church didn't support their theory, they would maybe publicly DENOUNCE them.
and seriously, I'd venture MOST all Catholics denounce gays. I have stated many times that I was raised in a Catholic family and my sister is now my brother, so honestly, I'm not talking gak, just fact. My priest and family denounced her for being gay. My Dad doesn't even know about the change, it would blow his mind.
Sad thing is there is a good amount of American Christians who see homosexuality as "evil" because a book that's a translation of an edit of a translation of a edit etc claims it to be so.
However, they are not all bigots and the number of the opposing Christians are ether not reported or simply in too small enough groups to make a real impact when these idiots are spouting on about other human beings activities, because a 2000 year old book tells them too,
Well it sounds like you are talking about something that is much more personal than a national news item there, DIDM. I'd venture to guess that you don't know many practicing Catholics anymore or have much to do with them. I'd venture that you don't go to mass, for example. And I'd venture that a lot of your opinions are filtered through a lens of hateful prejudice that your idiosyncratic personal experience frankly cannot excuse.
Because if you did know many Catholics, you'd discover a huge group of people who don't have anything in common with this cereal burner. And if you did go to mass, you wouldn't hear much -- or probably anything at all (I know I never have) -- about anyone going to hell over this or that, including being gay or transgendered. And if you didn't believe that your own individual experience was conclusive for all the other billion Catholics on this earth, you just might find that it is in fact not even slightly representative.
Manchu wrote:So you think you figured it all out at nine based on one question answered by one person, huh? How impressive!
Well given the question and the ramifications of the answer its easy for even a 9 year old to see some potentially fatal flaws in Catholic doctrine.
anyone who reads a book that has been interpreted so many times and takes it for fact is simply an idiot
Overly trusting and/or dillusional yes but not necessarily an idiot. Some people are predispositioned towards religion and religion is usually a focal point of communities/cultures so its not suprising that people take, for example, the bible at face value.
DIDM wrote:anyone who reads a book that has been interpreted so many times and takes it for fact is simply an idiot
how many versions of one book are needed?
quite simply, the fact that they believe that they can do anything, even really bad things, and just go to confession and tell God you did it, and all will be OK, makes me say bull fething gak
I asked my priest in grade school a question, "If a person is born in a place that doesn't know about Jesus lives a great life, taking care of the sick and poor, but doesn't know Jesus, and think of him as God, will they go to Heaven?"
NO was his simple answer. At that point of time I realized this whole thing was BS. So because someone has never heard your story they are doomed for eternity? and people actually believe this gak? I figured it out around the age of 9, there are people who fething have been living by this book their whole lives, and believe every word.
Ever play the game of "Telephone?" One person tells the person next to them a sentence. Then that person tells the person next to them, and so on around in a circle. Well just imagine the last 2000 years as a circle, and this story was made up by the second person, cause they were a prankster who wanted power
Automatically Appended Next Post: the one thing I really wonder about is
since the beginning of time people have been either straight or gay
young boys were the treat of most sailors throughout history
why the hell is it an issue now?
my theory is because there are a few men who are afraid to admit that they are actually GAY
Wow I think this post qualifies as the one of the worst I have seen on dakka. Full of misinformed, uneducated...what I would call "flailing". I've go to run to work..or I would give a proper responce.
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
You fail to understand. Dakka has to have at least two "Christians are evil and/or stupid" threads going at any one time." It appears to be the law.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:I just think going the pretty common route of "Christians are stupid" that is so very prevalent on Dakka seems to go against rule 1.
You can say that certain groups of Christians don't like gays, you can talk about their theology all you want.
But posts like "people believe this gak" "people are stupid for being Christians" and the other stuff that way too often shows up around here is getting pretty tiresome. Maybe I am wrong here but if Christians put up as many threads about "gays believe their livestyle is natural, what kind of gak is that" or "gays are stupid for thinking that they are not going to hell" then there would be plenty of warnings issued and threads closed (not my personal thoughts on gays BTW).
Just tired of the attacks and the hostility that seems to go without punishment. I know moderation is private, but the fact that it has been going on for almost 3 months now without any sign of letting off makes me feel like it is okay. Maybe I just need to take more chill pills until the summer vacation is over and people have more important things to worry about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DIDM wrote:
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
are there any other groups bashing gay marriage?
seriously?
any?
so yea, it does
Have you spoken with every denomination and every Christian to know that we are all bashing gay marriage? Cause I didn't get the survey.
If you are generalizing you just make yourself look foolish.
It does. Thread slike this about Mulsims, Hindus, or Buddhists would not be permitted. Ask Matty.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think we're missing an important point here. If you grind up, say 20 boxes of cheerios with a pestle, put them in a bellows,and get a lighter, could you make a Mad Max style flame thrower? Have we discovered a new anti zombie weapon?
Non-dairy creamer is much more flammable. There was this episode of Mythbusters where they filled a big pneumatic cannon thingy with the stuff, stuck a flare in the top, and set it off. Pyrotechnic hilarity ensued.
Squigsquasher wrote:Non-dairy creamer is much more flammable. There was this episode of Mythbusters where they filled a big pneumatic cannon thingy with the stuff, stuck a flare in the top, and set it off. Pyrotechnic hilarity ensued.
Frazzled wrote:I think we're missing an important point here. If you grind up, say 20 boxes of cheerios with a pestle, put them in a bellows,and get a lighter, could you make a Mad Max style flame thrower? Have we discovered a new anti zombie weapon?
But, those weren't normal cheerios. They were Honey Nut Cheerios.
What if it's the honey that's so flammable?
Are bees mass producing napalm and then making it tasty so we all store it in our homes, so they can easily burn down our cities when the bee wars begin?
Now, I'm not saying that bees are actually super-intelligent alien creatures getting ready to take over the world. But, I think it's pretty clear there's no evidence they aren't aliens.
generalgrog wrote:When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
GG
Ethics has nothing to do with God, and God has nothing to do with Ethics.
Seeing as the Christian God has done many, many unethical things according to the bible.
Of course, you'll probably say I'm Christian-bashing now, but let's face it, you make an exception for things that the Christian God does, they're all ethical to you no matter what they are. So that's not exactly a very consistent system of ethics.
Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that there are hundreds of ethical systems that are more philosophically mature than "because god said so". Many of them were created by Christians, others by Agnostics and Atheists, others by other religions (many, MANY ethical systems were created before the existence of Judaism and Christianity and Islam; or before said religions ever touched the region. Some of them are simple, others are very complex. But they exist.). Ethics exists with or without the existence of God. The "because god said so" ethical system is immature, the kind of thing that you'd see parents say to little babies because their intellectual facilities aren't developed enough for the intelligent thought needed to comprehend things other than base instinct yet.
I drive by that sign on my way to work every morning. There is a cute little burn mark on the grass. Made me smile. Funniest thing is that this guy lives in the wrong place if he hates gays. Minneapolis has one of the highest gay/straight ratios in the country. Silly bigot (not silly christian bigot, just bigot. I know to many truly excellent people who live their christian values).
Think of all the jokes if he burned Trix!!!!!! Oh man, makes me sad with all the possibilities.
Amaya wrote:Has anyone realized that this was staged yet?
From Page 1:
Manchu wrote:In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video.
I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.
Burning cheerios in front of General Mills is a pretty good sign of this.
Yeah, I know. I read the link posted earlier. It didn't say whether he was free lance or what but I think you know what my guess is. Would you buy a house from a man who burns cheerios to protest anything? I doubt he's very busy in his work ...
We all put on faces. Just because he showed up angry in a youtube video doesn't mean he can't be competent in his work. We're only seeing one side of this man. Humanity has a tendency to judge people based on first appearances. Man trips? Clumsy. Cuts you off on the freeway? total donkey-cave.
You could be the meanest prison guard in the world or the most violent cop and then go home and show your family care. Rush Limbaugh gives his waitresses hundred dollar tips. Abraham Lincoln really did struggle with racism. A terrorist planting a road side bomb, getting hit by a blond-haired sniper half a mile away, could have had a friend, a favorite sports team, and a favorite food. Those million dollar executives? Same thing. But we don't really know these things. We can't think about them, it'd drive us mad.
Other humans aren't really...human, to us. I'm not a full individual to everyone who reads this just as much as you aren't to me. This is just our "internet face", and it's all we'll ever know of each other. Just because some of us are heated or less than competent on here doesn't mean we can't go out and be comparatively normal human beings.
So is it really fair to make any assumptions about the man other than that he doesn't like gay people?
tl,dr; Just because he failed hard and has a skewed views system doesn't mean he can't go on being a relatively normal human being.
I maybe late, but the guy was burning Cheerios because General MIlls came out and said that they were opposed to the Gay Marriage Ban amendment coming up for vote on election day. This ban would become part of the Minnesota state constitution. Cheerios are made by General Mills.
That is the backstory to why a crazy bigot would try to light some Cheerios on fire.
Manchu wrote:I guess so. Right, like how someone can read the instructions on a tube of Preparation H and end up brushing their teeth with it.
Leviticus 20:13 wrote:If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
And no, I am not saying that all Christians are idiots. But I will say this; Christians who take Leviticus seriously and disregard the parts of the Bible contradicting it, are idiots. And the Christians who take genesis literally are idiots too (Earth is 6000 years old, women have periods because Eve listened to a talking Snake and evolution don't real). Genesis works best as a more figurative thing.
Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.
Corpsesarefun wrote:Pretty much any powder is incredibly flammable when aerosolised, thermite and flour both work.
You won't make thermite incredible flammable by aerosolizing it. Whether dispersed or just in a pile, it will have the same ignition point and once that is triggered in either form it will create an equally violent exothermic reaction. But you have to use something that burns very hot first as an ignition key, such as magnesium. However, flour, yes. Aerosolized flour will make a nasty inendiary device with just a few sparks.
xole wrote:tl,dr; Just because he failed hard and has a skewed views system doesn't mean he can't go on being a relatively normal human being.
That's the thing about the extremely religious: their religion tends to permeate every aspect of their lives, as religion is wont to do. As religion is almost by definition a system of irrationalities and outright lies based around the idea of social control, then it is a fair assumption to say that an extremely religious person is irrational in many, if not most, aspects of their life.
However, this is all based on your definition of what "normal" means. For example, there are lots of people who have been taught that this is normal.
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
azazel the cat wrote:
However, this is all based on your definition of what "normal" means. For example, there are lots of people who have been taught that this is normal.
LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:
True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.
True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.
True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.
True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.
Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.
Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?
Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.
@ azazel, my definition of normal is being able to function in a society without ending up in jail, homeless, or in isolation. He won't get along with some people, but who does?
xole wrote:Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.
Yep, things are a lot simpler if you just concentrate on what Jesus said. The worst we would have had was "God Hates Figs."
xole wrote:Really shouldn't have ever slapped the old testament onto there. Would have saved literally every single problem with Christianity. Take out letters and revelations, too, just to be on the safe side.
@ azazel, my definition of normal is being able to function in a society without ending up in jail, homeless, or in isolation. He won't get along with some people, but who does?
Again, to add to my earlier list of oddly specific rules, any true Christian who follows all the rules in the Bible is required to stone adulterers to death. So, yeah, I'd say that it's impossible for Christians to abide by your definition of normal, unless they are willing to admit that they only selectively read the Bible in accordance to their own personal views, and thus invalidate the book overall.
LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:
True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.
True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.
True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.
True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.
Your mixing up orthodox Judaism with Christianity my friend. This whole argument about "If you don't follow old testament law to the letter than you aren't a true Christian" is a huge red herring. Paul delt with this issue during the early church, they were called judaisers.
I'm not a judaiser, I'm not an orthodox Jew. I'm a Christian. The law as practiced in the old testament has passed away in the sense of following temple rituals, and legal laws. That is part of the reason for the Holy Spirit, which wasn't released fully until after Pentecost of Acts 2. "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life"
Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.
Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?
No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.
It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.
...which is what LoneLictor was talking about when he said that so-called Christians who take the pronoucements in Leviticus seriously are idiots. Because those dont' apply anymore. Still, Leviticus has been used for centuries by bigoted Christians when they want to justify hatred toward gay people. Which is a pretty darn un-Christian thing to do, in truth, which makes it a curiosity why it's so common.
Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.
But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.
Melissia wrote:Even if you ignore the translation errors in that line (which, depending on how its translated, may not actually condemn homosexuality at all), using it still makes you a hypocrite if you don't also follow the rest of leviticus.
Haven't read it myself I must admit. Is there other parts of leviticus that say gayness not so bad afterall?
No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.
It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.
Is "lack of common sense" considered mentaly impaired?.........wait...we all experience lack of common sense at one time or another...Manny don't answer that let me research my "Book of Zeus"....
This guy is an idiot. Plain and simple. I know many Christians, as my family is pretty much 100% Christian and they have tons of Christian family friends, and guess what? While many of them don't agree with homosexuality, they don't attempt to force it on other people. Who wulda thunk it?
The reason they take this passive disagreement stance is this: they are Christian Christians-AKA those who base their faith of of Christ's teachings. They seek only to better the world by helping and loving others, not to force their viewpoints on the world. My Grandmother is a major fan of science, from the Big Bang to the Higgs-Boson, and is also one of the most Christlike people I know. The same goes for many of my other family members: while they may, on a personal level, disagree with things such as evolution or homosexuality, they respect those who have differing views and don't attempt to force their opinions down others' throats.
Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.
But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.
My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.
Manchu wrote:I don't mean crazy like schizophrenic. I mean uneducated and wacky and generally off. Like a person you would not hire to work at your business but also wouldn't call the asylum to cart away. Like a person you would not listen to about serious topics.
But saying "mentally impaired" implies that he's not competent to take care of himself or be held responsible for his words or actions. Which, is part of what makes absurd stuff like this and that jackass in the Chick Fil A drive-through disturbing. These may be otherwise reasonable people who are significantly damaged and incompetent only in certain areas; which sadly they still get to vote regarding.
My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.
That's not what the thread is about though, anyone with sense realizes that not all anti-gay groups are christian and the vast majority of Christians don't hate gays and are at worst ambivalent. The question was why do people immediately jump to the conclusion that an anti-gay person or group is evangelical christian. While individual pastors have put an emphasis on equality and good-will ( which I applaud them for) the evangelical community has done little to publicly distance themselves from those of their ranks that are bigoted. It is the same way that Muslims are assumed to be terrorists or a terrorist is always Muslim, while most imams condemn this activity the public doesn't see it. So if the public is only presented with one view point then there view of evangelical Christians will obviously be colloured by what they see
Melissia wrote:No. But Christians don't have to follow Leviticus; it was a recording of the old laws, the old Covenant. We are under new laws, a new Covenant-- a new Testament.
It's far better to look at the Old Testament and see it as a history, to look at so that you can understand the New.
You are correct that Christians aren't called to follow Levitican law.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Leviticus 20:13
In this passage, the penalty established by leviticus was death. That is the law. But, something else can be found in this passage, that "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." This is not the law. This is stated in the Bible as a fact, an inherent truth about homosexuality. This was not "overthrown" by the New Covenant, and still stands as truth.
It is a common misconception that all that can be found in Leviticus is laws, and that Leviticus serves no purpose under the New Covenant.
"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord."
Leviticus 19:18
mattyrm wrote:Of course its sensible to assume they are Christians. There is a perfectly logical pathway from devout theistic belief and homophobia and any fair minded observer can see it, you wont get any argument from me. People don't like it when you mention facts they don't like though.
Oh while you are on, don't forget the Muzzas though, I don't like threads like this without my acid-throwing pals in Afghanistan getting a mention. Funny thing they arent too hot for Gays either, as evidenced by the ridiculously absurd fact that the men in charge handed the World Cup to Qatar.
And the point, fairly fething obviously, is if Christian groups don't want to end up with the same vitriol directed at them that Islamic groups currently face, then they would probably want to reconsider their stance on homosexuality.
Or we can just rant about all the Muslim mattyrm doesn't like. We haven't done that in at least a week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Any one can win a debate that is not actually happening.
In this vid, we have a guy who is pretty clearly mentally impaired. It's a fair bet that his "accomplices" are taking the piss, setting this guy up to make a funny video. Sort of like "Angry Grandpa" and similar stuff, except Angry Grandpa eventually figures out that his real personality can be amped up into an act. (This guy only has one video at the moment.) So it's a wee bit absurd to look at this guy and say "people who disagree with me clearly have no arguments and are clearly morons" as if this guy stands for every viewpoint that doesn't coincide with yours.
The point wasn't 'this guys anti-gay idiot, therefore all people who are anti-gay are idiots'.
My point is that this video went all over the net, and everywhere it went everyone assumed the guy in it was an Evangelical Christian, despite him saying absolutely nothing about religion at all. They assumed this because he was saying anti-gay stuff. And they were right.
Now, if we take as a given that homosexuality will become accepted (and looking at the trends in polls and the inevitability of demographics it is pretty much a given) then I think Christians need to ask themselves if they really want to be on the losing side of that debate? What will it mean in a decade or two
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:I don't quite get the connection between homosexuality and cheerios.
The parent company came out with a statement supporting gay marriage. The guy in the video explains that.
But according to sebster since I am an evangelical Christian and actually believe the Bible and don't buy into all of the politicking/proselytizing being done by the homosexual lobby, who are so desperate for society at large to accept their behavior..I'm an "Autobigot" so I guess I should think like cereal burner guy.
No, I didn't say that. Conversations work much better when you actually listen to what I'm saying.
Right now there is a common assumption that when someone is making really strong comments about homosexuality, that he will be a Christian, and most like an Evangelical Christian. Those assumptions seem to be pretty soundly based.
And while you might claim that the bible clearly states homosexuality is wrong, it'd be downright delusional of you to claim this is some kind of priority in the text, compared to the stuff on poverty and charity. And yet, right now you are far more likely to hear comments from Christian leaders on homosexuality than you are on measures to end poverty.
That should sound warning bells to anyone who wants Christianity to primarily be about ending poverty. And yet instead you hear it as an attack on you.
When you remove God from the equation anythings goes, or as Dostoevski put it "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
Which is why all us atheists are out there killing people for fun.
For feth's sake, you contort my statements to read into it a criticism so you can claim to be so offended, and then you go and just straight up call atheists amoral. It's pathetic, so stop fething doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:I'm not particularly fond of how sebster's raised the subject.
I am more than willing to accept the way I raised this issue was clumsy. There are a lot of good reasons I'm not a social commentator, after all
Many Christians try to counter the actions of bigots by not being bigots themselves, and by participating in their church and speaking up against bigotry within that framework.
Sure, and I should clarify I'm not making an attack on any individual Christian. Even leaders only have so much power to work within their organisation as a whole.
The point is more a question for any individual Christian, whether he's pro-, against, or entirely indifferent to gay rights - "is this really the issue I want my faith to go to the mat over?"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I guess so. Right, like how someone can read the instructions on a tube of Preparation H and end up brushing their teeth with it.
The bigger question is how could anyone look at a text that is full of complex stories with many possible meanings, note that that text has been debated by learned men for more than a century and produced many wildly varying interpretations, and conclude that there is a single, obvious meaning to the text?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:Does every story about gay marriage have to turn into a "christians are stupid" thread?
I hope not. Best way to prevent that is to try and argue in good faith, and try to prevent the lazy attacks, whether they come from your side or the other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:But honestly, if I were to start as many threads talking about "gays are stupid for not believing in God and their sins" as there are threads talking about "Christians are stupid" I wouldn't get in trouble?
I am always pretty dang good with not being all up in people's faces about my religion, but people who are always all up in people's faces about how stupid their religion is never seem to stop.
Depressing.
They never stop, as long as you're willing to pretend every comment about Christianity is an attack. This thread is not a fething attack.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Sebtser will be along shortly to explain that he nowhere stated that Christians are dumb. The ... er, quality of DIDM's posts on this issue speaks for itself.
Because I fething didn't.
I happen to know a lot of Christians. I happened to be married to one. So you can leave that 'oh he's so mean to us' bs at the door.
And that Christian lady I'm married to, well it was out of a conversation with her and then a follow up conversation with another Christian friend on-line that I produced my line of thinking on this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xole wrote:So is it really fair to make any assumptions about the man other than that he doesn't like gay people?
Is it fair to make assumptions because he doesn't like gay people? No, it isn't. I know a few people with some pretty strongly held views against gay people, who happen to otherwise be exceptionally good people - generous, great with the families, hard working, all that stuff. In fact I'd call them exceptional people.
But is it fair to make assumptions about a guy who thinks burning cheerios because a company made a press-release is a sensible protest, and who's other on-line videos are entirely about homosexuality? Yeah, it's probably pretty safe to assume he's a loon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:My only protest is that someone would take the cereal burner as representative of the sum of all arguments against gay marriage -- much less as representative of Christianity. Just like I would object to the drive thru guy -- or the mayors of Chicago and Boston for that matter -- of being representative of all arguments for gay marriage.
Has anyone done that?
I mean, my point was 'people assumed that this whacko was Christian just because his protest was anti-gay, and I'd think Christians would want to distance themselves from this kind of stuff'
LoneLictor wrote:
Some parts of the King James Bible are blatantly opposed to homosexuality, especially Leviticus. This crazy guy isn't making up gak about the Bible. He is a Christian and when Christians claim he's not, they're falling victim to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
No, he's not a Christian. He, like virtually all Christians, are only selectively practicing what is said in the Bible. There are hundreds of oddly specifc rules that you have to follow. Fun facts:
True Christians are forbidden from wearing clothing made of mixed fibers. So poly-cotton blend = not a Christian.
True Christians are forbidden from sitting on any seat where a menstruating woman has sat. So riding the bus or sharing any seat in your home with your wife = not a Christian.
True Christians play the lyre twice a day. So no lyre = not a Christian.
True Christians cannot shave their beards. So not looking like the Unabomber = not a Christian.
Your mixing up orthodox Judaism with Christianity my friend. This whole argument about "If you don't follow old testament law to the letter than you aren't a true Christian" is a huge red herring. Paul delt with this issue during the early church, they were called judaisers.
I'm not a judaiser, I'm not an orthodox Jew. I'm a Christian. The law as practiced in the old testament has passed away in the sense of following temple rituals, and legal laws. That is part of the reason for the Holy Spirit, which wasn't released fully until after Pentecost of Acts 2. "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life"
GG
But don't ya see the point? Nobody can justify Leviticus if they don't follow those rules, too. If you wanna keep Leviticus, then ya gotta do all that other goofy crap, too. You don't get to selectively cherry pick the parts you like. You either take it as a Gestalt, or you stop calling yourself a Christian. (and the part about the lyre is New Testament, btw)
The Bringer wrote:"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them." Leviticus 20:13
An amusing mistranslation to be sure.
The term "abomination" was inserted in by the Wycliffe bible, and an old latin translation, but not in the original hebrew. If you REALLY want to see a crime that both God and Jesus hate, yet modern Christianity is willing to accept and even embrace, look at adultery. Hell, a local pastor was caught committing adultery on his wife, and he was EMBRACED for it because they thought it made him more human or some other nonsense. This despite the fact that adultery is one of the most heavily condemned acts in both the new testament and the old. Divorce, likewise, is heavily condemned by the new testament, and yet it is accepted by most Christians, even many Catholics. The gathering of riches, as well, was condemned strongly by Jesus.
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 come to mind as examples of Jesus actually blessing a homosexual couple, for that matter. The Centurion's younger male lover (Referred to as Pais in Matthew, which translates to a few things-- son, slave, junior/younger male partner in a couple, and referred to as Entimos Doulos in Luke, or "honored slave", making it obvious that the centurion's pais wasn't familial, and was probably his lover) needed healing, and he asked Jesus for such healing. Jesus said he would come to the Centurion's home and heal him, but the Centurion said he did not deserve such an honor-- and believed that if Jesus just said the word, the servant would be healed. Jesus, praising the man's faith, healed the servant.
The term "homosexual" itself is absent in the bible, and Jesus himself never mentioned it explicitly, despite living in a society that embraced it. The academic concept of homosexuality wasn't really very well developed until the 1800s, even though it existed in practice well before then. But the point is, Jesus reached out to outsiders-- and there were little more outsider than the centurion, part of an invading army and part of a culture who openly and avidly practiced homosexual acts upon their young male servants-- and accepted them for their faith, stating that they are great examples of faith.
edit: Wow, typos galore. I should stop posting when I'm sick.
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
I.... I need to lay down now.
Before I murder someone.
Well, I too despise radical constructivism, but I don't see how set theory comes in the equation, except by maybe being too frakking hard to understand. Hell the strongest critics of set theory were constructivists... ?
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
I.... I need to lay down now.
Before I murder someone.
Well, I too despise radical constructivism, but I don't see how set theory comes in the equation, except by maybe being too frakking hard to understand. Hell the strongest critics of set theory were constructivists... ?
Set theory is an affront to the LORD, accept JEAEASUUS lest yer immortal soul be claimed by the devil that is set theory. That shall not fall to the temptation that is multiple infinities as it is an affront to GOD, amen!
KamikazeCanuck wrote:Only people Jesus had an unkind word about was rich people. Never see that get brought up in American politics.
To be completely fair those other issues are raised by other Christian groups. The other week 60 Christian leaders who more less represent the mainline Christian denominations put out a press release saying they wanted the continuation of family tax credits. The statement was completely ignored by media, either mainstream or on-line.
Which is kind of weird when you think how much attention the right wing of US Christian politics get, both from people wanting to shout at them, and from the Republican Party who are desperate to make as many appealing noises as they can (which they almost always do nothing about in office, but that's another story).
youbedead wrote:Set theory is an affront to the LORD, accept JEAEASUUS lest yer immortal soul be claimed by the devil that is set theory. That shall not fall to the temptation that is multiple infinities as it is an affront to GOD, amen!
God I laughed to the point of tears. I wish sermons would really go like that.
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
Melissia wrote:An amusing mistranslation to be sure.
I simply used one of many available online translations for that. I'm not arguing that the translation is questionable.
Melissia wrote:
If you REALLY want to see a crime that both God and Jesus hate, yet modern Christianity is willing to accept and even embrace, look at adultery. Hell, a local pastor was caught committing adultery on his wife, and he was EMBRACED for it because they thought it made him more human or some other nonsense. This despite the fact that adultery is one of the most heavily condemned acts in both the new testament and the old.
So the fact that many Christians are hypocrites invalidates my argument? I hate it when figures of leadership in the Chruch commit sins like this because it tarnishes the reputation of Christianity as a whole, and has a very widespread negative affect on our reputation. I swear that if our pastor did that, not one man in our church would praise him.
Melissia wrote:
Divorce, likewise, is heavily condemned by the new testament, and yet it is accepted by most Christians, even many Catholics. The gathering of riches, as well, was condemned strongly by Jesus.
Divorce is not widely accepted. Those Christians I know who divorced justified it by saying that what the Bible says about divorce doesn't really apply in today's day and age, it was just a cultural thing... which it total bs. Once again, I regret that these "christians" hurt the reputation of the Body of Christ.
Melissia wrote:
Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 come to mind as examples of Jesus actually blessing a homosexual couple, for that matter. The Centurion's younger male lover (Referred to as Pais in Matthew, which translates to a few things-- son, slave, junior/younger male partner in a couple, and referred to as Entimos Doulos in Luke, or "honored slave", making it obvious that the centurion's pais wasn't familial, and was probably his lover) needed healing, and he asked Jesus for such healing.
Interesting, but really, you take things as facts that could have other meanings. Pais translates as male slave child, sexual or non sexual. The fact that they were an honored slave doesn't change anything. Yes, it could be possible that it was the Centurion's partner, but it is just as possible (or perhaps more possible) that this slave was simply honored because he served his master so well. Nothing here is "obvious" as you claim.
Melissia wrote:
The term "homosexual" itself is absent in the bible
I'm not denying that.
Melissia wrote:
, and Jesus himself never mentioned it explicitly, despite living in a society that embraced it. The academic concept of homosexuality wasn't really very well developed until the 1800s, even though it existed in practice well before then. But the point is, Jesus reached out to outsiders-- and there were little more outsider than the centurion, part of an invading army and part of a culture who openly and avidly practiced homosexual acts upon their young male servants-- and accepted them for their faith, stating that they are great examples of faith.
Even so, suppose they were homosexuals, the fact that he healed them does not mean he condones homosexuality. According to the Bible, all men are sinners, we are inherently sinful. Does that mean when Jesus healed so many people that he was condoning their various sins? No.
Do you have anything to say to my argument on the passage in Leviticus?
It is the old covenant, and was overridden by the new.
Leviticus was, historically speaking, a set of laws created by Jewish priests, designed for Jews in order for themselves to differentiate from the common cultures of the time, the Canaanites and what have you. The bad translations of it only make it even less relevant.
The original text translated to "And with mankind you shall not lie beds (plural noun) a woman/wife (singular noun)", which is a confusing statement-- twin nouns effectively being like saying "bedswoman". It could simply be a proscription against having gay sex in a woman's bed (just like there's a proscription against men sitting on a chair of a woman who has menstruated). Or it could be something else entirely that we don't really think about because we don't understand the culture at the time of its writing.
The term "abomination", however, has no place in it and is a politically motivated mistranslation. That there are no instances in the Talmud of people being brought before the Sanhedrin and tried for homosexuality lends credence to this. I find it most likely that it was a proscription against temple prostitution, and that as temple prostitution was effectively wiped out, confused Christians tried to figure out what it was a proscription against, and applied it to something they didn't like. Masturbation, prostitution in general, homosexuality-- anything they might be able to justify.
It's similar to the story of Sodom, whom was punished for its inhospitality rather than for any sexual sin*. And yet, due to the early political work of such notable persons as Emperor Justinian, whom attempted to convert the sin of Sodom in to homosexuality to attack his political enemies whom still practiced Roman lifestyles, the meaning has changed over time, and not for the better.
(Unfortunately, at the time of Sodom and even in some places today, gang-rape was viewed as a means to humiliate and subjugate enemies and strangers. The inhospitality of the town in trying to humiliate the angels is what was punished. Aside from the obvious, I feel I should point out that ALL of Sodom and Gomorrah were killed for the inhospitality-- men and women and children. Not just the men, whom would have been the ones killed if it was merely for homosexuality. Similarly, those who showed up to "know" the angels were not just the men, but also the women-- the word translates to "mortals" or "people", not men specifically.
To explain why inhospitality was punished-- a common theme at the time-- think about how slow and dangerous travel was at the time of the writing. The Jewish population in particular had a long history of being treated inhospitably, and so they valued it even more than the other cultures. There are stories, however, in Greco-Roman culture about the punishment of inhospitality, usually through a god showing up in mortal form and punishing inhospitality or rewarding hospitality, depending on how the host acted. Other cultures typically had similar stories.)
Even ignoring its meaning, original or otherwise, it's still not relevant to Christians.
More importantly, why should what's written in the bible be written in the laws of the country? It doesn't make much sense.
Though, the entire argument around gay marriage is ridiculous to me. I mean, would the people here arguing against it be bothered if civic union was just made legally identical to marriage, and if not, how can you be comfortable with legally penalising people for "sins" which harm no one?
Da Boss wrote:More importantly, why should what's written in the bible be written in the laws of the country? It doesn't make much sense.
I don't believe that they should be. From a Christian perspective, creating laws to stop people from committing sin does not change their heart, which is what truly matters.
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. " - Galatians 2:21
I'm not saying that there should be no laws, am saying that Christians foisting their moral beliefs on others won't achieve anything.
Melissia, I'm going to need some time to organize my thoughts.
Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin. Christianity will just have to deal with it. Which I think there is precedence for, "Give to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God".
And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.
It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.
xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.
Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.
Yes, but that argument won't hold up in court. Most cultures and religions have some form of marriage.
If the bible is true there are things I would be much more afraid of than what God thinks of gay people, most notably what would happen if two of the bible's contradictions were both true at the same time.
A Beke Books wrote:"Unlike the 'modern math' theorists, who believe that mathematics is a creation of man and thus arbitrary and relative, A Beka Book teaches that the laws of mathematics are a creation of God and thus absolute…A Beka Book provides attractive, legible, and workable traditional mathematics texts that are not burdened with modern theories such as set theory."
Melissia wrote:And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.
It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.
I'd like to do your argument justice, but I'm at work right now... when I get home I will challenge your view on the Old and New Covenant, as well as this post.
Melissia wrote:And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman.
The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter. Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.
It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.
I'd like to do your argument justice, but I'm at work right now... when I get home I will challenge your view on the Old and New Covenant, as well as this post.
Bringer..While I applaud you for trying.... you are going to soon find out that some people are not capable of being reasoned with...Mel is one of those people.
For example she makes this statement "And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman" The fact is that the first two people that the Bible says were created were Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve. God said be fruitful and multiply to Adam and Eve.
Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).
As far as the bible not "really contain family values" as she states..is yet another attack from her towards the Bible. It would have been more accurate of her to state that the Bible shows people being real, people behaving badly doesn't mean that the Bible condones the behavior. In fact there are consequences for Cain and Able, Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, Jacob-Esau,Jepthah and his daughter, David-Batsheebah-Uriah. All of these stories illustrate what happens when you behave badly.
Now the context, which is to help people understand family values, by seeing how NOT to act.
As far as her additional out of context mention of Christ' in Matthew 10:34(NKJV) “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’
Jesus is making a statement of fact..the fact that family members will have disagreements over Jesus(whether he is the Christ, Messiah etc.etc.). Melissia presents her argument as though Jesus was purposely setting out to breakup families.
generalgrog wrote:[
Bringer..While I applaud you for trying.... you are going to soon find out that some people are not capable of being reasoned with...Mel is one of those people.
Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.
Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!
Well I never!
Whatever next? Bernard Francis Law lecturing me for sleeping with a 19 year old girl? Or Kent Hovind telling us all about the evils of rock music while he snorts cocaine off a rent boys dick?
xole wrote:Whatever the bible says, this is still a secular state and marriage is not of christian origin.
Actually, if the Bible is true, then it is very well possible that marriage was an institution directly formed by God in the beginning of time.
Of course if the Vedas and Upanishads are true instead...
This.
Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.
Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.
I'm going to be suprise how many posters will try to prove they do.
Neither Christianity nor Judaism invented marriage. They have never had exclusive claim on it, and never will have exclusive claim on it, unless their more misguided followers kill the rest if us.
I'm going to be suprise how many posters will try to prove they do.
I won't be.
Also, I'm still waiting for GeneralGrog to come up with a counterargument to my post about cherrypicking select parts of the Bible, while ignoring others.
azazel the cat wrote:Also, I'm still waiting for GeneralGrog to come up with a counterargument to my post about cherrypicking select parts of the Bible, while ignoring others.
Good luck arguing with him. Apparently, as a scientist who finds herself fascinated by the philosophical and historical context behind modern religions, I'm too unreasonable for my posts to be worthy of attention, no matter how eloquently worded my points are, and meanwhile, GeneralGrog is by far more reasonable and logical, the epitome of intellectual thought.
I think my brain is trying to escape from my head after posting that. I need to take some aspirin and lie down...
Melissia wrote:
It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.
We don't need an institution to celebrate love. The roman government (I think it was Octavius who instituted those laws) had the habit of giving honours to parents of large families, since they were 'giving' a most essential ressource to the state. The honours were stuff like precedence in religious affairs, order of entrance in the Senate, etc, and the most honours were given to those who raised the most children in an acceptable manner.
I'd expect that a lot of the current christian obsession with the 'sanctity of marriage' comes down from the early adaptation of ancient roman laws into canonical laws and practices.
Since modern marriage is no longer about creating large families, or even about creating families, it no longer has a purpose as an institution. I'm all about gay marriage since it seems to be the fight they've chosen to get complete emancipation, but regardless, gays complaining about not being able to marry today is about as sensical as an atheist women complaining that the Church won't let her be a priest.
Do you raise a kid? Then the government should cut you a certain slack in terms of taxes and such. Do you want to celebrate your love? Then do a garden party (alternatively an orgy). Marriage no longer has any purpose other than providing another fething con vs libs argument clusterfeth.
generalgrog wrote:For example she makes this statement "And yet, it also doesn't indicate that the marriage should be between a man and a woman" The fact is that the first two people that the Bible says were created were Adam and Eve...not Adam and Steve. God said be fruitful and multiply to Adam and Eve.
What? So we've got the story of Adam and Even, in which God creates Adam, a word meaning man or mankind, places him into a Garden containing the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge, and then creates from Man the woman Eve, a word meaning living.
You read that story and it didn't occur to you at all that we were looking at an origin story steeped heavily in metaphor and symbolism, but an actual retelling of what really happened? That's ridiculous.
Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).
So we better stop allowing infertile people to marry, then?
It would have been more accurate of her to state that the Bible shows people being real, people behaving badly doesn't mean that the Bible condones the behavior. In fact there are consequences for Cain and Able, Abraham-Sarah-Hagar, Jacob-Esau,Jepthah and his daughter, David-Batsheebah-Uriah. All of these stories illustrate what happens when you behave badly.
That only works if every person that behaves badly gets their penalty, but that isn't even slightly close to what happens.
generalgrog wrote: Adam and Steve would not be able to be fruitful(reproductively speaking) and would not be able to multiply(reproductively speaking).
Neither would Adam and Eve. That much incestuous relations would have meant the human race would have gone slow inside 4-5 generations. Given those premises, it's about as miraculous a story as would Adam and Steve birthing humanity.
mattyrm wrote: Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.
Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!
Will it comfort you to say that I admit my first argument concerning the importance of Leviticus is total bs, and I completely disagree with it now?
Here is why Leviticus, and the Old Covenant in general, is important:
“You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.” Matthew 5:21-22
Why would Jesus restate the old covenant law this way? Was Jesus changing the law? No. Jesus was explaining what the law in the new covenant would look like. The law went from being external to internal:
“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their family, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will already know me,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins.” Hebrews 8:8-13
In other words, the law of Moses forbade you from murdering someone. This same law internalized not only forbids the physical act of murder, but also forbids you from hating someone. According to the old covenant, you were not guilty if you hated someone, but if you murdered them, the law declared you guilty. In the new covenant of Jesus Christ this law declares a person guilty who hates someone in their heart.
Melissia wrote:The bible doesn't really contain family values. I mean, Adam's sons killed eachother. then Abraham's wife makes him get a servant pregnant, then mistreats the servant afterwards. Then there's Jacob, who stole his brother's birthright, and Jephthah, who had to sacrifice his only child to god for victory in war. David's... hell, he kills his general, takes the generla's wife, then his son rapes his daughter.
So? What does that have to do with anything. I don't know how you define "family values" - but in the Bible, God commands us to honor our father and mother, and to love our neighbor as ourself (ie, siblings). Just because the Bible uses those people as examples doesn't mean it condones their actions.
Melissia wrote:Jesus himself said he has come to set father against son and mother against daughter-- to create family discord.
You like understanding things the wrong way. He both did and did not come "to create family discord." He knew it would be a direct result of what he did, but obviously it was not his primary goal. If he had not created this "family discord", we would still be under the imperfect old covenant.
Melissia wrote:It's not about the family, but about love. Love between god, between people, and between lovers, but in the end, love.
The Bible isn't just about love, it is about our relationship with God. Love is the greatest of the commandments, but it is not the central idea of the Gospel. We are to love God, but we are also to fear him.
Lol. Fear God. Why, is he going to make a move on my girlfriend?
And love is the central idea of 'the Gospel'. The hermeneutical point of view of the scripture is that of God's love for his creatures. Even the Catholic Church agrees (and has agreed for a long time) that it's the only way to interpret the works of the Bible. An historical interpretation of christian history as the revelation of the love of God for his children.
Now why would he not simply appear as a flaming bush (lol) and say 'I so fething love you, guys' like any drunken best bro would, I don't know.
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
mattyrm wrote:
Coming from Dakkas resident Creationist fundamentalist, this is every single pot in the cosmos calling every Kettle ever created black.
Staggering hypocrisy from Religious people?!
Will it comfort you to say that I admit my first argument concerning the importance of Leviticus is total bs, and I completely disagree with it now?
Here is why Leviticus, and the Old Covenant in general, is important:
“You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Do not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are angry with someone, you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot, you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell.” Matthew 5:21-22
Why would Jesus restate the old covenant law this way? Was Jesus changing the law? No. Jesus was explaining what the law in the new covenant would look like. The law went from being external to internal:
“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day,” says the Lord. “I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their family, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will already know me,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins.” Hebrews 8:8-13
In other words, the law of Moses forbade you from murdering someone. This same law internalized not only forbids the physical act of murder, but also forbids you from hating someone. According to the old covenant, you were not guilty if you hated someone, but if you murdered them, the law declared you guilty. In the new covenant of Jesus Christ this law declares a person guilty who hates someone in their heart.
You'll forgive me if I'm not terribly familiar with modern theological teachings on the christian thought of free will, but in Judaism your actions are the single most important thing for determining how 'good' you are. There is obviously feeling involved for things like repentance on yom kippur or when reciting prayer but ultimately it is your actions that are most important. Because of this free will is a quintessential part of Judaic spirituality, anything you are forced to do absent of your own free will cannot be good nor bad, perhaps that is why in the old covenant it is the action of murder that is a crime. While the idea the that thought itself is a sin does certainly fit into the determinism philosophies of some christian sects, I don't see how that could mesh with the idea of free will. So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.
There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.
Humans are the only creatures capable of defining good and evil. Why should we chastise ourselves because one part of that duality is to be avoided?
We are much more saints then sinners.
Edit ; also, if I wanted to adopt such a mysoginist, homophobic, depressing outlook on life, I'd ''beleive" in Schopenhauer. He did write the first manual on how to troll (The Art of Being Right)
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.
There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.
Ah, see that kind of thought is just entirely foreign to me. That does kind of explain the major differences between the instructions in the old vs new testament. So according to your beliefs, a man is sinful and it expected that he have sinful thoughts, but he is able to redeem himself through faith in christ/god rather then through actions. If so are sinful thoughts seen as equally bad as sinful actions.
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.
There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.
Ah, see that kind of thought is just entirely foreign to me. That does kind of explain the major differences between the instructions in the old vs new testament. So according to your beliefs, a man is sinful and it expected that he have sinful thoughts, but he is able to redeem himself through faith in christ/god rather then through actions. If so are sinful thoughts seen as equally bad as sinful actions.
Faith is important, but James 2:19-26 also talks of works being needed. Various people acting on their faith are outlined and the faith is described as being made perfect by work.
Verse 26 states:
As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
You need to have faith, but you need to act on that faith. People in dire circumstance don't get fed and clothed by those who can help them sitting around thinking good thoughts. Those thoughts of what is right need to be acted on.
Yeah, but the thought that 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so I should give clothes to the poor' isn't enough, while the thought 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so God wants me to give clothes to the poor' will gives you eternal salvation.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, but the thought that 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so I should give clothes to the poor' isn't enough, while the thought 'it's bad to freeze in winter, so God wants me to give clothes to the poor' will gives you eternal salvation.
...
You would be giving clothes out of concern for someone and not your personal glorification, correct? I'd say you had a good start on salvation if you did that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Matthew 25: 34-46 gives a good example of the rewards of faith with works and faith without works.
Kovnik Obama wrote:But I do not need salvation. My nature isn't 'sinful', and any redemption I need I'll get through the forgiveness of those I have hurt.
Not much more I can say to you on that one because I believe differently. I don't believe we are condemned because of Adam's transgression, because a just God does not condemn one man for the actions of another. I have done enough in my own life to be condemned for. If someone forgives me, that elevates them, but they themselves, as a fellow sinner do not have the purity needed to pay my debt before God if I repent. Only Jesus has that ability.
Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.
You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
Whereas my nature doesn't inherently recognize an objective morality. So you do your thing, and I'll do mine, and then we'll see who has more fun.
And in that vein, just to hypothetically conform with your worldview: it sounds like all the cool stuff is in Hell; and all my friends are gonna be there too. Compared with your vision of an afterlife full of uppity lotus-eaters.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote:
Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.
You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.
Actually, the carrot-on-the-stick bit is the very root of Christianity. Hence, the eternal reward bit. As soon as the concept of a reward is introduced, it becomes the motivator. There's no other way.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.
I could quote scripture at you all day, but I really don't think that is the thing that will convince you. It's one of those things that may come to you one day or never come to you at all. Whatever conclusion you arrive at, it'll have to be you, seeking an answer you're willing to aknowledge as correct.
Currently, you seem to be in a place you are convinced is right and you are a sinless or basically sinless person.
I don't know if you own a bible or what stock you put in it but I direct you to the first Epistle of John , the whole thing.
youbedead wrote:You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason.
Yeah, but then Kant gives you a rational tool to determine what is good in every action ; the universal imperative. It puts the duty of judgement on the agent, not on the Creator. And it remains good even tho you've had to think and struggle about what would be the imperative in that instance.
To come back to my exemple, if I beleive the only possible action to be taken by everyone in that particular instance is to ask forgiveness for that overreaction, then I'm certain it's a good action.
Also ; I hate Kant. The guy couldn't write a short book if his life depended on it.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Unless purity refers to a metaphysical quality, I don't see how that comes in the equation. If I slap one of my friends for having made a 'yo mama' joke, and then gets his forgiveness for having overreacted, that forgiveness isn't spoiled by the fact that he's secretly an antisemite.
You could draw similarities to Kantian ethics if that would help you understand, according to Kant an action is only moral if it is done because the action is good and not for a selfish reason. Likewise ( at least i think this is what relapse is getting at) a christian preforms good deeds and has faith, they don't preform good deeds for the sake of redemption or for the sake of faith. As I understand a christian who does good deeds for the sole purpose of redemption is in fact bad.
Pretty close, a Christian performs good deeds for the love of his fellow man, out of faith in the teachings of God's prophets and Jesus.
Good deeds performed for self glorification or the" look how good I am and what I can do" motive are not going to be accepted by God.
Think about someone you might know is an obvious bastard yet, when they are trying to impress someone, act like a saint decended to Earth.
You feel disgust for the person and their hypocracy would be my guess.
Take someone the polar opposite doing the same good deeds out of love and concern for the deed's recipiant and you might find yourself drawn to that person favorably.
Relapse wrote:
I could quote scripture at you all day, but I really don't think that is the thing that will convince you.
Nah it wouldn't. Exegesis is essentially artful sophistry by authority. Which is why I ask questions that appeal to reason, since it's the only thing that will ever convince me. If religion only banks on people having midlife crisis, or people brainwashing their kids, then I'm pretty sure it's claim to morality is bankrupt.
Currently, you seem to be in a place you are convinced is right and you are a sinless or basically sinless person.
I don't mean to say that I'm sinless, simply that I'm, in terms of North American morality, a pretty damn good person. I take care of homeless kittens and read Lovecraft, how bad can I be But seriously, I'm convinced my sins would put me in the high percentiles of human morality. I think most of the people here too, by the way.
I don't know if you own a bible or what stock you put in it but I direct you to the first Epistle of John , the whole thing.
I was sent to a Catholic boarding school when I was in primary school. The Bible was the only book we were allowed to read after homeworks at night. Honestly? I think the moral content of the Bible is actually pretty microscopic if you compare it to, let's say, the Nicomachean Ethics.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Lol. Fear God. Why, is he going to make a move on my girlfriend?
Why fear the one who created the world from dust and could tear it down instantly? Why fear the one we have rebelled against?
This is why I wouldn't even worship any of the thousands of different Gods, they are all fearful, grotesque monsters who condone murder, sacrifice, genocide, drowning of children, rape, slavery and goodness knows what else.
If God of the Christian Bible, (or any for that matter) was real, which no one can say if he, she or it exists or not, would be the greatest mass murderer known to the universe.
Relapse wrote:It's interesting you use the terms brainwashing of kids and midlife crisis.
Care to elaborate?
It might have been to reductive or too inflamatory. But simply, if religion cannot appeal to reason, then it relies on atheists experiencing a rather traumatic change of mind (hence midlife crisis) or on indoctrination while reason is not perfectly formed. Mind you I'm not claiming that religion can't appeal to reason, there's plenty of theological philosophers that have tried, but the stance of the Catholic Church, and in general most other Christian churches I've come across is that reasonnable knowledge is not the relation God wants us to establish with Him. Which is highly suspect of simply being a rethoric to establish their authority.
It's a fairly interesting view you've presented, and the mid life crisis approach you mention puts me in mind of disreputable charlatans controling their flock through fear as opposed to leading and instructing them through love. I don't know if that was what you were approaching, with the late hour and my fogging up through insomnia brain, but I can't deny for certain preachers of the gospel that is true.
That type had pretty much been described as a wolf in sheeps clothing in the scriptures and has, unfortunatly, been part of the Chistian landscape for millenia.
There are on the other hand, those in the scriptures that were praised for faithfulness and caring. These too still exist today.
It becomes the whole "by their fruits ye shall know them" thing. As far as the children go, nature abhors a vacumn. I have the choice of letting my children learn the values of loving people and caring for them, and teaching them my values as a Christian, and I am doing that as best as I can.
There are several passages in the bible that encourage people to seek knowledge, but at the moment, I am losing steam and will have to get to bed.
I can only say that anyone that discourages an honest seeker of knowledge would be suspect to me or almost anyone I know, and is, to return to a phrase I used earlier, possibly a wolf in sheeps clothing the scriptures warn about.
As I said, I've mellowed out on Religion and I'm not interested in attempted to argue or change any unchangeable minds, but seriously these threads prove that America deserves its reputation, and that's why my missus is perpetually ashamed. Basically, 35-40% of your nation are full on Christian zealots that have been brainwashed just as vigorously as the Taliban.
I'm only glad the other 60 are doing all that hard work in the fields of Science and Technology, while the rest wallow in ignorance and theocracy. Honestly, some of the things that these Baptist Creationist types come out with absolutely blows my mind. I have lived in California and never met one, I honestly cant believe its part of the same country as Mississippi!
The average New Yorker or Vermonter has more in common with a bloody Frenchman than a bloke from Alabama or Louisiana..
mattyrm wrote:As I said, I've mellowed out on Religion and I'm not interested in attempted to argue or change any unchangeable minds, but seriously these threads prove that America deserves its reputation, and that's why my missus is perpetually ashamed. Basically, 35-40% of your nation are full on Christian zealots that have been brainwashed just as vigorously as the Taliban.
I'm only glad the other 60 are doing all that hard work in the fields of Science and Technology, while the rest wallow in ignorance and theocracy. Honestly, some of the things that these Baptist Creationist types come out with absolutely blows my mind. I have lived in California and never met one, I honestly cant believe its part of the same country as Mississippi!
The average New Yorker or Vermonter has more in common with a bloody Frenchman than a bloke from Alabama or Louisiana..
And thats just wrong!
I for once highly agree with mattyrm for the first time ever.
The funny thing is, America was founded by deists and theist, and the idea was a nation free from Religious persecution and control.
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.
There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.
So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?
Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?
The argument would be that if a person truly had a relationship with God, would he still be a hateful, maliciouis bastard or is that an outward sign that he is not truly saved after all?
d-usa wrote:The argument would be that if a person truly had a relationship with God, would he still be a hateful, maliciouis bastard or is that an outward sign that he is not truly saved after all?
Well, if you truly followed the bible, you should be stoning people who come to your door and offer you a new Religon, or at least lay the first had upon them.
Also, if you say Gods a good person, that's a judgement, so HERESY!
So I think God would be like "Fine with me, I'm gonna go drown the world again so it don't matter."
Also, if the Bible was true, wouldn't we all be the product of incest?
If you say "follow the Bible" do you mean the version including the new testament?
Because I think it has already pointed out quite a few times that there is not really any mention of Christians stoning people who follow different religion.
People love ot throw up "the Bible says [old covenant law] but people aren't following it" as an argument, even though we are not bound under the old covenant.
Of coures some Christians do the same by trying to force the old covenant laws onto people (like this whole gay marriage debate), or even try to force the new covenant on others.
d-usa wrote:If you say "follow the Bible" do you mean the version including the new testament?
Because I think it has already pointed out quite a few times that there is not really any mention of Christians stoning people who follow different religion.
People love ot throw up "the Bible says [old covenant law] but people aren't following it" as an argument, even though we are not bound under the old covenant.
Of coures some Christians do the same by trying to force the old covenant laws onto people (like this whole gay marriage debate), or even try to force the new covenant on others.
Yes.
That is the new testament, but again, does anyone follow the Bible entirely?
See, if people actually paid attention and looked into the non moral parts of the book, or the idea that thought crime exists and is committed widely, the world was created by a dictator and we're all being watched like some sort of giant Big Brother, I could imagine people saying "Nah just ignore it, look at the moral side."
Also;
In the New Testament: Saint Stephen, accused of blasphemy c. AD 31 (Acts 6:8–14, 7:58–60). In the Talmud Yeshu the Nazarene "will be led out to be stoned" (Sanhedrin 43a)[42] Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. John 8:5, NKJV.
Well, that is part of the confusion then. So the question is "who follows the New Testament entirely"?
And quite a few people actually do, since the message of the New Testament can be summed up in a few pretty easy steps.
1) God created the earth and he created us. 2) We decided to sin, and are unworthy of being with god. 3) Jesus came, lived a live without sin, and sacrificed himself to pay the price we should pay. 4) Accept the sacrifice made by Jesus.
And that is really the Gospel. Not the books, not the "do this and do that", just the message that we don't deserve salvation but God gave us a way anyway.
The other secondary teachings in the New Testament (love your neighbor, do good things, tell others about the Gospel, tc etc etc) are a result of salvation, not the cause.
But as far as instructions and "rules", there really are not that many in the new covenant. So quite a lot of people are actually following the NT entirely.
As to the posted NT quote about stoning. It is not a NT instructions that we should be stoning people. It is a quote of an old covenant law that no longer applies.
Edit: A big part of the problem is when people on both sides of the argument try to use Old Testament instructions to argue what they are trying to do.
Christians trying to legislate OT laws are missing the point of the law. People using OT laws in a "you are not following the rules" are missing that we don't follow the rules anymore.
There is also a school of thought that thinks the OT laws were never intended as a road map to salvation anyway.
The Bringer wrote:The Bible isn't just about love, it is about our relationship with God. Love is the greatest of the commandments, but it is not the central idea of the Gospel. We are to love God, but we are also to fear him.
You are thinking of the wrong kind of fear, however. It is not a fear that God will raise Her mighty hand and smite us, but a fear that She will forsake us, because we have abandoned Her love.
Love IS the core theme of Christianity. To act out of love for one's fellow person, to keep faith out of love. A fearful faith is nothing more than worthless, base, and childish-- anyone can force someone to worship them out of fear. But what is accomplished out of fear? You cannot progress, you cannot better yourself, out of fear. A person who lives in fear of god must constantly be afraid, constantly regress to the childish fear of punishment. A person who lives in love, meanwhile, will strive to better themselves, and their fellow people, and the world around them. Strive not just to worship god, but to understand Her and in doing so become closer to Her.
Living in fear will encourage people to hate, to lash out at others. The people of Sodom lived in fear, and this fear drove them to gang-rape travelers in to submission, believing they were spies from another city. The fear that they lived in led to inhospitality, and that led to their punishment. Meanwhile, the Centurion and the Good Samaritan acted out of love ,not fear-- and they are cited to be the best examples of how Christians are supposed to act. The Centurion was not a Jew, and the Samaritan was a wayward Jewish sect that was not well liked, and yet Jesus said "look at them, and do likewise". For their love for their fellow humans was unsurpassed.
To the question regarding Incest and how come the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve, or even the descendants of the Ark survivors weren't handicapped after XX generations. The classic young earth view is that incest(brother/sister) was acceptable in the beginning, because the human race's gene pool hadn't degenerated yet. It wasn't until many years after creation that the debilitating effects of the Eden curse started to show. This is also an explanation as to why the patriarchs of the Bible lived so long. I think Methuselah was between 700 and 970(depending on which manuscript you use) years old before dying right before the flood.
I think it is not as much fear of God, as it is apathy and growing away from Him.
I don't believe in the concept of hell as a "you are going to burn and suffer and be in pain" kind of place. I think hell is simply a place where we have no contact with God whatsoever, we are forever removed from His presence.
I think that our lives are the foundation of two paths that are all about a relationship between ourselves and God.
The first path is to have a relationship with God, and to have a desire to be closer to him. Which includes realizing that we could never be in his presence because even the best of us are not worthy of it and recognize the need of the Gospel.
The second is to not have a relationship with Him, or deciding to abandon that relationship. Either because you don't want to know Him, because you don't want to be with Him, or because you have never heard of Him.
So people that lived a good life and never heard the Gospel don't go to a hell where they suffer. They simply go to a final place where they don't know God and have no relationship with Him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:To the question regarding Incest and how come the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve, or even the descendants of the Ark survivors weren't handicapped after XX generations. The classic young earth view is that incest(brother/sister) was acceptable in the beginning, because the human race's gene pool hadn't degenerated yet. It wasn't until many years after creation that the debilitating effects of the Eden curse started to show. This is also an explanation as to why the patriarchs of the Bible lived so long. I think Methuselah was between 700 and 970(depending on which manuscript you use) years old before dying right before the flood.
GG
I think young earth theory is bogus, even as a Christian.
Seriously, are we trying to bring science fiction in to this?
This is Christianity, not Scientology.
Yeah I sat through one of Kent Hovind's 90 minute seminars once out of morbid curiosity. They really do believe we are all descendants from the survivors on Noahs Ark, people fethed their sisters, and everyone used to live to be 900 years old.
As I said, they just fully make gak up and call it Science.
youbedead wrote:So does modern Christianity place as much emphasis on free will and choice or is it believed that a 'good' person will naturally do good and won't have 'bad' thoughts.
I believe that all men are inherently sinful, and that is what separates us from God. We deserve eternal condemnation to hell because of our sinful nature.
We can choose to act on our sinful tendencies or to not to, but resisting temptation cannot save man, only by faith in Jesus Christ can we be saved.
There are many "Christians" that preach that one can be "a basically good person" by doing "good deeds", but it is quite clear in the New Testament that we are saved through faith alone, not by works... and that we will always fall short of the glory of God.
So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?
Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?
What a disgusting thought pattern.
That's not the way I either believe or was taught if you read my posts on the subject. I believe there is a quote from Einstein that goes "God does not play dice with the world."
Similarly, he does not burn good people in Hell for not believing in him. For that matter, he does not burn anyone in Hell.
So, my life should be based around a blood sacrifice committed by a man (Zombie!) in the middle east who I have never met, have little evidence of knowing existed and should obey his rules designed by a man in the desert trying to deal with a early society after being talked to by a bush of weed on fire.
Seems legit.
Lets not forget that by the laws of creation, the Earth is six thousand years old, despite this has been proved incorrect. We would all technically be the product of incest, due to the fact God denied knowledge from two innocent people, who had no idea of good nor evil who where told by a talking snake that they should eat the knowledge, also knowledge is in the form of an apple.
Seems legit.
Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.
blood reaper wrote:So, my life should be based around a blood sacrifice committed by a man (Zombie!) in the middle east who I have never met, have little evidence of knowing existed and should obey his rules designed by a man in the desert trying to deal with a early society after being talked to by a bush of weed on fire.
Seems legit.
Lets not forget that by the laws of creation, the Earth is six thousand years old, despite this has been proved incorrect. We would all technically be the product of incest, due to the fact God denied knowledge from two innocent people, who had no idea of good nor evil who where told by a talking snake that they should eat the knowledge, also knowledge is in the form of an apple.
Seems legit.
Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.
Seems legit.
First off, look at it this way. You see death as a removal from the stage, but with God's view, death is merely moving people around. They are still alive, but in a different place. As far as the morality of the people goes, I'll take it on faith that it must have been pretty bad, except for the children under a certain age, since children have no concrete concept of good or evil the same goes for mentaly disabled. Those children and mentaly disabled who died will have a ticket straight into God's presence, as they died innocent. Their parents, however would have a lot to answer for since they knew what was right, yet did not raise their children accordingly.
As far as scientific impossibility goes, even Einstein admitted he didn't know everything or every possibility in the universe. Look at the Mars Curiosity mission. Most people at the turn of the last century would have said that was impossible and could never happen, yet here we are, looking close up at the surface of that planet.
blood reaper wrote:So, my life should be based around a blood sacrifice committed by a man (Zombie!) in the middle east who I have never met, have little evidence of knowing existed and should obey his rules designed by a man in the desert trying to deal with a early society after being talked to by a bush of weed on fire.
Seems legit.
Lets not forget that by the laws of creation, the Earth is six thousand years old, despite this has been proved incorrect. We would all technically be the product of incest, due to the fact God denied knowledge from two innocent people, who had no idea of good nor evil who where told by a talking snake that they should eat the knowledge, also knowledge is in the form of an apple.
Seems legit.
Also, the world was flooded after God decided that everyone was "EVIL", including the blind, the disabled, the deaf, the children, the babies and mentally disabled, and in order to start over, God got his garden hose and told a six hundred year old man to gather two of every animal on earth. There are currently 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals, however, he only took the 21,000 reptiles and mammals with him, then he built the boat and went a rowing, but ignoring food supplies, the fact he's six hundred and has crossed the entire planet, and the current life time of a man in his age was a maximum of 25 on average, survived. Also, if rain water and salt water mix, they form a deadly chemical which would have wiped out all fish life, so they would have had to held their breath. Then Noah, and his six wives and his 3 sons, got busy and made the entire human race again, with incest.
Seems legit.
First off, look at it this way. You see death as a removal from the stage, but with God's view, death is merely moving people around. They are still alive, but in a different place. As far as the morality of the people goes, I'll take it on faith that it must have been pretty bad, except for the children under a certain age, since children have no concrete concept of good or evil the same goes for mentaly disabled. Those children and mentaly disabled who died will have a ticket straight into God's presence, as they died innocent. Their parents, however would have a lot to answer for since they knew what was right, yet did not raise their children accordingly.
As far as scientific impossibility goes, even Einstein admitted he didn't know everything or every possibility in the universe. Look at the Mars Curiosity mission. Most people at the turn of the last century would have said that was impossible and could never happen, yet here we are, looking close up at the surface of that planet.
When did I ever say anything was impossible? It just seems highly unlikely.
Then our views of morality are different.
I just see it as a myth started by earlier Religons, then formed into new ideals by people wanting to explain things, but I still see it as immoral and wrong.
Also, until I have evidence, scientific, liable evidence, then I won't believe, but god hasn't made it at all obvious.
Also, how out of the thousand or so Relgions do you know you are correct? What will you do if you find yourself before Zeus or Allah?
Squigsquasher wrote:So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?
You are looking at this from the wrong point of view.
"Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men" Colossians 3:22-23
From a Christian perspective, unless man does "good works" for the glory of God, then they will crumble away and be pointless. People do "good" because they want to to "good" for the sake of doing "good", or because it makes them feel good, or because they want to get something out of it.
A Christian does what he does for the glory of God... or at least that is what we strive to do.
Also, the problem isn't works, it is the inherent sinful nature of man. God being perfect was separated from man when sin entered our hearts. Being perfect and pure, He could not be with us because of our sinful nature, it would not be according to His nature. Jesus bridges that gap between God and Man, but only for those who choose to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Works have no play in the matter.
Squigsquasher wrote:Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?
If he acts like that I would doubt his faith... but yes, he would still go to heaven if he had any faith.
There is a lot of controversy about the importance of works in one's salvation in the Church as a whole. I recently talked to someone who gave an excellent point, and I completely agree with it:
We are called to glorify God as Christians... our entire focus should be on God, so why should we worry if our works matter in our salvation? As long as we aim to glorify God and as long as we aim to become more like him, the fruits of the spirit will be shown in our daily actions, and the importance of works in one's salvation won't make a difference.
Those who focus on whether or not works have a play in one's salvation are missing the point: that it shouldn't make a difference.
Paganism was the very first religion. Always good to tilt back a beer and say "thanks to Zues" watching a good thunderstorm behind the grill with overhead cover.
Relapse wrote:How do you mean our views of morality are different?
You see it acceptable to let a being judge the entire human race on what would seem it's view of a majority doing bad things, then committing mass genocide instead of coming down, going "Hi, I'm God, so if you don't stop, your fethed" but in a more serious manner.
In all respects, I'm not going to convince anyone that I'm right, nor are you but in all respects, Religon has little factual back up to support it.
I don't think their is no possibility of God, but I doubt the Bible would be a good source for morality nor is it's source.
Relapse wrote:How do you mean our views of morality are different?
You see it acceptable to let a being judge the entire human race on what would seem it's view of a majority doing bad things, then committing mass genocide instead of coming down, going "Hi, I'm God, so if you don't stop, your fethed" but in a more serious manner.
In all respects, I'm not going to convince anyone that I'm right, nor are you but in all respects, Religon has little factual back up to support it.
I don't think their is no possibility of God, but I doubt the Bible would be a good source for morality nor is it's source.
There were warnings from God through his prophets, though, but the people ignored them. Even if God were to do a face to face, as he did with Adam and Eve, or perform any of his biblicaly recorded miricles, free will does not guarantee he'd be listened to.
In any event, as I said earlier, what is death to you is merely a transition from one state of living to another from God's view.
However, Adam 'n Eve, where at best children who where convinced by a talking Snake to take a bite from an Apple containing the knowledge of morality and such.
So they could not of known right from wrong, and God had only said, "Don't eat them Apples"
How where they supposed to know it's going to end badly, they where spoiled children who knew little of consequence.
And yes, I don't think I'd listen to the guy who drowned the world cause he's judged everyone on a majorites actions, and quite vilontley I imagine.
Also, how do you know this transaction thing is true? So, what death is meaningless ? All the deaths in the history of man mean nothing? They just go onto the next life?
God did tell them they would die if they partook. I don't know what was being talked of. It was just described as fruit of the tree, but what tree, what fruit?
Perhaps the tree was desciptive of an action and the fruit was the result of that action, I honestly don't know.
As far as God's judgement on the people of Noah's, or any time goes, he is the creator and sees the entire picture where as we only see infintisimal bits that. We know that he is merciful and as his children, he will correct us in the way a loving father would correct his children.
I figure by now your thinking what loving father kills his children? For God, our concept of death is nothing more than someone in one room calling for someone in another room to join him.
Death is meaningless in the sense that it is not an obliteration of someone's existence. We just didn't pop into existence at birth, we existed before the world began as spirit children of God. This life on Earth is a part of our learning experience to one day be able to inherit the things God has for us.
As far as proof goes, it's like radio waves, there was some evidence for the early scientific pioneers they existed, but most people scoffed at the idea. As knowledge increased, though, everyone came to know of their existence.
Has God revealed everything to us yet? No, we need to absorb and understand what we've been given so far.
Perhaps one day in this lifetime, you'll get the evidence you seek, but faith is important for a reason.
My best advice in this regard is to have an open mind and honestly seek for your answers.
Squigsquasher wrote:So according to you, if a person is a good, kind, caring person, has done nothing wrong in their life and leads a good existence, helping other people and making the lives of others better, but doesn't believe in Jesus...He deserves to burn in hell?
You are looking at this from the wrong point of view.
"Servants, obey in all things [your] masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: And whatsoever ye do, do [it] heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men" Colossians 3:22-23
From a Christian perspective, unless man does "good works" for the glory of God, then they will crumble away and be pointless. People do "good" because they want to to "good" for the sake of doing "good", or because it makes them feel good, or because they want to get something out of it.
A Christian does what he does for the glory of God... or at least that is what we strive to do.
Also, the problem isn't works, it is the inherent sinful nature of man. God being perfect was separated from man when sin entered our hearts. Being perfect and pure, He could not be with us because of our sinful nature, it would not be according to His nature. Jesus bridges that gap between God and Man, but only for those who choose to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Works have no play in the matter.
Squigsquasher wrote:Whilst a man can be a complete tosser and make other people's lives miserable and generally be a hateful, malicious bastard, but be utterly faithful, and he will go to heaven?
If he acts like that I would doubt his faith... but yes, he would still go to heaven if he had any faith.
There is a lot of controversy about the importance of works in one's salvation in the Church as a whole. I recently talked to someone who gave an excellent point, and I completely agree with it:
We are called to glorify God as Christians... our entire focus should be on God, so why should we worry if our works matter in our salvation? As long as we aim to glorify God and as long as we aim to become more like him, the fruits of the spirit will be shown in our daily actions, and the importance of works in one's salvation won't make a difference.
Those who focus on whether or not works have a play in one's salvation are missing the point: that it shouldn't make a difference.
That is just stupid.
If God is supposedly omnipotent and our inherent sinfulness is a problem as far as God is casting concerned, why didn't God just remove our ability to be sinful? And why does this same omnipotent God need glorifying so much? Could it be that he is just an attention seeking tantrum throwing narcissist? God doesn't NEED glorifying, unless he withers and dies without worship. Fellow humans need help and kindness. I refuse to bend to the will of a tyrannical deity who demands attention just so he can feel better about his own utter lack of redeeming features.
Relapse wrote:God did tell them they would die if they partook. I don't know what was being talked of. It was just described as fruit of the tree, but what tree, what fruit?
Perhaps the tree was desciptive of an action and the fruit was the result of that action, I honestly don't know.
As far as God's judgement on the people of Noah's, or any time goes, he is the creator and sees the entire picture where as we only see infintisimal bits that. We know that he is merciful and as his children, he will correct us in the way a loving father would correct his children.
I figure by now your thinking what loving father kills his children? For God, our concept of death is nothing more than someone in one room calling for someone in another room to join him.
Death is meaningless in the sense that it is not an obliteration of someone's existence. We just didn't pop into existence at birth, we existed before the world began as spirit children of God. This life on Earth is a part of our learning experience to one day be able to inherit the things God has for us.
As far as proof goes, it's like radio waves, there was some evidence for the early scientific pioneers they existed, but most people scoffed at the idea. As knowledge increased, though, everyone came to know of their existence.
Has God revealed everything to us yet? No, we need to absorb and understand what we've been given so far.
Perhaps one day in this lifetime, you'll get the evidence you seek, but faith is important for a reason.
My best advice in this regard is to have an open mind and honestly seek for your answers.
A loving father would drown his children? You can assume it's fine, but it's not in my opioin! It's evil and insane!
I need evidence, faith is being blind and foolish.
I need evidence, not "radio ways", that's why I am an Athiest, I serched an found no evidence to such a thing and have decided that until god is proved, then I will not believe so blindly.
We've been put here to learn morality and how to choose between good and evil, among other things. If our free will were removed, we be in a worse position than, say, people living in Norrth Korea. The fact you've been given free will proves he is not a Tyrant.
To put it into another context, I imagine you believe moral codes as laid down by organized religion are restrictive and no way will you follow them. What then if you were given a drug or treatment that removed your ability to not comply to the letter what was dogma?
@Blood, I direct you to the part of my previous post answering your question about a father drowning his children.
We've been put here to learn morality and how to choose between good and evil, among other things. If our free will were removed, we be in a worse position than, say, people living in Norrth Korea. The fact you've been given free will proves he is not a Tyrant.
To put it into another context, I imagine you believe moral codes as laid down by organized religion are restrictive and no way will you follow them. What then if you were given a drug or treatment that removed your ability to not comply to the letter what was dogma?
@Blood, I direct you to the part of my previous post answering your question about a father drowning his children.
We've been put here to learn morality and how to choose between good and evil, among other things. If our free will were removed, we be in a worse position than, say, people living in Norrth Korea. The fact you've been given free will proves he is not a Tyrant.
To put it into another context, I imagine you believe moral codes as laid down by organized religion are restrictive and no way will you follow them. What then if you were given a drug or treatment that removed your ability to not comply to the letter what was dogma?
@Blood, I direct you to the part of my previous post answering your question about a father drowning his children.
It merely proves that he wishes to feel more glorious by recieving worship from creatures with "free will".
Cleaely we are opposites on this, but I a m enjoying a lot the idea exchange. Unfortunatly, I have other things I need to do right now and have to leave.
I'd like to take this up later with both of you though, because it is an interesting topic to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Bringer wrote:I feel like its time to give up these discussions because they are way off topic by now and are getting heated.
I don't feel heated, and I don't think Squig or Blood is, either. You, yourself bring a lot of good to the table, and I hope you aren't feeling attacked.
Commenting on the original cheerios movie, I have to say that it was rather underwhelming. For it to be really screwed up, the guy should have been consumed by the cheerios fire.
Relapse, Bringer, I appreciate you both being patient and keeping it polite and constructive.
Blood reaper, squigsmasher, you can disagree with them without insulting them. Vigorous disagreement is one thing, but there's no need to be rude, and it's a violation of the website's rules if and when you are. I've had to delete a couple of posts that were nothing more than pure bashes and I'd rather not have to do so again.
As a religious person from outside the Judeo-Christian framework, I have the privilege of a somewhat less-common perspective, disagreeing with all four of you on many points, and agreeing with all of you in some places.
We are best able to expand our own minds and those of others if we keep the idea exchange friendly and don't dismiss or look down on one another.
I admit that I rather like Jesus' philosophy. Humility, love, acceptance, charity, forgiveness, and honesty are the virtues he spoke for, and they're all noble virtues which help make our society a better place for everyone.
But I see so many prideful, arrogant schmucks within the religious community that it makes me wonder... how do THEY know who will be saved? Someone who is prideful is just as sinful as someone who is lustful... yet the former is embraced while the latter is demonized. That said, as a personal thing I can't help but hate. It's one of my personal demons, as it were. But I struggle to control it the best I can-- no one likes a psychopathically violent person, after all, and I don't want to become one-- but these people... I wonder if they struggle iwth their own pride? Do they notice their prideful nature?.
And thus pride sneaks up on myself, as well. It's a rather insidious thing. Still, I do worry that people get so caught up in spreading the message that they lose track of its meaning. Trying to spread the word of Christ through spouting hate is like... trying to show hospitality by throwing someone out the door naked in to the snow.
@Melissa
John 8:44: "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Truly a message of peace.
Just forget the fact pride is a human emotion, it seems like all Religon has to suppress human emotion?
Mannahnin wrote:We are best able to expand our own minds and those of others if we keep the idea exchange friendly and don't dismiss or look down on one another.
So we can't look down on someone who uses there personal beliefs as an excuse for there discrimination towards others?
A) That's not what I said.
B) Dakka rules don't permit you to be nasty to someone on here, even if they engage in behavior or speech you find immoral and objectionable.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse.
Melissia wrote:When directed towards a goal, pride can be useful as a motivating tool. Thus the old phrase, "have some pride in your work".
But it shouldn't allowed to take control of yourself.
Indeed.
However emotion should not be surpressed.
That depends on the expression of the emotion. It's not a good thing to let a child run wild with his emotions and less so with an adult.
Indeed, but when ones emotions are repressed, then they become an adult and find themselves with freedom, it can cause serious problems for the person.
@Messilia Strawman? Honestly? but even basic pride seems to be looked down upon, why? It's human nature! There however is a difference when you tare someone's throat out with a pencil.
Melissia wrote:I admit that I rather like Jesus' philosophy. Humility, love, acceptance, charity, forgiveness, and honesty are the virtues he spoke for, and they're all noble virtues which help make our society a better place for everyone.
But I see so many prideful, arrogant schmucks within the religious community that it makes me wonder... how do THEY know who will be saved? Someone who is prideful is just as sinful as someone who is lustful... yet the former is embraced while the latter is demonized. That said, as a personal thing I can't help but hate. It's one of my personal demons, as it were. But I struggle to control it the best I can-- no one likes a psychopathically violent person, after all, and I don't want to become one-- but these people... I wonder if they struggle iwth their own pride? Do they notice their prideful nature?.
And thus pride sneaks up on myself, as well. It's a rather insidious thing. Still, I do worry that people get so caught up in spreading the message that they lose track of its meaning. Trying to spread the word of Christ through spouting hate is like... trying to show hospitality by throwing someone out the door naked in to the snow.
I am mindful of the parable of the Good Samaritan that Jesus gave.
The important people in the religious and secular community passed the man laying on the road.
A Samaritan, considered from a people without merit or worth, stopped and did all he could to help the man.
It's not a big surprise to see who Jesus held up
as the example of what people should be like. With everything else Jesus said and did,
who do you think will be exaulted when the time for judgement comes?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood reaper wrote:
Relapse wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
Melissia wrote:When directed towards a goal, pride can be useful as a motivating tool. Thus the old phrase, "have some pride in your work".
But it shouldn't allowed to take control of yourself.
Indeed.
However emotion should not be surpressed.
That depends on the expression of the emotion. It's not a good thing to let a child run wild with his emotions and less so with an adult.
Indeed, but when ones emotions are repressed, then they become an adult and find themselves with freedom, it can cause serious problems for the person.
@Messilia Strawman? Honestly? but even basic pride seems to be looked down upon, why? It's human nature! There however is a difference when you tare someone's throat out with a pencil.
On the whole, unbridled emotions allowed as a child leads to an adult with issues, at least from my observations.
However, surprised Emotions can cause the same effect.
Also, I'm still awaiting evidence, I mean, the entire Bible, or for that matter all of the thousands, if not millions of Religous texts and their mass similarities seems to lack proof to believe in them. I could say the Lord of the Rings is real, or worship the Gods of Chaos, because they also have been written about, and they haven't been proved, nor has God number 312 or God 789 but they haven't been disproved.
Bringer: It took a bit of reading, But here is what I was thinking of, specifically, aside from the various quotes in Matthew (which I admit is my favorite book):
1 John 4:16 wrote:God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
Love, again, is the main directive of any Christian. Not to worship god through fear, but through love. God is the Father and the Mother, being of both genders and of neither. She loves us, and wants our love in return.
Perhaps I have too many fond memories of Mr. Rogers: "God loves you just the way you are."
Mannahnin wrote:We are best able to expand our own minds and those of others if we keep the idea exchange friendly and don't dismiss or look down on one another.
So we can't look down on someone who uses there personal beliefs as an excuse for there discrimination towards others?
A) That's not what I said.
B) Dakka rules don't permit you to be nasty to someone on here, even if they engage in behavior or speech you find immoral and objectionable.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse unless you are being discourteous or abusive to a bible believer.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse unless you are being discourteous or abusive to someone with religous conviction
Fixed it for you GG
By using the word "bible" your still aiming at a specific. Need to keep it open
Dunno, I mean, I certainly have tried to be respectful to Bringer, who seems to have religious conviction. Just because we disagree on matters of theology is no reason to call "heresy!" and start a pogrom.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse unless you are being discourteous or abusive to someone with religous conviction
Fixed it for you GG
By using the word "bible" your still aiming at a specific. Need to keep it open
GG, you have to admit that your beleif system flies in the face of all currently held scientific facts, and isn't just a discourse to unite the known scientific facts.
If I can say that the crazy hobo that thinks that crows are government spies sent after him is crazy, I think I can say that beleiving that we've all descended from 2 human beings is pretty crazy. It's, to anyone with any degree of learning in modern biology, the same level of wrongness.
Claiming that, at any point in history or prehistory, humans have lived naturally up until 700 or 900, is a pretty sure way to attract ridicule. We've been steadily increasing our life expectation for, what now, 5 or 6 centuries? And still we can't beat senescence after 125.
Also, beleiving that agelessness is a sign of God's favour, or that senescence is a sign of His disfavour, would mean that flatworms and water hydras are actually the chosen people.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse unless you are being discourteous or abusive to someone with religous conviction
Fixed it for you GG
By using the word "bible" your still aiming at a specific. Need to keep it open
Jihadin, if you find an example of someone being abusive to a poster on here, please hit the yellow triangle. GG has come in for some attacks, and we have repeatedly censured and suspended posters for attacking him. On the other hand, GG has also repeatedly abused others, and engaged in deliberate trolling behavior, provoking others into attacking him. Two wrongs don't make a right. Depending on the severity of the situation, when two posters are both clearly in the wrong, we will sometimes choose not to suspend either, but instead put a general warning to the thread. On others we might just miss something.
Melissia wrote:Bringer: It took a bit of reading, But here is what I was thinking of, specifically, aside from the various quotes in Matthew (which I admit is my favorite book):
1 John 4:16 wrote:God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
Love, again, is the main directive of any Christian. Not to worship god through fear, but through love. God is the Father and the Mother, being of both genders and of neither. She loves us, and wants our love in return.
Perhaps I have too many fond memories of Mr. Rogers: "God loves you just the way you are."
And all that God asks is that we love back.
Fair enough. Personally I've always been bad at summarizing the Bible with few words.
But God doesn't love us just the way we are. He loves us just the way we are minus sin
Melissia wrote:You are thinking of the wrong kind of fear, however. It is not a fear that God will raise Her mighty hand and smite us, but a fear that She will forsake us, because we have abandoned Her love.
Are you trying to bait me by saying her?
Melissia wrote:Love IS the core theme of Christianity.
For now I will say you are correct, though I don't like it when people say the core theme of the Bible is this or that because it leaves so much out of the picture that is absolutely vital. I'd say mercy and justice are two other themes that are both incredibly prominent. Though really, mercy could be considered as one facet of love.
Glad you agree. My Kant teacher pretty much opened his course saying '' Well, Kant was an incredibly boring man who could've said everything he ended up saying in about one tenth of the volume of books he wrote''.
Mind you, my master's on Husserl, so I pretty much went from Scylla straight to Charybdis.
Kovnik Obama wrote:Glad you agree. My Kant teacher pretty much opened his course saying '' Well, Kant was an incredibly boring man who could've said everything he ended up saying in about one tenth of the volume of books he wrote''.
Mind you, my master's on Husserl, so I pretty much went from Scylla straight to Charybdis.
To be fair that could be said about any philosopher or writer really, though I agree Kant is like the Melville of philosophers
I'm struggling to bring to mind a philosopher which could honestly be described as concise, so I think I'll have to grant you this one... Lyotard, maybe? Hume wasn't so bad either, if I remember correctly.
On topic part of the posts : Philosophers everywhere strongly disagrees with the wasteful burning of Cheerios.
Melissia wrote:When directed towards a goal, pride can be useful as a motivating tool. Thus the old phrase, "have some pride in your work".
But it shouldn't allowed to take control of yourself.
Indeed.
However emotion should not be surpressed.
So you're saying that I shouldn't suppress the emotional desire to rip someone's throat out with a pencil whenever I feel it next?
Do whatever you like with your emotions; in this case it is the action that you ought to suppress.
Melissia wrote:And all that God asks is that we love back.
Yeah, this only really works if you ignore the other few hundred arbitrary rules He asks of us. There's a reason the Bible is a big ol' book, and not a Post-It note. "Attn: Mankind- love!" would otherwise get the job done.
@GeneralGrog, I'm still waiting for an answer from you on how someone can call themselves a Christian in following Leviticus when it comes to opposing gay marriage, yet not following Leviticus when it also forbids cutting your beard (19:27) or wearing poly-cotton blends (19:19).
Manchu wrote:Well it sounds like you are talking about something that is much more personal than a national news item there, DIDM. I'd venture to guess that you don't know many practicing Catholics anymore or have much to do with them. I'd venture that you don't go to mass, for example. And I'd venture that a lot of your opinions are filtered through a lens of hateful prejudice that your idiosyncratic personal experience frankly cannot excuse.
Because if you did know many Catholics, you'd discover a huge group of people who don't have anything in common with this cereal burner. And if you did go to mass, you wouldn't hear much -- or probably anything at all (I know I never have) -- about anyone going to hell over this or that, including being gay or transgendered. And if you didn't believe that your own individual experience was conclusive for all the other billion Catholics on this earth, you just might find that it is in fact not even slightly representative.
not only do I know them, I'm related to them
gay and a bundle of sticks are verbs in my family, and in the most ignorant way possible
Melissia wrote:And all that God asks is that we love back.
Yeah, this only really works if you ignore the other few hundred arbitrary rules He asks of us. There's a reason the Bible is a big ol' book, and not a Post-It note. "Attn: Mankind- love!" would otherwise get the job done.
What few hundred arbitrary rules does he asks of us Christians?
Kovnik Obama wrote:Glad you agree. My Kant teacher pretty much opened his course saying '' Well, Kant was an incredibly boring man who could've said everything he ended up saying in about one tenth of the volume of books he wrote''.
I would have liked him, that's basically my opinion of all social science; and much of hard science.
When you see people citing Waltz in literature reviews regarding the nature of realism, you know a problem exists.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse unless you are being discourteous or abusive to someone with religous conviction
Fixed it for you GG
By using the word "bible" your still aiming at a specific. Need to keep it open
Jihadin, if you find an example of someone being abusive to a poster on here, please hit the yellow triangle. GG has come in for some attacks, and we have repeatedly censured and suspended posters for attacking him. On the other hand, GG has also repeatedly abused others, and engaged in deliberate trolling behavior, provoking others into attacking him. Two wrongs don't make a right. Depending on the severity of the situation, when two posters are both clearly in the wrong, we will sometimes choose not to suspend either, but instead put a general warning to the thread. On others we might just miss something.
Manny this is wrong of you to post what you did. I have never had a warning from any mod on this forum, and it is quite slanderous of you, a moderator, to sling my good name through the mud.
"the provoking others into attacking him" line is a typical blame the victim line.
You(mannahnin) have a personal axe to grind against me for my stance on homosexuality and that has colored your viewpoint of me. At times, I feel like you take out all of your frustrations that you can't normally express in "the real world" out on me, on this forum, just because you can.
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote:GG, you have to admit that your beleif system flies in the face of all currently held scientific facts, and isn't just a discourse to unite the known scientific facts.
If I can say that the crazy hobo that thinks that crows are government spies sent after him is crazy, I think I can say that beleiving that we've all descended from 2 human beings is pretty crazy. It's, to anyone with any degree of learning in modern biology, the same level of wrongness.
Claiming that, at any point in history or prehistory, humans have lived naturally up until 700 or 900, is a pretty sure way to attract ridicule. We've been steadily increasing our life expectation for, what now, 5 or 6 centuries? And still we can't beat senescence after 125.
Also, beleiving that agelessness is a sign of God's favour, or that senescence is a sign of His disfavour, would mean that flatworms and water hydras are actually the chosen people.
KO..this type of discussion that you are engaging in is fine, because you are stating your disagreement with out resulting to insult. Unfortunately your level headedness is far too rare on the internet.
I have also stated on this very very forum that my stance has softened a bit on the evolution issue. (And I had never said that a person wasn't a Christian if they believed in Macroevolution) I have softened in the sense that what I once viewed as very "cut and dried" to "I now understand why people believe in macro evolution, and have disdain for some creationist argument".
Now having said that, I still haven't seen enough evidence to buy into macroevolution, and I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to ID or "creation science".
generalgrog wrote:
Manny this is wrong of you to post what you did. I have never had a warning from any mod on this forum, and it is quite slanderous of you, a moderator, to sling my good name through the mud.
"the provoking others into attacking him" line is a typical blame the victim line.
You(mannahnin) have a personal axe to grind against me for my stance on homosexuality and that has colored your viewpoint of me. At times, I feel like you take out all of your frustrations that you can't normally express in "the real world" out on me, on this forum, just because you can.
GG
Some of the things you have said about people in the past have made me want to vomit. You say things like "It isn't his fault he is a disgusting pervert" and then cringe behind your Religious claptrap to avoid bans and warnings. Its truly hypocritical and absolutely disgusting, and the only possible reason you get away with it is because you play the perennial victim with consummate expertise and cower behind your faith.
mattyrm wrote:
Some of the things you have said about people in the past have made me want to vomit. You say things like "It isn't his fault he is a disgusting pervert" and then cringe behind your Religious claptrap to avoid bans and warnings. Its truly hypocritical and absolutely disgusting, and the only possible reason you get away with it is because you play the perennial victim with consummate expertise and cower behind your faith.
Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)
There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.
And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.
Come on Matty, I'm having a good conversation with Bringer here. No need to take Grog's flamebait.
The Bringer wrote:Fair enough. Personally I've always been bad at summarizing the Bible with few words.
It's a large and extremely varied book.
The Bringer wrote:But God doesn't love us just the way we are. He loves us just the way we are minus sin
I don't know. After all, God did send Her only son to die to forgive our sins. She doesn't LOVE our sins, but She also doesn't detest them quite so strongly as you seem to suggest.
A sort of "I don't hate you, but I am disappointed" sort of thing, like many parents feel about their wayward children. Which seems appropriate, for She is a parent to us-- both the Mother and the Father. And She asks us: "Will you be my child?" ~ John 1:12-13
The Bringer wrote:Are you trying to bait me by saying her?
No. But I figure it doesn't matter which gender is used. God is everything that both genders are; at the same time, She is also everything that they are not. Male, and not, female, and not. It doesn't really matter which gender is used to represent Her, because both are accurate and yet neither is really accurate.
The Bringer wrote:For now I will say you are correct, though I don't like it when people say the core theme of the Bible is this or that because it leaves so much out of the picture that is absolutely vital. I'd say mercy and justice are two other themes that are both incredibly prominent. Though really, mercy could be considered as one facet of love.
Mercy is indeed an aspect of love, applied love if you will.
Justice, however... there is justice, and yet, the justice that She advocates is not a harsh, hateful, unforgiving justice. It is that of a parent that wants to see us grow in to something great.
The Bringer wrote:What happened to the homosexuality debate?
It never really stopped, it just moved on to a related tangent. The bible doesn't really talk about homosexuality, despite what many modern translations think.
Although I know that some people on this forum will be annoyed, I'll bring up Matthew and the "Eunouchos" argument again, if you want.
KJV wrote:“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
The term "eunuchs" in the KJV is not a bad translation, but it has lost a lot of its context from the time it was written. Eunouchos-- the original term-- was not a very precise term back in BIblical times. The average person in those times used half the vocabulary the average person in modern times used, and the language was nowhere near as scientifically precise as the one we have-- so because of tha and cultural reasons, Eunouchos (the term translated in to Eunuch) included those who did not breed for non-biological reasons as well.
Thus, this quote. Those who are born "eunouchos" from their mother's womb (those born homosexual; eunouchos were often looked down upon in Roman culture because they, were, well... bottom partners in gay sex, with a lot of stereotypical homosexual traits associated with them); those who are made "eunouchos" of man; those physically or psychologically scarred so that they cannot breed and don't want to marry; and those who make themselves "eunouchos" for the kingdom of heaven (scholars, nuns, monks, and those who decide to follow a life of self-denial in the name of faith). All of them, according to Jesus, should accept who they are, not deny it, and receive Her love and Her blessings in Heaven.
Keep in mind that back then, the idea of not participating in a heterosexual marriage as fast as possible was a rather radical one. The concept of an afterlife was, relatively speaking, fairly new, and most people still wanted to carry on the bloodline as the only way to live beyond death. The very concept of gay marriage did not exist back then because marriage was only barely recognizable with marriage today, even modern heterosexual marriage.
mattyrm wrote:
Some of the things you have said about people in the past have made me want to vomit. You say things like "It isn't his fault he is a disgusting pervert" and then cringe behind your Religious claptrap to avoid bans and warnings. Its truly hypocritical and absolutely disgusting, and the only possible reason you get away with it is because you play the perennial victim with consummate expertise and cower behind your faith.
Ergo, you are out of line for all of the above.
Case in point.
But I guess I provoked him right?
GG
Yes.
Take this for example.
generalgrog wrote:You(mannahnin) have a personal axe to grind against me for my stance on homosexuality and that has colored your viewpoint of me.
Its one of the most laughable things I have ever read. Its like saying "Just because of my stance on those disgusting black people.. you have a coloured viewpoint of me"
Calling people perverts (you have said it NUMEROUS times) by definition IS slanderous, and you ARE a bigot. You are one. A fully fledged member of the bigot brigade.
I however, am not bigoted, I don't have an axe to grind against Christians, because the overwhelming majority of them aren't like you. Most people on dakka identify themselves as Christians, I don't give them any gak. I give you gak, because you are a bigot.
Isn't that a fair way to behave? Hitler was a bigot, would you demand I be polite to him if he was on dakka?
As I said, you are a master at playing the hurt feelings card and manipulating the mods thanks to your faith. Just like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart, you can get away with the most odious, hate filled and disgusting statements in a public forum as long as you can get yourself taken seriously as a man of faith.
It would be laugh out loud funny if it wasn't so tragic for the rest of America that you and your ilk get given such a free reign while everyone else has to watch what they say.
Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)
There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.
And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.
Azazel..I thought I had responded. I thought I had pointed out that the Hebraic Law as laid out in Leviticus is not a requirement for being a Christian. That was an old covenant between God and the Hebrews, which later became the nation of Israel. We have a new covenant, through Jesus Christ (the Messiah) which is between God and all men to include Jews and Gentiles.
Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)
There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone
Good thing is that none of these rules apply to Christians.
Old Covenant rules for Jews do not equal New Covenant rules for Christians, but of course I already explained that a few times in this thread.
But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues
Before that happens, you wanted examples of arbitrary rules that God asks of Christians. Here ya go:
-Leviticus forbids shaving your beard or getting a haircut
-Leviticus forbids wearing mixed-fiber clothes
-Leviticus forbids you from sitting wherever a menstruating woman has sat
-Psalms demands that you play the lyre twice a day
-I forget who just now, but some book forbids eating shellfish
-Leviticus says you may not eat bugs except for locusts
-No man without testicles may enter a church (sorry castrati choirboys and survivors of testicular cancer)
There are many others. See how many you break from this list alone.
And GeneralGrog still has been unable to respond to my question of how someone can call themselves a Christian and quote Leviticus when it comes to gay rights, but yet ignore Leviticus when they shave, get a haircut or wear a poly-cotton blend shirt. I will assume that he has chosen to pretend this simple question doesn't exist, as all Creationists do when faced with something that doesn't conform to their narrow worldview.
Azazel..I thought I had responded. I thought I had pointed out that the Hebraic Law as laid out in Leviticus is not a requirement for being a Christian. That was an old covenant between God and the Hebrews, which later became the nation of Israel. We have a new covenant, through Jesus Christ (the Messiah) which is between God and all men to include Jews and Gentiles.
GG
So then you're acknowledging that Leviticus s not a valid cause for you to deny equal rights to homosexuals? Does that mean you've been hit by a blinding light (from a glitter ball?) and you now agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry?
Jihadin wrote:But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues
Jesus officially was retconned to be one and the same as God after a conference held by the Catholics in the 5th C.
Being "anti-gay" is not the point as far as an Evangelical is concerned. If gay is considered a sin, then acting on it is wrong. Period.
Where the evangelical fails - and the media puts them into this corner - is when it considers this as something worse than another sin. God pleasing activity is what every Christian should be striving for. Man puts degrees on sin saying one is worse than the other. In God's eyes, all sin is abhorrent. Whether it is skipping church, bad-mouthing another, lustful thoughts, murder, stealing, etc.
When viewed in this light, it should be obvious that we all need help whether it is being a lazy fart who doesn't go to church, a foul-mouthed person, a person who lusts after another person, being resentful of someone else's station in life, or - yes - being gay.
MrDwhitey wrote:Being gay is a reason to need help?
Nice.
As expected, my statement is sliced and reduced to one facet. If it is wrong to have sex out of marriage, indeed to view another person with lust. Explain to me how gay activity is God-pleasing? I am not demonizing someone for being Gay anymore than some other fault or limitation that someone may be dealing with. Talk about allowing gay marriage and perhaps we have a cause. As far as sex outside of marriage, it is pretty much not considered God-pleasing. So if you want me to expand, the gay lifestyle is no more wrong than any guy shacking up with a girl. THAT is my point.
The other point is that we all have failings. My problem with the evangelicals is not their anti-gay stance per se. It is that they add degrees to one or another sin/fault of another. As if this is number 1 whereas this is number 555 on the list of bad things to do. They are all wrong, equally. So don't go pointing fingers at one person or another for their failings... You have your own failings. Stop worrying about what other people do and start thinking about how you can make yourself right with God. Don't care about making yourself right with some other humans perception of you.
As expected, my statement is sliced and reduced to one facet. If it is wrong to have sex out of marriage, indeed to view another person with lust. Explain to me how gay activity is God-pleasing?'
Explain to me how straight activity is God-pleasing?
He's saying that any sexual activity outside of marriage is considered sinful, and that as presently constituted most Christian definitions of marriage don't include gay folks.
Jihadin wrote:But doesn't God rules trump Jesus rules? If God laid down the rules for the Hebrews then would that mean they are the chosen race of God.............ugh nevermind. I stick to being a warrior for Zues
Gods rules only apply to Jews, we are chosen to do more for god not to do less. According to Judaic belief it is easier for a gentile to be better person in the eyes of God then a jew
Mannahnin wrote:We are best able to expand our own minds and those of others if we keep the idea exchange friendly and don't dismiss or look down on one another.
So we can't look down on someone who uses there personal beliefs as an excuse for there discrimination towards others?
A) That's not what I said.
B) Dakka rules don't permit you to be nasty to someone on here, even if they engage in behavior or speech you find immoral and objectionable.
If you want to participate in discussions on here, you need to do it with courtesy and without abuse.
Now, that I think about it, it was kind of a stupid question with an obvious answer, sorry about putting words in your mouth too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
blood reaper wrote:
Melissia wrote:When directed towards a goal, pride can be useful as a motivating tool. Thus the old phrase, "have some pride in your work".
But it shouldn't allowed to take control of yourself.
Indeed.
However emotion should not be surpressed.
So you're saying that I shouldn't suppress the emotional desire to rip someone's throat out with a pencil whenever I feel it next?
What you described is not an emotion but how you want to act when you react to a certain emotion.
