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.

Polonius wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
I don't like partaking on political discussions too much, as it's all opinion backed up by half baked theories and I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to scientifically disprove the things the Gay rights people say. All you can do is quote scripture and pray.

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.

People will jump up and down and call me all kinds of bad things for what I just typed because they have been indocrinated in political correctness, but the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

This post right here more or less distilled the fear and expectations of every secular, agnostics, and atheist person on the boards into one heady brew. You freely admit that you can't debate the subject politically or scientifically, but you know the Bible is right and the people that disagree are wrong and indoctrinated with "political correctness."

At it's core, this is the stuff that terrifies the rest of the world about the religious right: that you know you can't defend some of your beliefs as anything other than dogma, yet you continue to do so. You labeled homosexuals as the same as pedophiles for no other reason than the bible said so? It's one thing to hold that certain actions are sins, it's another to start using medical terms loosely and denying civic freedoms to people because of their sins. What next, are you going to mandate religious attendance?

Christianity has been a force of good in this world, and it did so because it combined practical morality with an absolute freedom of choice and the idea of complete redemption and salvation. Christianity preaches the ideas of tolerance and virtue, of helping your brother and treating those around you with kindness. Yes, there are rules, and there is the concept of sin, but put some of these writings in at least a bit of context before you completely swallow them whole.

OK I never said that I couldn't debate. I said I didn't like to debate these issues....I don't like to argue with a brick wall either. That doesn't invalidate that arguing with a brick wall is not a good idea. I.E. a waste of time.

And way to put yet more words into my mouth to try to make your hatefull pronouncement against what you call "the religious right". I never claimed that I wasn't defending my beliefs because it was "undefendable dogma" as you put it. I just said I wouldn't waste my time on trying to defend my beliefs because there is no way that Polonius and some other people will be convinced. So I choose to not engage and waste my time. I have allready quoted scripture pages and pages ago and provided a handy link that covered the subject. You probably ignored it, in favor of coming on here and spewing your rhetoric. Thats your right, but don't play the game of twisting my words to fit into your preconcieved idea of what a Christian is. In fact I think your a bit bigoted in the way you spew hate towards Christians, or what you call, "the religous right"

You twist what I said about homosexuality as well. I simply classed it in the same ball park as all other sexual sin. For that matter, God deosn't make distinctions between sin. To God, sin is sin, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

I dare you find anything in my post that said anything about denying civic freedoms to gay people. I double dog dare you.

Your whole rant was nothing more than a smear tactic designed to make me out to be something that you hate. And you prove my point about wasting my time debating this issue, because you have allready determined that you hate me and my beliefs, so there is nothing I can do to make headway with you.


Now go back and read what I wrote and read what you wrote and if you have open mind as you claim, you will see the massive leaps you took in twisting my words to suit your agenda.

GG

Delephont wrote:@generalgrog

People spend too much time wondering about the guy (or girl) next to them, when the real issue lies a lot closer to home.

Whether Homosexuality is considered a sin or not, is not in the scope of "mere" humans to decide.

The problem with "organised" or as I call it "group" religion, is that it tries to create neat boxes where everyone and everything has its place....some boxes are marked bad, evil, sinful etc and the others are good, holy, etc etc......now this isn't a bad thing in of itself....but we as humans walk around with one foot in each box, laughing and judging the guy next to us who essentially wearing a similar set of "shoes"!

I don't think you're wrong as such to have strong anti homosexual feelings, in the same way as its not necessarily wrong for the homosexuals to try to defend their choices.....the problem for me is the focus. If you're watching the homosexual, then who's watching you?

My own religious ideology doesn't own a badge or look up to a God as such. I do believe in universal unity of all things, and my considerations would probably share alot of the base concepts of Taoism. As such thoughts of the sexual nature of others becomes a very distant second to thoughts and uderstanding of my own sexual nature and the conditioning that brought me to it!

Delephont. It appears that you are new to the thread? The subject of Homosexuality and sin was covered many many pages ago. I'm a bit saddened that this thread has been hijacked by people with a gay rights agenda and turned a thread called "religion" into a way to promote gay rights. Anyway I don't have "strong anti homosexual" fellings. I have strong anti sin feelings. The probelm I have is that people take the Bible out of context and are trying to promote a lie that the bible doesn't call homosexuality sin whe it is clearly called a sin in many many places in both the old and new testemant.

And by the way the only box that I know of, is that we have all fallen short of the glory of God, all have sinned. Mere humans didn't decide that, God did.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I double dog dare you.

Let's not go crazy here.

Talk like that will end up with Polonius' tongue stuck to a flag pole.

Elessar wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

I know the Bible is right and I know that God doesn't make mistakes, homosexuality is a sexual perversion in the same light as porn addiction, nymphomania, pedophelia etc.


... the truth is still there and you can't pound the truth down peoples throats when they are not willing to receive it.

And THAT'S why fewer people than you think will tell you just how wrong you are. Only people who are able to admit their beliefs may not be 100% correct are worth debating with. If you genuinely believe a text written over the course of 400 years, and translated hundreds of times over the last 2 millenia is still word perfect (apart from anything else) then you seriously need to read it cover to cover and examine your own beliefs. A book that orders you to "not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" [Leviticus 19:19] is faintly ridiculous anyway. The Bible also says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" [Leviticus 18:22] Seems pretty anti-gay to me.

Except that the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. They were written almost 2,000 years ago and left in cave for almost those 2,000 years and they match almost 100% to the current bible.

This is yet another fallacy that is promoted that the bibile has somehow been tampered with, rewritten, redacted etc.


I suggest you do some research and you will see that the bible we have today is the same thing they had 2,000 years ago.


GG

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Again you, like Polonious, are twisting my words. Homosexuality is sin, pedophilia is sin, adultery is sin.

I never said that homosexuality was somehow as distastefull as pedophilia. To God it may be, but to man you can't compare the two.
The only thing I know is that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But it also calls adultery an abomination. People seem to forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part.
I suspect that you, like Polonious, have your mind made up that I'm the Christian bogeyman and that you are going to see what you want in my posts regardless of what I write.


GG

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
It's like earlier when one of the posters said that no where in the new testament is it mentioned that homosexuality is sin. I pointed out a few quotes from Paul( a new testament writer), and the person moved the target by saying, something like..."Ohh yeah....well Jesus never said that"

Paul was one of the authors of the NT, but he never actually wrote anything about homosexuality in the NT. The only way you can conceivably allow his other writings to have any bearing on the Bible (given your belief that the Bible is the word of God) is to canonize them as the word of God. At which point you have necessarily contradicted your belief that the Bible is the word of God, perfectly transcribed by man.

Sorry dogma but your post makes no sense at all. ;-)


And as far as Paul goes, try reading Romans and 1st corinthians and you will see plenty of references to homosexuality and that they are considered sin.

GG

generalgrog wrote:
OK I never said that I couldn't debate. I said I didn't like to debate these issues....I don't like to argue with a brick wall either. That doesn't invalidate that arguing with a brick wall is not a good idea. I.E. a waste of time.

First off, if you asked around I think you'll find that I'm one of the more open minded and reasonable people here. I frequently and easily admit when I'm wrong, and I like to hear new and interesting ideas, theories and arguments. I think you'll find that I tend to agree with you more than you realize, so, I'm going to ignore the hostility of your post and see if we can't talk this one through.

And way to put yet more words into my mouth to try to make your hatefull pronouncement against what you call "the religious right". I never claimed that I wasn't defending my beliefs because it was "undefendable dogma" as you put it. I just said I wouldn't waste my time on trying to defend my beliefs because there is no way that Polonius and some other people will be convinced. So I choose to not engage and waste my time. I have allready quoted scripture pages and pages ago and provided a handy link that covered the subject. You probably ignored it, in favor of coming on here and spewing your rhetoric. Thats your right, but don't play the game of twisting my words to fit into your preconcieved idea of what a Christian is. In fact I think your a bit bigoted in the way you spew hate towards Christians, or what you call, "the religous right"

First, I'm not sure anything I said was really hateful. If you find the term religious right offensive, I apologize, but you appear to be a Christian with a fairly fundamentalist streak and conservative social values. I didn't want to use the term Christian on it's own, because I'm a Christian (Roman Catholic), and I disagree pretty strongly with some of your values.

My point with my comment was that when you said "I compare homosexuality with other perversions like pedophilia because pedophiles, like homosexuals are so far gone with their sexual addiction that they can't help themselves." it appeared that you were making a medical, psychological, or otherwise secular judgment. If you were speaking solely of the concept of sin, than you should be more careful, as it appears you are trying to defend social judgements, such as homosexuality being a mental disorder, with scripture. I'm well aware of how scripture sees homosexuality, but I'm also aware of how the medical community, the psychological community, etc. all view it. I mean, masturbation is a sin, but that's amazingly good for you.

I really don't think I was spewing hate towards christians. I think if you read this thread, you'll see my relentless defending the Christian faith.

You twist what I said about homosexuality as well. I simply classed it in the same ball park as all other sexual sin. For that matter, God deosn't make distinctions between sin. To God, sin is sin, "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

As I said above, I misread what you wrote. I think it was very unclear what you were saying, but I apologize for jumping the gun.

I dare you find anything in my post that said anything about denying civic freedoms to gay people. I double dog dare you.

I'm sorry. I messed up.

Your whole rant was nothing more than a smear tactic designed to make me out to be something that you hate. And you prove my point about wasting my time debating this issue, because you have allready determined that you hate me and my beliefs, so there is nothing I can do to make headway with you.

This is where you kind of go off the rails a bit. I don't' think what I wrote was a rant, or a smear tactic. I think I was trying to illustrate to an extent what the OP, and what many people find troubling. I certainly don't hate you or your beliefs.

Now go back and read what I wrote and read what you wrote and if you have open mind as you claim, you will see the massive leaps you took in twisting my words to suit your agenda.
GG

I did, and I was mistaken in some of my points, and on some points I think you were unclear enough that my interpretation wasn't totally out of line.

I think I would simply stress that make sure in these discussions to be clear when you are discussing policy and when you are discussing scripture. Words like "perversion" and "Sexual addiction" aren't just value judgments, they are terms of art with technical meanings. If you are using those terms, you need to understand that most of the scientific community disagrees. It's not all political correctness indoctrination or half baked theories, either. Those terms are condescending if not outright insulting to the scientists that work on this stuff.

generalgrog wrote:

Greebynog wrote:Grog, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles is so far beyond offensive it's sickening. Can you not see the difference between two same sex consenting adults falling in love and abuse of a minor (who by definition cannot consent)?

Isn't christianity about love for others not hate? Why spread such bilious doctrine? It's attitudes such as yours that seriously damage the image and reputation of religious groups, you are doing yourself and your faith a grave disservice.

Again you, like Polonious, are twisting my words. Homosexuality is sin, pedophilia is sin, adultery is sin.

I never said that homosexuality was somehow as distastefull as pedophilia. To God it may be, but to man you can't compare the two.
The only thing I know is that the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. But it also calls adultery an abomination. People seem to forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part.
I suspect that you, like Polonious, have your mind made up that I'm the Christian bogeyman and that you are going to see what you want in my posts regardless of what I write.


GG

Oh really now. You directly placed homosexuality in the same category as paedophilia. You did it again just then. I made it bold to hep you find it.

I also strongly disagree with calling homosexuality an 'abomination', I think it's in poor taste.

The reason people 'forget the adultery part and focus on the homosexual part' is that adultery, I think most people would agree, is an immoral act, and one that hurts others. How is that the same as two people loving each other?

As for making my mind up that you're the Christian bogeyman, you can just take the word Christian right out of there. I have no problem with Polonius, and other Christian posters who don't make such objectionable remarks. I have no problem with people who have different beliefs to me, the world would be extremely dull without them. I do have a problem with those who attack people for their sexuality, race, gender or any other extraneous factor, including faith. I percieve calling someone's sexuality an abomination as an attack.

I will only see in your posts what you write. I have many talents, telepathy isn't one of them.

generalgrog wrote:Delephont. It appears that you are new to the thread? The subject of Homosexuality and sin was covered many many pages ago. I'm a bit saddened that this thread has been hijacked by people with a gay rights agenda and turned a thread called "religion" into a way to promote gay rights.

That’s a terrible mischaracterisation and given you were part of that discussion from the start I’m going to have to assume you’re being disingenuous. Myself, George Spiggott and holonachos were talking about modern interpretation of the bible, and were discussing issues such as eating pork, charity and homosexuality. We were discussing these issues in the context of their importance in the Bible and comparing it to the importance given to them by various religious groups.

Then you entered that to talk directly about the Bible’s commentary on homosexuality, and have continued to lead that conversation since. You have wanted to argue homosexuality from the start, the rest of us have just responded.

Now, you can argue for or against homosexuality and that’s fine - you’ve stuck to purely biblical arguments so I won’t argue that point. But like everybody else you do need to tell the truth and claiming this thread was hijacked by people with a homosexual agenda is not true. The homosexual debate was entirely your creation.

generalgrog wrote:
Sorry dogma but your post makes no sense at all. ;-)

If you believe the Bible to be the perfect revelation of God you cannot accept commentary on it as equivalent to it because such acceptance would mean that the Bible must be supplemented, and is thus imperfect.

generalgrog wrote:
And as far as Paul goes, try reading Romans and 1st corinthians and you will see plenty of references to homosexuality and that they are considered sin.

GG

By plenty do you mean 2? I'll even provide them for debate. Bold is mine.

Romans 1:26-27: "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet."

1 Corinthians 6:9-11: "Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God."

Personally, I don't even consider the Corinthians passage to be worthy of inclusion. I posted it for the sake of completeness. The phrase 'nor abusers of themselves with men' is hardly clear. It also isn't translated consistently. For instance, the King James Bible replaces the word 'men' with 'mankind'. That's what happens when you lose the meaning of the original Greek.

I also consider the Romans passage to be dubious. The translation is better, but it makes no reference to any specific sin. The phrase 'that which is unseemly' could very well denote any sinful act perpetrated in the company of men.

What do men do with each other that's due to burning with lust for one another and involves "leaving the natural use of the woman" that isn't homosexual?

generalgrog wrote:
Except that the dead sea scrolls were found in 1948. They were written almost 2,000 years ago and left in cave for almost those 2,000 years and they match almost 100% to the current bible.

That's a massive oversimplification. The scrolls (at least the ones written in ancient Greek) do show a large amount of agreement with other sources recorded in ancient Greek (esp. Codex Vaticanus). However, this isn't really all that shocking given that the Greek scrolls are only about 300 years older than Codex Vaticanus. What is surprising is the degree to which Codex Vaticanus is the product of selective canonization. Something which prevents the rate of agreement from coming anywhere close to 100%.

generalgrog wrote:
This is yet another fallacy that is promoted that the bibile has somehow been tampered with, rewritten, redacted etc.


I suggest you do some research and you will see that the bible we have today is the same thing they had 2,000 years ago.


GG

That's not only incorrect, but horribly misleading. There are over 50 different versions of the Bible. The actual points of variance are fairly consistent in location, and generally arise from a lack of knowledge surrounding the meaning of the original Greek. These differences in translation don't always have a massive affect on the actual meaning of scripture, but they are still there. Much more significant in terms of meaning are the massive variances with respect to canonization.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What do men do with each other that's due to burning with lust for one another and involves "leaving the natural use of the woman" that isn't homosexual?

Well, the point of that passage, at least according to the US Council of Catholic Bishops, is actually about idolatry. Essentially, the wicked turn from god to other pursuits, including the worship of false idols and lots of deviant sex. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm#foot13

My copy of the Oxford Annotated Bible also added that it's likely that in the original greek the stress was not on the orientation of the practice, but on the frequency and urgency. The key word there being "unnatural," implying that the intercourse itself was unnatural, not how it was with. That bible was worked on by a blue ribbon panel of experts from protestant, catholic, orthodox, and jewish traditions.

As for 1 Corinthians 6:9, the USCCB has that refering to boy prostitutes and those how frequent the boy prostitutes, not simply a banning of what we consider sodomites.

EDIT: I have deleted a post by Efarrer as offensive to those who believe the Bible.

1. Lets move off the gay issue on the thread. Its extremely divisive and will get the thread closed.
2. Lets also leave off posts deriding religious tracts. What you may think is a simple opinion can, in fact, be deeply offensive.

Thanks for re-opening the thread Frazzled.

coolio.

Well, I think the gay issue, while devisive, is sort of a good flashpoint for the central debate raised by the OP.

The struggle in terms of religion and society is the extent to which purely religious mores should be made part of a societies principles. In addition, there is the key sub-issue of the differentiating between scriptures as a source of "truth" and a source of "literal truth."

I believe the bible to be true in that I believe that God is responsible for creation, and that salvation is possible through Jesus, among many other things. I"m less certain about applying that level of truth to every chapter, verse, or word. Even in a perfect document, translation errors, cultural shifts, and the need for context make taking nearly any verse and claiming it to be literally true to be a sometimes treacherous decision.

I mean, I think Christians that take the bible and study it and learn from it and base their morality off of it are doing a good thing. The key, as always, is context. Knowing what was meant, what the possible translations are, even knowing that errors are possible allows a reader to gain a wider perspective of what is being related.

There is a form of tax protest built around a single code section, dealing with international tax, that says something along the lines of "only foreign income is taxes." They claim that code section forbids taxing domestic income. They do so despite the piles of code dealing with income, the court cases defining income, and the fact that the code section was dealing with international taxation. Sometimes we can all be like that, and cherry pick a single phrase from the scriptures, and forget that there is a whole book in there that means more than any one of it's components.

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

@Polonius

Elessar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

And I'd proffer thats not the case. Some sects may believe that. Last I saw most fo the organized churches did not believe in 5 and especially 6. IIRC Historically #6 could cause you to have an unhappy intermingling with flammable materials.

Remember lads. No one expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

Frazzled wrote:
Remember lads. No one expects the SPANISH INQUISITION!

RIP Monty Python

Of course, it's rarer, historically, for the main established churches to agree than disagree...but certainly I see your point. Of course, if God is real, Jesus his son etc etc, then only one church (if any) could be exactly right anyway.

Elessar wrote:

dogma wrote:

Elessar wrote:
I agree almost completely with what you said, but, the way I see it, there are two ways to look at this. Either you believe in a set of universal, absolutist morals, such as any Christian SHOULD (they are clearly defined in the Bible, and you really can't ignore parts of it you don't like and still call yourself a Christian)

The status of any given person as a Christian varies from denomination to denomination, and does not necessarily turn on absolutist morality. For example, the Eastern Orthodox Church is based primarily on an appreciation of paradox whereby it can be acceptable for nominally immoral acts to serve good ends and thereby be considered moral.

My apologies for the lack of clarity, and, with no intent to cause offence, my belief is that in order for someone to call themselves a Christian, they must subscribe to a number of core tenets, including:
1) The Bible is the word of God, and as such is to be obeyed in its entirety
2) Jesus is the Son of God, which really means that he isn't a human, because he was born without sin
3) Everyone would go to Hell if they died before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance
4) It's not up to people to decide what's right and wrong at all
5) Only the number mentioned in Revelations (14000?) get to go to Heaven, and even then, only at the End of Days
6) You must obey ALL books of the Bible, even the Apocrypha, or any other books removed at any point - how can a mere human judge what is the true Word?

I could probably think of some more, but you get the point.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who doesn't fit these is a theist with Christian values, not really a Christian. I'd like to state again, this post is a clarification of my thought process, not any attempt to cause offence. However, anyone who IS offended by this will not be getting an apology, because there's no power (that I believe in) that has the ability or authority to make me apologise for stating my beliefs in a calm, structured fashion.

First off thanks to Frazzled for reopening the thread.

Second even though this hasn't anything to do with Efarrers post(I didn't even see it), I did send Polonius a PM apologizing for being a little too aggresive in my responses. I can see how he could have misunderstood what I was saying.

Third onto Elessars post. You certainly have every right to believe what you believe, but I will postulate that those beliefs certainly aren't a requirement for "every Christian"

Specifically regarding:
Point #2. I for one believe that the Bible teaches that Jesus was both fully human and fully God.
Point #3. I'm not sure about this, I would agree that everyone that has heard the gospel and rejects it would fit the requirements of going to hell. I'm not sure at this point how God is going to deal with people that haven't heard the gospel. Maybe God deals with them differently, maybe he doesn't but I'm just not sure. To me that is one of the great mysteries that we may never know until the end.
Point #5 is a Jehovas Witness teaching, and is not supported by scripture.
Point #6 While I'm no expert on apocrypha, the books that have been canonized are perfectly fine with me. They work in harmony the way they are, and I doubt that apocrypha would add anything. I believe it was the council of Trent in 1546 where they decided on the cannon, and I think the motto was, "if in doubt, throw it out".

I also have a bit of a hard time with the use of the term "obey" when used to describe the Bible. I mean we don't live under the Law, we live under grace. Maybe I misunderstand you but, I think we border on legalism when we start using words like "obey" scripture, instead of "obey" God. Surely if you meant that we are to obey God as revealed by scripture then I would totally agree with you. Maybe I'm just using semantics but it can be important sometimes.

GG

A lot of Christian sects don't believe in number 3 either, and it's really pretty ridiculous to list that as a required qualification. What about all the people who came before Jesus in the Old Testament? Believing that everyone would go to Hell before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance, would mean that Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, and a ton of others all would have gone to Hell, since none of them were Christians.

I don't think there's a Christian anywhere who believes that. Claiming that that is or should be a Christian core belief is ludicrous.

In old Catholic doctrine, there was an event that happened where Jesus went to Hell and grabbed all the good Jews and heroes of the Old Testament and brought them to Heaven. The Scouring, or something like that (not to be confused with The Scouring of the 40k universe ). Also, unbaptized children were in the highest circle of hell, Limbo (Dante's Inferno). Not really a bad place, just not paradise.

How much of that is actually in the Bible though, and not just in Catholic doctrine?

Ozymandias wrote:In old Catholic doctrine, there was an event that happened where Jesus went to Hell and grabbed all the good Jews and heroes of the Old Testament and brought them to Heaven. The Scouring, or something like that (not to be confused with The Scouring of the 40k universe ). Also, unbaptized children were in the highest circle of hell, Limbo (Dante's Inferno). Not really a bad place, just not paradise.

You're talking about the Harrowing of Hell.

Firstly, I think I'll retract number 5, at least temporarily. I'm interested in debating the issue, but I'm doing other things than posting to this forum, so another time.

Hordini wrote:A lot of Christian sects don't believe in number 3 either, and it's really pretty ridiculous to list that as a required qualification. What about all the people who came before Jesus in the Old Testament? Believing that everyone would go to Hell before becoming a Christian, even if they never got the chance, would mean that Noah, Moses, Abraham, Lot, and a ton of others all would have gone to Hell, since none of them were Christians.

I don't think there's a Christian anywhere who believes that. Claiming that that is or should be a Christian core belief is ludicrous.

This next, it's shorter to quote! I would argue that in fact Noah, Moses etc WERE Christians, due to them believing that there WOULD BE a Son of God, and they never denied that it was Jesus in the manner of many contemporary Jews (according to the Bible, to avoid seeming anti-semitic)

More importantly to this point (also answering a point by generalgrog) let me explain more fully. Christians must, to my mind (and I don't think there's an argument I could have misinterpreted, the Bible is pretty clear) believe that everyone is born a Sinner, hence the concepts of Original Sin, and being Born Again. Now, I know some churches don't have the Born Again thing in their creeds, fine, but Original Sin is cast in stone (lol)

Given that everyone is born a sinner, they need to repent before they can be admitted to Heaven - this much, again, is a given. My, admittedly a little contentious, point is that anyone who does NOT repent befroe their inevitable death, MUST therefore go to Hell, tragic as the individual circumstances may be. This seems, to me, to be a particularly cruel thing to visit upon beings created {and loved} by God (I wouldn't even subject my dice to eternal torment!) but it seems fairly clear.

Next (apologies for lack of quoting, it'd take longer to type) the general's 2nd point. I accept that is your belief, but my own beliefs force me to question it. I do not believe that a being can simultaneously be both omnipotent, and merely human. I find it more likely that either he was not the son of God at all, making him fully human, or he WAS the son of God, in which case the tale regarding the Garden of Gethsemane (sp?) [where he asked God if there could not be another way] was fabrication to help Jews of the time identify with him and convert. Certainly, if God loves us all, he would prefer for us to reciprocate. Although Sting says 'if you love somebody, set them free and I'd rather he did.

Point#6 - I believe you're right about the year, but there are still questions to be asked - firstly, how did Revelations make it in if they used that motto? It's hardly the clearest or most moral text in the 'Good Book'

Finally - I meant obey the Scripture, you didn't misunderstand. For example, to the best of my knowledge, Hasidic Jews follow ALL the commandments, not just the first ten, given by Moses (616?) I would contest that not to do so is insulting to God, as he provided all of the commandments to the Israelites at Mt Sinai, not only the first ten. Certainly, they are more important, perhaps God would be lenient about people ignoring a few hundred here and there, but in general, they are the laws of God for Man, and should be obeyed. I admit its unlikely this has occurred to you before.

I'm glad you have it all figured out dude. Good for you.

Hordini wrote:How much of that is actually in the Bible though, and not just in Catholic doctrine?

A lot of Medieval Catholic doctrine doesn't come from the Bible. Well, at least not directly. This is still true in Catholicism and other Christian sects, for example, it never says in the Bible that priests have to be celibate (or really even talk about priests...).

Grignard wrote:
You're talking about the Harrowing of Hell.

The Harrowing, that's what it was called. Yes I was, thanks.

Elessar wrote:I would argue that in fact Noah, Moses etc WERE Christians, due to them believing that there WOULD BE a Son of God, and they never denied that it was Jesus in the manner of many contemporary Jews (according to the Bible, to avoid seeming anti-semitic)

They never believed in there would be "a son of God", they believed (and still believe) that there will be a messiah, which is not necessarily the same thing. Messiah doesn't have the same meaning to the Hebrews as it does to Christians.