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

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Someone wanting to believe something doesn't = extensive evidence.

Nor did I claim that it does, so I'm not sure what you're on about other than a poor attempt at deflection in order to avoid a critical appraisal of your own beliefs.

The claim was very clearly that there is a lot of evidence suggesting what you claim to be the specific definition of arsenokoitēs is not, in fact, the specific definition. And that, in parallel, you seem to be continuing according to a trend of past statements that indicated adherence to the "truth" you want to believe over the truth.

please pm me your evidence.

GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:Except that it has been the classic view of all all orthodox Christian faiths that arsenokoitēs meant sodomites. So you can try and pretend that I am the only Christian that believes this, and you can be pejorative as usual.. but what you are really doing is attacking every major Christian theologian that wrote about such things.

The KJV doesn't translate it that way, nor does the CEV, ESV, NLT, or the NET.

Mannahnin wrote:He already cited a bit one- that many of the big and popular translations of the Bible don't translate xxxx as sodomite.

Sorry but I don't think that is what he was referring to as "extensive evidence".

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He already cited a bit one- that many of the big and popular translations of the Bible don't translate xxxx as sodomite.

Sorry but I don't think that is what he was referring to as "extensive evidence".

Yes, I was. Lots of people don't translate arsenokoitēs as "sodomites" the evidence for this is supplied by the numerous translations of the Bible that don't translate it as "sodomites".

If you want, we can also dig into the scholarly work done regarding the term, there's a lot of it.

If nothing else it indicates that the term has no clear meaning. We don't see thousand year debates (outside Plato) about what constitutes a table.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:He already cited a bit one- that many of the big and popular translations of the Bible don't translate xxxx as sodomite.

Sorry but I don't think that is what he was referring to as "extensive evidence".

Yes, I was. Lots of people don't translate arsenokoitēs as "sodomites" the evidence for this is supplied by the numerous translations of the Bible that don't translate it as "sodomites".

If you want, we can also dig into the scholarly work done regarding the term, there's a lot of it.

If nothing else it indicates that the term has no clear meaning. We don't see thousand year debates (outside Plato) about what constitutes a table.

sure pm it to me.. as a note...the first two interlinear greek new testament's I looked at had sodomites and homosexuals for arsenokoitēs. It wasn't something my chauvanistic nature conjured up.

GG

Rimmy wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I always liked this quote from the bible, the first recorded gay marriage:

1 Samuel 18

1 After David had finished talking with Saul, Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. 2 From that day Saul kept David with him and did not let him return home to his family. 3 And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. 4 Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt.

I am going to step in and say that is not what this is reffering to. entering into a covenant with someone was not a marriage. it WAS however a promised relationship. and IIRC Saul kept David as a son and became his mentor.

ie: A covenant is a solemn agreement to engage in or refrain from a specified action. It is commonly found in religious contexts, where it refers to sacred agreements between a god and human beings.

This was a divine promise to God to teach David the ways of becoming a king.

well lets look at this then. Here you have 2 men and they became one in spirit.

Where have I heard the 2 spirits becoming one before? oh ya, weddings.

who do you love as yourself? your wife, and kids.

I'd like to see the origin text on took off the robe. could it have been disrobe? but an any case, you have jon taking off davids clothes.

or based on the NKJV
18 Now when he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. 2 Saul took him that day, and would not let him go home to his father’s house anymore. 3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. 4 And Jonathan took off the robe that was on him and gave it to David, with his armor, even to his sword and his bow and his belt.

where not only are the two souls as one, they are knit together. What ceremonies today knit two souls together? but even without calling it a marriage, you have 2 guys who love each other as much more than friends, more like friends with benefits.

rimmy..this guy isn't serious he is just trolling.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
sure pm it to me.. as a note...the first two interlinear greek new testament's I looked at had sodomites and homosexuals for arsenokoitēs. It wasn't something my chauvanistic nature conjured up.

So what? Am I supposed to be given pause by the fact that a conservative Christian first consulted conservative Christian interlinear translations (or interlinear translations of any kind)?

Am I supposed to defer to you because the translations were interlinear as well? I mean come on, interlinear translations are only distinct from normal translations in that they add the original text, and usually the transliterated text, which apparently makes them more reliable despite the absence of absolute, direct correlation between any two languages.

And I gave you the examples, I'm not going to link you to them, because I'm not Google. You can do you own legwork.

GG, Some sources for you:
Dale B. Martin, John Boswell, and William L. Petersen all wrote fairly extensively on this word and methods of translation that differ from conservative translations.

generalgrog wrote:rimmy..this guy isn't serious he is just trolling.

GG

wow, just wow.

first you tell me what I believe, then you call me a liar when I answer you, now you call me a troll.

the only troll around here is you. You keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again, while offering nothing to the topic.

you can't refute my awesome points so you have to resort to personal attacks. you must be a creationist, you argue just like them.

I think the problem is that people on both sides see different things as 'evidence' for their position, or against the position of others. Though having said that, GG does seem to have contributed little actual defence to his position and seems to talk from a position that assumes everyone in the discussion knows everything he does (possibly why he produces so little material and discussion to back up his beliefs?) While seeming to assume that anyone arguing against him actually secretly agrees with him in their own heart but is willfully twisting what things 'actually say' to fit their own agenda... And then ignoring any evidence that doesn't come from the bible.

That is how I am seeing it anyway. Though I have to also say that you are being reasonably aggressive sirlynchmob (a somewhat apt name perhaps? ).

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:rimmy..this guy isn't serious he is just trolling.

GG

wow, just wow.

first you tell me what I believe, then you call me a liar when I answer you, now you call me a troll.

the only troll around here is you. You keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again, while offering nothing to the topic.

you can't refute my awesome points so you have to resort to personal attacks. you must be a creationist, you argue just like them.

If you're going to try and provoke people try and do it with a better argument than your current standard of bollocks.

Aren't most Christians atheistic about 99.9% of the same gods as atheitst themselves? They really only differ from atheists on one(three?) god(s).

Atheists don't believe in any of the ancient civilization gods like Ra, Thor, The Jackal, and neither do christians, it's just that last hanger-on that's causing all the issues... =)

Filthy Sanchez wrote:Aren't most Christians atheistic about 99.9% of the same gods as atheitst themselves? They really only differ from atheists on one(three?) god(s).

Atheists don't believe in any of the ancient civilization gods like Ra, Thor, The Jackal, and neither do christians, it's just that last hanger-on that's causing all the issues... =)

This has already been raised several times - check the thread

I'd say GG isn't a troll, but he's been so evasive and dodgey that I'm not even sure he believes the stuff he spews out anymore.

Melissia wrote:I'd say GG isn't a troll, but he's been so evasive and dodgey that I'm not even sure he believes the stuff he spews out anymore.

As someone who has genuine regard for truth, honesty, reason and science. I have to say that I regard all Creationists as trolls. They genuinelly are attempting to bs millions of people on a daily basis, and yet they are the ones that act offended all the time?

They really do blow my mind.

On topic, here is a great article.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/study-trust-science-among-educated-conservatives-plunges-133908205.html

Conservatives, particularly those with college educations, have become dramatically more skeptical of science over the past four decades, according to a study published in the April issue of the American Sociological Review. Fewer than 35 percent of conservatives say they have a "great deal" of trust in the scientific community now, compared to nearly half in 1974.

Be very worried my American chums.. because the Conservatives are going to drag you down a slippery slope. And these are the college educated ones!

My missus told me that the US should split into two different countries about 5 years ago, It was her words that started me looking into the whole "Creationism" phenomena in the US in the first place, as I was blissfully ignorant at the time living in nice sensible Europe. I dare say she will feel the same when her state (CA) has half the nations Science graduates and the entire bible belt is full of illiterate home schooled half-wits who burn witches.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

generalgrog wrote:rimmy..this guy isn't serious he is just trolling.

GG

wow, just wow.

first you tell me what I believe, then you call me a liar when I answer you, now you call me a troll.

the only troll around here is you. You keep spewing the same stupidity over and over again, while offering nothing to the topic.

you can't refute my awesome points so you have to resort to personal attacks. you must be a creationist, you argue just like them.

If you're going to try and provoke people try and do it with a better argument than your current standard of bollocks.

That wasn't argument, that was my opinion. to see my arguments and points, go back and re read them. Then after reading my points if you feel any are bollocks, let me know, and we can discuss it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverMK2 wrote:I think the problem is that people on both sides see different things as 'evidence' for their position, or against the position of others. Though having said that, GG does seem to have contributed little actual defence to his position and seems to talk from a position that assumes everyone in the discussion knows everything he does (possibly why he produces so little material and discussion to back up his beliefs?) While seeming to assume that anyone arguing against him actually secretly agrees with him in their own heart but is willfully twisting what things 'actually say' to fit their own agenda... And then ignoring any evidence that doesn't come from the bible.

That is how I am seeing it anyway. Though I have to also say that you are being reasonably aggressive sirlynchmob (a somewhat apt name perhaps? ).

my name is very apt, its why I play orks as well. our personalities mesh so well

I don't take kindly to being repeated called a liar, so GG will not get any civility from me.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

generalgrog wrote:The fact that a simple question like "Why don't you believe in XXX" will not be answered is quite telling.

GG

I don't believe god exists because his existence cannot be proven, and proof > faith most of the time from my personal experience. Question answered.

Rimmy wrote:
what do they talk about? just trying to produce more evidence to make other people look stupid? sounds a little childish to me.

YOU GO TO CHURCH.

Rimmy wrote:rather just let bygons be bygons (and yes, i'm Christian)

People who claim to teach love are teaching that some kinds of love are horrible and twisted currently, right now. Those aren't exactly bygones.

whats wrong with church? My church doesn't preach hatred or intolerance. if you don't trust me you're welcome to come and see. I attend an Evangelical Bible church. its all about a personal relationship with God (which includes the absence of one)

if anything I ever tell you is true, I don't attend church with the purpose of making other people feel or look stupid. that would be against the entire point.

and besides all that, if you're putting ANY kind of faith in humanity to show you love, you are going to be gravely let down. human beings are scum. ad we deserve every ounce of wrath that we encounter.

that is the entire beauty behind grace. that God would still find favor despite all our stupidity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Filthy Sanchez wrote:Aren't most Christians atheistic about 99.9% of the same gods as atheitst themselves? They really only differ from atheists on one(three?) god(s).

Atheists don't believe in any of the ancient civilization gods like Ra, Thor, The Jackal, and neither do christians, it's just that last hanger-on that's causing all the issues... =)

so you're raising the point that because Christians are monotheistic, instead of polytheistic, that makes us athieistic? sorry but that's a flawed argument. ANY monotheistic faith is going to deny the existance of other god's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
so heres the last bit from me.

Believe (or don't) as you wish. MY duty is not to change your mind to try and win anything (because I don't).

IF you find yourself looking for something different, seek it out. if you don't, be content with your life.

what happens when we die, NO ONE here knows, because we aren't dead. we'll all find out though.

be good to one another, its a generally accepted idea.

Rimmy wrote:whats wrong with church? My church doesn't preach hatred or intolerance. if you don't trust me you're welcome to come and see. I attend an Evangelical Bible church. its all about a personal relationship with God (which includes the absence of one)

The implication being that the impression you seem to give is that it is fine for Christians (etc) to meet up once a week, but a group of athiests get together once and suddenly it is some kind of evil society plotting the downfall of religion, society and indeed the universe - where delegates spend all their time moaning and bitching about religion and religious people...

Yeah but isn't that what the rally kind of was about?

I mean, there really isn't a social religious conspiracy to suppress science. There's a relatively small number of shouty extremists who don't represent the majority of the people.

It's true on both "sides".

Most people in the middle would probably find Alain de Botton preferable to Richard Dawkins as a representative of atheism.

http://www.alaindebotton.com/

SilverMK2 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:whats wrong with church? My church doesn't preach hatred or intolerance. if you don't trust me you're welcome to come and see. I attend an Evangelical Bible church. its all about a personal relationship with God (which includes the absence of one)

The implication being that the impression you seem to give is that it is fine for Christians (etc) to meet up once a week, but a group of athiests get together once and suddenly it is some kind of evil society plotting the downfall of religion, society and indeed the universe - where delegates spend all their time moaning and bitching about religion and religious people...

I wasn't saying people can't get together.

but you're calling a ralley to have people sit and discuss their belief in nothing (or rather the lack of diety's) sooooo its a science convention?

i'm all for science and understanding. but lets just keep it civil.

I FULLY am aware that not everyone who professess to be christian has the knowledge to shut their ignorant mouths and I can't apologize for them enough. but also, I shouldn't have to.

stupid is stupid and it infests ALL areas of the world.

I personally don't find fault with the athiest movement, because it doesn't apply to me. so have fun gang.

at the same time, I don't exactly appreciate being told i'm stupid or lack the intelect to think for myself, when clearly that is not the case. see where I am going here?

THIS particular convention, was NOT an informal get together, but a conference designed to discuss and tear down other faiths. and that sucks.

Kilkrazy wrote:I mean, there really isn't a social religious conspiracy to suppress science.

Well, I disagree with you there. That's pretty much the Discovery Institute's mission, and they managed some success in a few states.

Rimmy wrote:but you're calling a ralley to have people sit and discuss their belief in nothing (or rather the lack of diety's) sooooo its a science convention?

That is kind of like saying that people attending a wargaming event are actually going to a statistics and probability convention

THIS particular convention, was NOT an informal get together, but a conference designed to discuss and tear down other faiths. and that sucks.

Personally I was not there, so I can't comment on everything discussed, nor do I know every speaker, their background etc, however, that was not the reason for the get together at all and that you say that seems to indicate that you want to believe what you want to believe rather than actually going out and finding out for yourself what was taking place.

From the website of the organisers:

Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?
No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years (and beyond) and motivating those in attendance to become more active. While speakers have the right to say what they wish, the event is indeed a celebration of secular values.

What do you hope to achieve from this Rally?
We have three main goals:

To encourage attendees (and those who can’t make it) to come out of the closet as secular Americans, or supporters of secular equality.
To dispel stereotypes – there is no one “True Atheist”. We will have non-theists from all political persuasions, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds. We will show that there are secular Americans in every American demographic.
Legislative equality. Secular Americans can run for office and adequately represent theists, just as theists in office can represent their secular constituents proudly and openly. We deserve a seat at the table just like theists, and we hope this rally can put our values in the radar of American voters.

http://reasonrally.org/about/

if indeed thats what they did, good for them. but the name itsself, the "reason Rally" implies that those of us who are of faith, are without reason?

there it no "win" to these debates, just more debates. again I say, just let it be.

Rimmy wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:whats wrong with church? My church doesn't preach hatred or intolerance. if you don't trust me you're welcome to come and see. I attend an Evangelical Bible church. its all about a personal relationship with God (which includes the absence of one)

The implication being that the impression you seem to give is that it is fine for Christians (etc) to meet up once a week, but a group of athiests get together once and suddenly it is some kind of evil society plotting the downfall of religion, society and indeed the universe - where delegates spend all their time moaning and bitching about religion and religious people...

I wasn't saying people can't get together.

but you're calling a ralley to have people sit and discuss their belief in nothing (or rather the lack of diety's) sooooo its a science convention?

i'm all for science and understanding. but lets just keep it civil.

I FULLY am aware that not everyone who professess to be christian has the knowledge to shut their ignorant mouths and I can't apologize for them enough. but also, I shouldn't have to.

stupid is stupid and it infests ALL areas of the world.

I personally don't find fault with the athiest movement, because it doesn't apply to me. so have fun gang.

at the same time, I don't exactly appreciate being told i'm stupid or lack the intelect to think for myself, when clearly that is not the case. see where I am going here?

THIS particular convention, was NOT an informal get together, but a conference designed to discuss and tear down other faiths. and that sucks.

It was nothing of the sort. Did you go? we're trying to dispel all those stereotypes you have about us.

From the wiki.
Purpose

According to the rally's official website, the event had three main goals:[13]

To encourage attendees (and those who couldn’t attend) to come "out of the closet" as secular Americans, or supporters of secular equality.
To dispel stereotypes ("there is no one 'True Atheist' "). Participation by non-theists of all political persuasions, ethnicities, genders, and backgrounds was encouraged. The intent was to show that there are secular Americans in every major demographic.
Legislative equality. Secular Americans should be permitted to run for public office and adequately represent non-theists, just as theists in office represent their constituents. Non-theists deserve a seat at the table just as theists do; the rally should put secular values "on the radar" of American voters.

Organizers said the aim of the rally was twofold: to unite individuals with similar beliefs and to show the American public that the number of people who don’t believe in God is large and growing. “We have the numbers to be taken seriously,” said Paul Fidalgo, spokesman for the Center for Inquiry, which promotes the scientific method and reasoning and was one of the organizations sponsoring the rally. “We’re not just a tiny fringe group.”


For Kilkrazy, Alain de Botton, didn't attend. I'd say Adam Savage, and Neil Degrasse Tyson are preferable for spokesmen.

Rimmy wrote:if indeed thats what they did, good for them. but the name itsself, the "reason Rally" implies that those of us who are of faith, are without reason?

By a very strict definition, yes.

Faith-- by definition-- requires you to forgo logic and believe in something that is not supported by facts.

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is where one differs.

Rimmy wrote:if indeed thats what they did, good for them. but the name itsself, the "reason Rally" implies that those of us who are of faith, are without reason?

there it no "win" to these debates, just more debates. again I say, just let it be.

Better than all non-believers (and anyone else that god apparently doesn't like) burning the fires of hell and/or being left behind at the rapture/[insert other end that [insert followers of whatever god it is] will be spared from]



An alternative interpretation is a rally about being "reasonable"

SilverMK2 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:if indeed thats what they did, good for them. but the name itsself, the "reason Rally" implies that those of us who are of faith, are without reason?

there it no "win" to these debates, just more debates. again I say, just let it be.

Better than all non-believers (and anyone else that god apparently doesn't like) burning the fires of hell and/or being left behind at the rapture/[insert other end that [insert followers of whatever god it is] will be spared from]



An alternative interpretation is a rally about being "reasonable"

I don't preach damnation. that's what we in the church call "selling fire insurance". and thats a poor way to live by any definition.

judgement is met by ALL mankind, one way or another. and its not done by me, so I don't do it.

oh i'm still a person, and i'm WAY flawed. and I am by NO means the most pious person here. (or anywhere) I just have my belief's and that's ok.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Rimmy wrote:if indeed thats what they did, good for them. but the name itsself, the "reason Rally" implies that those of us who are of faith, are without reason?

there it no "win" to these debates, just more debates. again I say, just let it be.

Better than all non-believers (and anyone else that god apparently doesn't like) burning the fires of hell and/or being left behind at the rapture/[insert other end that [insert followers of whatever god it is] will be spared from]



An alternative interpretation is a rally about being "reasonable"

As a child, I used to worry about burning in hell. Some things that I couldn't reconcile were the fact that God is all loving to the point that Jesus was sent to die for us, yet if we mess up we burn in everlasting fire. Couple this with the fact that God would create an intellegent and passionate race of beings in his own image for an unkown purpose(I was taught as a child so that he wouldn't be lonely) with the capacity to screw up built in and the all loving part just does not square up.
I've been taught since then that there is no fiery hell, and what the purpose of our creation is.

Rimmy wrote:I don't preach damnation. that's what we in the church call "selling fire insurance". and thats a poor way to live by any definition.

Indeed, and I don't go round trying to show religious people the error of their ways, or burn their holy books. Nor do I live my life in a way that hurts anyone (I hope). Yet judgement is inherent in pretty much every religion that I am aware of, and almost universally "non-believers" will be ending up somewhere not very nice, even if they are man of the year every year of their life, cure cancer, etc, etc

judgement is met by ALL mankind, one way or another. and its not done by me, so I don't do it.

Judgement is not done by anyone other than your fellow man. At least, as far as I am concerned. When you die you die, no scales weighing your heart to see if it is lighter than a feather, for example.

Indeed, the presumption of religious standards and doctorine applying to everyone through law and social convention and prejudice is one of the reasons this rally was organised


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:I've been taught since then... what the purpose of our creation is.

Care to share?