The GOP, GLTB, and Evolution

Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
The GOP, GLTB, and Evolution

Hi all,

 

Just thought I'd post something to address some misconceptions. We all have the freedom to choose who or what we believe in, but I think its important that we base our decisions on facts vs falsehood (even very entertaining falsehood). I'm a follower of Jesus Christ by the way, just so there are no misconceptions there.

 

1) God and the GOP: There are people who identify themselves as Christians in the Republican party. There are also people who call themselves Christian among the Democrats. Neither is the 'Christian' party, and the idea of some people that all Christians must be Republicans is deeply flawed. God may care deeply about life (the pro-life lobby) and sin (the anti-gay lobby... see next item), but he also cares deeply about the poor (Health Care reform) and all life (anti-war lobby). Limiting God or Christianity to a few issues to the exclusion of others is not Biblical, though it is very 'political'.

A useful story is that of Joshua outside of Jericho. Joshua saw 'a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, "Are you for us or for our enemies?"

"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come." '(Joshua 5:13-14)

 

2) GLBT: Christians should not hate GLBT, nor should GLBT be barred from being Christians. But there is a difference between being a 'member' of a body of believers, and being a leader/teacher. The latter should be a person who is 'holy' in the sense of setting aside their life for God, and obviously living in obedience to the teachings of Christ. In essence, if you love Christ, you will obey what he teaches. None of us are perfect though, and there are many stoies of Christians who fall. The important element though is that they should seek to obey, and when they fall, they should turn from their failings and return to obedience to God.

The issue with GLBT pastors is not that they are 'sinners'... we all are. The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings. Some people note that the Bible only mentions homosexuality 7 times. What would you say to your child if they came to you and said, "But you ONLY told me not to do it seven times..."?

There is no righteouness or scriptural warrant to hate GLBT individuals though, and though we should be honest when their actions are contrary to biblical teachings, we should be honest in this regard to all our friends.

A GLBT pastor though, would be like having a red-meat loving Texan leading the Vegan Society of Seattle.

 

3) Evolution: What about it? It explains 'how' organisms change, but it does a less thorough job of explaining how life began. It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action. Quite simply, science cannot answer that question (...to my knowledge. If anyone knows of a  scientific experiment that would prove/disprove God, please let me know).

A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

I welcome all comments, and I'll probably get some negative comments from Christians as well. If you're a Believer and take issue with anything I've posted, please cite scripture to support your argument.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Anonymouse

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Apologies for hijacking someone else's reply.

Dragoon wrote:
If I've been 'bigotted' in any of my comments, please point it out to me and I'll be happy to apologize.

Okay. That would be your comments about the out and proud glbt pastor. Hiding behind the bible only adds hypocrisy.

Dragoon wrote:
James tells us that 'whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it' (James 2:10). Essentially, there may be different 'crimes' and relative results, but regardless of which 'crime' you committed you would still be considered a criminal. So also the Bible teaches on sin.

Indeed it does. So about those shrimp... (I'm obsessed with shrimp. The way some christians are obsessed with homosexuality), ever eaten one ?

Dragoon wrote:
Happy New Year everyone Eye-wink

Same to you.

Is it biggotry to say, if you call yourself a Marxist, follow Marx? If you call yourself a Vegan, do not eat animal protein. If you call yourself a Christian pastor, then follow Christ's teachings. I am simply saying that any Chistian should follow the teachings of Christ, and I would say that to any person (GLBT, straight or otherwise), though I would hope that I would always say it with respect, politeness and love for the person.

"Teachings of Christ": Please refer me to the passage of the bible directly quoting Jesus (not some monk 400 years later) saying ANYTHING about homosexuality at all.

This entire thread has been insulting to me from the very first post. Don't come in here with your judgmental bible beating and then act all innocent and wounded when I turn it around on you. If you're going to give it, you need to learn to take it.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Which

Indeterminate wrote:

Which brings us back to: Is there any reason to think god was involved, or even exists?

Aye, there's the rub!

My answer is most certainly yes. But the hows and whys are rather moot. Anything I say can be discounted as purely subjective, which of course it is. But my answer is yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is Lord for reason.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:You're

Anonymouse wrote:

You're taking issue with them being openly and proud glbt. Why ? Because it's in the bible. But there are quite a few other abominations in the bible that you seem quite happy to ignore. I've already given an example. In other words, you're cherrypicking, so your real reasons for "disagreeing" with a pastor for being openly and proudly GLBT has yet to be revealed.

So what other reason, apart from bigotry, could you have for disagreeing with them being openly and proudly glbt ? I'd love to find out.

Please read my post over again Anonymous. I have nothing against people being open about who they are, and I would hope that I've been entirely open about who I am in this thread.

I may have phrased it poorly, so let me reiterate.

It is not any person being openly or proudly GLBT that is the issue... but rather a pastor/Christian leader openly and proudly saying, "I am living in direct contradiction to the teachings of God." If a person chooses to be a 'Christian', the main component is turning away from what we do that is wrong (in God's eyes) and turning towards God. In essence, we are saying, "God, I accept that your view is greater than mine. You are now my Lord and Master."

We all have failings, but if a person is going to step into leadership and become a teacher and role model for others in their faith, then that person should be exactly that... a role model that reflects the teachings of Christ. Absolutely many fail, and when they do, our response should be the same; love and a call to return to being holy as God is holy.

 

Hope that helps clarify the issue. I looked over the article you linked, and it was quite interesting. I'd love to discuss certain topics with the author, because as a follower of Christ I do take what the Bible says seriously. Please note however that the article you link to is not about GLBT as leaders in the church, which is a very different though connected topic, and it is this latter that I have been solely discussing.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Dragoon

Indeterminate wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

I think you're confusing 'bigotry' with disagreement with someone's position/choice Eye-wink

This implies that you think sexuality is a choice. Care to either support or refute that?

I can say honestly that I am not satisfied with the argument from either camp. The Christian camp tends to like to portray GLBT as entirely due to nurture and environment, while the GLBT camp has been working hard to have non-heterosexual tendancies recognised as genetic. Both views lack strong scientific backing as far as I can assertain, and the GLBT position is largely built upon political statements of public support.

From my experience with my GLBT friends and acquaintences, I can definitely say that 'choice' (though not necessarily conscious choice) can play a role. I also see that some indiviuals have a certain leaning towards GLBT tendancies though as well.

Regardless of the root causes though, as a 'Christian' I am willing to trust that God knows what he means, and that if he instructs us that something is contrary to his desires, it is out of his love for us.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Anonymouse

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

Yes, it can seem like that when you impose the ideas of other faiths upon the Christian message. Personally I much prefered the image of Christ as the original vampiric undead.

But such statements really reflect a deep misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Marquis

Dragoon wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

But such statements really reflect a deep misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says.

You're joking, right?  You're a true Scotsman?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:what the Bible

Dragoon wrote:
what the Bible actually says

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what the Bible actually says.

I do, however, care what the Christians actually do.

In the examples I mentioned, that would be a celebration of human sacrifice and (symbolic) cannibalistic rituals.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Anonymouse

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

You're taking issue with them being openly and proud glbt. Why ? Because it's in the bible. But there are quite a few other abominations in the bible that you seem quite happy to ignore. I've already given an example. In other words, you're cherrypicking, so your real reasons for "disagreeing" with a pastor for being openly and proudly GLBT has yet to be revealed.

So what other reason, apart from bigotry, could you have for disagreeing with them being openly and proudly glbt ? I'd love to find out.

Please read my post over again Anonymous. I have nothing against people being open about who they are, and I would hope that I've been entirely open about who I am in this thread.

I may have phrased it poorly, so let me reiterate.

It is not any person being openly or proudly GLBT that is the issue... but rather a pastor/Christian leader openly and proudly saying, "I am living in direct contradiction to the teachings of God." If a person chooses to be a 'Christian', the main component is turning away from what we do that is wrong (in God's eyes) and turning towards God. In essence, we are saying, "God, I accept that your view is greater than mine. You are now my Lord and Master."

I'm highly amused by your backpedaling to now say "teachings of god" rather than "teachings of Jesus." I'll respond to my request for a reference myself: Jesus himself never ONCE said a single thing about homosexuality. Rather, if he even existed, all he did was walk around talking about love, forgiveness, and acceptance for twenty years. How you bigots miss that overriding theme so often I'll never know.

He also said "I am the New Law," which meant that he was rejecting everything that had come before, namely the Leviticus, where your precious decree about laying with a man is to be found. The ONLY mention of homosexuality in the New Testament is in a book written, as I hinted, 400 years later by some monk who had no better knowledge of what god wanted to say than you do. Using "what I know god wanted" to justify your bigotry is, again, arrogant and delusional.

Dragoon wrote:

We all have failings, but if a person is going to step into leadership and become a teacher and role model for others in their faith, then that person should be exactly that... a role model that reflects the teachings of Christ. Absolutely many fail, and when they do, our response should be the same; love and a call to return to being holy as God is holy.

Now we're back to another question you've conveniently neglected to answer, which is what reason you have to cherrypick this particular "sin" from ALL the rest of the ridiculous things in the OT, including church leaders eating shellfish--or for that matter keeping a kosher kitchen to avoid blending products from different animals--except for your own pathetic homophobia. The conclusion I draw 99% of the time? Closet case.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Dragoon

Marquis wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
what the Bible actually says

 

I don't give a rat's ass about what the Bible actually says.

I do, however, care what the Christians actually do.

In the examples I mentioned, that would be a celebration of human sacrifice and (symbolic) cannibalistic rituals.

I think you end up then with a very interesting problem. Who is a 'Christian'? 

Is any person who says, "Yup, I'm an American. Grew up around churches. I must be a Christian" = a Christian?

My analogy would be Kung Fu. If a person watched a lot of Kung Fu flicks and fantasized a lot about it, should I consider them a fair representation of Kung Fu? Surely I should speak and look to a person who has invested time and study into what they desire to be. Within places that use a belt rating system, a black belt is not an 'expert', but rather a student who has now mastered the basics... and is now ready to learn the 'real' art. 

You would get some great fodder for rants by focussing on 'anyone' who styles themselves a Christian, but it certainly wouldn't in any way be a rational or ethical treatment of Christianity. 

If you're going to judge Christianity and Christians, please feel free to do so... but please do so on the basis of those who actively live according to what the Bible teaches. 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Lobster?

Anonymouse wrote:

Uhm....you have read the bible, right ? You're not allowed to eat lobster either, btw. Sorry.

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

Not my words, but rather the words of my teacher; Jesus the Christ.

 


Indeterminate
Posts: 89
Joined: 2009-12-18
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Don't you see

Dragoon wrote:

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

Not my words, but rather the words of my teacher; Jesus the Christ.

Where does he say that?

God: "Thou Must Go from This Place Lest I Visit Thee with Boils!"
Man: "Really? Most people would bring a bottle of wine"


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:If you're

Dragoon wrote:

If you're going to judge Christianity and Christians, please feel free to do so... but please do so on the basis of those who actively live according to what the Bible teaches. 

 

Much obliged, thank you. This is my verdict: I hereby sentence all you who think of yourself as "good Christians who live by the word of the Bible" to be insane apes from this moment on and until the end of time. You are worthless scum. Paranoid schizophreniacs and sad delusional wretches. Filth! You disgust me. You are the enemy. You are not my species. I shall not feed you. I shall not offer you shelter. I shall let you perish while I watch without emotion, because there can be no progress on earth before you change. It is your choice. Do you want to be drowned or burned?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Indeterminate wrote:Dragoon

Indeterminate wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

Not my words, but rather the words of my teacher; Jesus the Christ.

Where does he say that?

 

Mark 7:17-23. There are other relevant passages as well, which I could try to recall if you're interested. Some people have the gift for memorizing vast amounts of scripture. Unfortunately I'm not one of them.

Jesus is quite clear that he does not do away with the teachings of the Old Testament (the 'Law and the Prophets' which cover most of the traditional Jewish Torah), but rather fulfills them. In essence, God does not change his mind like shifting shadows. In regards to the 'law', it never made us 'right' before God, but rather was like a guide to teach us about our fallen nature. Like a good guide, it is not void when you reach your destination, but rather you no longer require its supervision. The guide is not wrong, but it has served its purpose.

The 'destination' in this case is Jesus Christ. This is why Christians go on about 'repentance' as a prerequisite for faith in Jesus Christ. Until we are guided to understand that we are 'sinful' (not meaning 'bad' in a human context, but meaning fallen short of the high standards set by God), we are not really ready to come to Christ.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Dragoon

Marquis wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

If you're going to judge Christianity and Christians, please feel free to do so... but please do so on the basis of those who actively live according to what the Bible teaches. 

 

Much obliged, thank you. This is my verdict: I hereby sentence all you who think of yourself as "good Christians who live by the word of the Bible" to be insane apes from this moment on and until the end of time. You are worthless scum. Paranoid schizophreniacs and sad delusional wretches. Filth! You disgust me. You are the enemy. You are not my species. I shall not feed you. I shall not offer you shelter. I shall let you perish while I watch without emotion, because there can be no progress on earth before you change. It is your choice. Do you want to be drowned or burned?

 

Ahhh a CHOICE! Hmmmm can I be lightly toasted and then drowned?

 

Careful though... you sound dangerously close to being one of those 'bigots' I've been hearing about... or can only Christians be bigots? 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Dragoon

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

But such statements really reflect a deep misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says.

You're joking, right?  You're a true Scotsman?

Dinnae look under the kilt laddie! 


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote: can I be

Dragoon wrote:

 can I be lightly toasted and then drowned?

 

Let it be so.


 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:latincanuck

Dragoon wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

For Luke it comes from the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to the Gospel of Luke, which states  “Luke is a Syrian of Antioch, a physician by profession. He had become a disciple of the apostle Paul and later followed Paul until his martyrdom. Having served the Lord continuously, unmarried and without children, filled with the Holy Spirit he died at the age of 84 years"

Thanks Latin.

Which part of Canada you from? Could you check your sources as well? The original Latin text I'm showing is;

"discipulus apostolorum, postea vero Paulum secutus est usque ad confessionem eius, serviens domino sine crimine, nam neque uxorem unquam habuit, neque filios procreavit." (http://www.textexcavation.com/latinprologues.html)

which would translate as;

"He was a disciple of the apostles, and afterward followed Paul until his confession, serving the Lord undistractedly, for he neither had any wife nor procreated sons." (ibid)

 

latincanuck wrote:
 

As for your several sources none which were written within his life time at all. They basically are written after he has died and most of those that wrote it were not old enough, basically where children or babies or had not even been born at the time of jesus supposed existence.

Jesus wasn't born 0 AD (and most certainly not on Dec 25th), but I think it is generally accepted that he was born roughly plus/minus 5 years from AD 0. If we just use AD 0 for convenience, then he began his ministry about 30 AD (see Luke 3:23) and was crucified roughly 32-33 AD.

The 4 letters of the Gospels are normally dated 50-70 AD (though some think it may be up to 100 AD), which would place thm 15-35 years after Christ died. I think that is well within a 'lifetime', but you are absolutely correct that Jesus was crucified prior to any Gospel. I guess they wouldn't be 'gospels' if Jesus had not died yet, since the central message was that God has sent an atoning sacrifice for sin.

If we want true 'eye witness' though, I think we would have to visit CNN and check their archives Eye-wink

latincanuck wrote:

He didn't fulfill a bunch of them, the most important is reigning over the jews, taking them back to israel and building the third temple, so no he was never and will never be accepted by the jews as the true messiah because jesus never fulfills the prophecies.

God has a way of not being or doing things the way man expects though. I would say that Christ definitely rules over the 'chosen people' (those that God both predestined and foreknew would serve Jesus... Jew and Gentile alike), which does not mean that the Jews are forgotten, but rather that salvation has come to all men through them and that true Israel will one day be grafted back into the tree which Gentiles are now 'ingrafted' into.

As to the temple, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. (John 2:19-21)

I think you are absolutely correct that not all Jews will accept this, nor will all people. In the end, it's our choice on what we will believe, follow or serve.

I may disagree with your choice, just as you may disagree with mine, but I would hope that we all make our choices based on solid facts and truth. Whatever you choose, my response should be the same... love for you.

The thing is the jews have an issue with regards of jesus and the whole spiritual thing mentioned there as they have believed and still do that those are physical things to be done, not spiritual. As well they believe no one stands between them and god. But that's a different issue and topic.

However the dating of the gospels I have read and understood are Mathew 50-70 CE, John 85 - 100 CE, Luke 80 -100 CE, Mark 68 - 73 CE then there are the other ones, Thomas could be 50 - 60 CE but other sources state 150 CE, Peter first have of the second century, James some time in the 2nd century, and there are a few other gospels I believe, but i haven't bothered with them.

I never said 0 CE is the birth of Jesus or his death, I said they were either babies, children or not even born. However outside of these gospels there is no evidence that jesus existed, or isn't a collection of stories about other so called messiahs. Many where considered messiahs or christus during that period in history.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:The thing

latincanuck wrote:

The thing is the jews have an issue with regards of jesus and the whole spiritual thing mentioned there as they have believed and still do that those are physical things to be done, not spiritual. As well they believe no one stands between them and god. But that's a different issue and topic.

However the dating of the gospels I have read and understood are Mathew 50-70 CE, John 85 - 100 CE, Luke 80 -100 CE, Mark 68 - 73 CE then there are the other ones, Thomas could be 50 - 60 CE but other sources state 150 CE, Peter first have of the second century, James some time in the 2nd century, and there are a few other gospels I believe, but i haven't bothered with them.

I never said 0 CE is the birth of Jesus or his death, I said they were either babies, children or not even born. However outside of these gospels there is no evidence that jesus existed, or isn't a collection of stories about other so called messiahs. Many where considered messiahs or christus during that period in history.

Yeah... I mentioned AD 0 just to provide context for dating, and to emphasize that it isn't the actual date of Jesus' birth. Even if we used the dates you suggest though, it would still put the Gospels at 17-53 years after Jesus' crucifixion... still within a 'lifetime'.

I think it would be more correct to say that 'some' Jews have a problem with regards to Jesus, since his early disciples were all Jews and many Jews today are also 'Messianic Jews' who believe that Jesus is the Messiach.

Jesus did fulfill physical OT prophesies as well though. Isaiah 53 is interesting, but you could find many more with a simple web search if you were interested. I also believe that there will be a final physical fulfillment when Christ returns. 

I gotta go back to the core question though... why does it matter to you?

 

Do you doubt because you don't believe, or do you not believe because you doubt?


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry Dragoon

Dragoon wrote:

Hi Latin,

 

I'd encourage you to look up more on Josephus... the debate is not so much whether he writes about Jesus, but whether his accounts have been modified slightly (from 'He was believed to be the Christ' to 'He was the Christ').

 

This is false. The issue with this passage is not whether it was modified slightly but whether it was inserted in its entirety by church historian Eusebius - a man who encouraged fraud in support of his faith. It's widely accepted Josephus did not write this passage - most christian scholars avoid it like the plague. No earlier jewish versions of the text contain this insertion. It pointedly seeks to ratify christianity in a single paragraph and is certainly not a useful piece of evidence in support of your case. LatinCanuck, look up this conjecture over Josephus and Eusebius and read more. There's plenty to be found, none of it complimentary. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I gotta go

Dragoon wrote:

I gotta go back to the core question though... why does it matter to you?

It matters to me on two levels, one is the social level, in which laws, bylaws or other forms in which those of religious influences affect the society I live in. The other is in the form of knowledge, in which we weed out falsehoods (like the miracles attributed to jesus, god, the devil and many other mythologies of the christian religion) and get to the truth. 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Dragoon

latincanuck wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

I gotta go back to the core question though... why does it matter to you?

It matters to me on two levels, one is the social level, in which laws, bylaws or other forms in which those of religious influences affect the society I live in. The other is in the form of knowledge, in which we weed out falsehoods (like the miracles attributed to jesus, god, the devil and many other mythologies of the christian religion) and get to the truth. 

Sounds good Latin. I'd echo Atheistextremist's post above too... read up on the Josephus issue. I think you'll find it's been heavily politicized, but that the core issue is hardly a smoking gun.

Why do you look at how some elements of Jewish society reject Jesus though, and not also at the reverse... why do some accept him as the Messiah? This to me is the greater mystery. Rejection is easy, accepting such a radical paradigm shift is fascinating. In essence, any Jew who accepts the claims of Jesus is altering their perception of how YHWH is 'one'. 

I'm all with you on the weeding out falsehoods side, and please call me on anything I post which you think may be less than truthful.

 

If God is 'real', then we do not need any falsehood or sales pitch in discussing him.

If God is not true, then we should stamp Christianity out. 

 


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Anonymouse

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Uhm....you have read the bible, right ? You're not allowed to eat lobster either, btw. Sorry.

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

Not my words, but rather the words of my teacher; Jesus the Christ.

 

Now I'm confused...I thought "things entering a man from the outside" is exactly what you were complaining about...


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Some people

Dragoon wrote:

Some people have the gift for memorizing vast amounts of scripture. Unfortunately I'm not one of them.

Clearly.

Dragoon wrote:

In essence, God does not change his mind like shifting shadows.

Hm. First he required human sacrifice. Then he decided that wasn't necessary, but that sacrificing innocent animals would be sufficient as a substitute. Then he decided he didn't need slaughtered animals, but repentance would be enough. I'd be interested in what cockamamie definition for "changing one's mind" you've made up so it doesn't describe this.

Also, you're welcome to address the other question I've asked twice now (and others have as well) whenever you'd like. In the meantime, I'll assume you don't have an answer that isn't totally offensive and/or blatantly ignorant.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Thomathy

Dragoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

But such statements really reflect a deep misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says.

You're joking, right?  You're a true Scotsman?

Dinnae look under the kilt laddie! 

That wasn't tongue-in-cheek, but then I doubt very much if you appreciate the fact that you've committed several fallacies.

(Am I the only one who enjoys the fact that this thread has caused the google ads to go gay?)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
yeah

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
fantasising about it

 

My personal favourite is "the Passion of the Christ" though. And communion!

Human sacrifice and ritual cannibalistic magic? A message of love indeed...

But such statements really reflect a deep misunderstanding of what the Bible actually says.

You're joking, right?  You're a true Scotsman?

Dinnae look under the kilt laddie! 

That wasn't tongue-in-cheek, but then I doubt very much if you appreciate the fact that you've committed several fallacies.

(Am I the only one who enjoys the fact that this thread has caused the google ads to go gay?)

 

I saw that I thought I was having a homoerotic fantasy. Man - the beauty parlour on that ship would be absolute mayhem...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Now I'm

smartypants wrote:

Now I'm confused...I thought "things entering a man from the outside" is exactly what you were complaining about...

Possibly the funniest thing that I have read on this forum. Way to go, smartypants.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:From my

Dragoon wrote:
From my experience with my GLBT friends and acquaintences, I can definitely say that 'choice' (though not necessarily conscious choice) can play a role. I also see that some indiviuals have a certain leaning towards GLBT tendancies though as well.
You make yourself look like an ass every time you use GLBT.  Just say gays or homosexuals.  Trying to be that inclusive necessarily leaves out so many others.

What the hell do you mean by, '...certain leanings towards GLBT tendancies...'?  People don't have gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered tendencies.  People have sexual tendencies (being transgendered isn't a sexuality and it's certainly not something someone chooses), and it makes no sense to describe the sexual tendencies of people merely by creating the false dichotomy of those of 'straight' people and those of everyone else.

Choice isn't involved in sexual tendencies.  You no more choose your sexual tendencies than does anyone else.  And you do realize, don't you, that something necessarily cannot be a choice if it is not conscious?  Further, your anecdote is not justification for deciding that choice can play a role.  It's perfectly illegitimate.

Now, you clearly show in this thread that the Bible is open for interpretation.  Gay people who find that they can be pastors are taking a different reading of the Bible than you.  I would find it difficult to believe that you could claim to have the truer interpretation, mostly because there isn't a Christian who doesn't believe that her interpretation is true.  I won't be surprised if you retort with an obvious fallacy.  I await your true Scotsman.

(Much as I hate to up their visitor count, I've found this website to have good information regarding homosexuality and the Bible.  religioustolerance.org)

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
]That wasn't tongue-in-cheek, but then I doubt very much if you appreciate the fact that you've committed several fallacies.(Am I the only one who enjoys the fact that this thread has caused the google ads to go gay?)
I saw that I thought I was having a homoerotic fantasy. Man - the beauty parlour on that ship would be absolute mayhem...
You know it.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Dragoon

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
From my experience with my GLBT friends and acquaintences, I can definitely say that 'choice' (though not necessarily conscious choice) can play a role. I also see that some indiviuals have a certain leaning towards GLBT tendancies though as well.
You make yourself look like an ass every time you use GLBT.  Just say gays or homosexuals.  Trying to be that inclusive necessarily leaves out so many others.

What the hell do you mean by, '...certain leanings towards GLBT tendancies...'?  People don't have gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered tendencies.  People have sexual tendencies (being transgendered isn't a sexuality and it's certainly not something someone chooses), and it makes no sense to describe the sexual tendencies of people merely by creating the false dichotomy of those of 'straight' people and those of everyone else.

Choice isn't involved in sexual tendencies.  You no more choose your sexual tendencies than does anyone else.  And you do realize, don't you, that something necessarily cannot be a choice if it is not conscious?  Further, your anecdote is not justification for deciding that choice can play a role.  It's perfectly illegitimate.

Now, you clearly show in this thread that the Bible is open for interpretation.  Gay people who find that they can be pastors are taking a different reading of the Bible than you.  I would find it difficult to believe that you could claim to have the truer interpretation, mostly because there isn't a Christian who doesn't believe that her interpretation is true.  I won't be surprised if you retort with an obvious fallacy.  I await your true Scotsman.

(Much as I hate to up their visitor count, I've found this website to have good information regarding homosexuality and the Bible.  religioustolerance.org)

I use GLBT merely to be respectful, so please take it in that light.

Of course a 'choice' can be subconscious. Subconscious does not mean lacking in processing/thought, but rather that the processing is taking place at a level we are not actively aware of. In the words of Mark Hallet (National Institute of Health), "Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing." Just as the colors and images on cereal boxes are designed to influence our decisions, our choices can and often are subconscious. Perhaps the Scotsman is living in your own crannog?

The Bible is open to some interpretation, but like anything else, there is more and less valid interpretation. That's why there is variation among Christian believers... there are matters that are open to various interpretations, and those things can and should be discussed. There are also interpretations that takes isolated passages out of context, or which otherwise ignore key points... these obviously are less valid interpretations, and some verge into gross distortion. If you like, we could get into the Biblical reasoning on the GLBT issue and you can decide which you feel is most valid, but I would suggest a private conversation for that.

And of course people believe their interpretation is true... that's why its 'their' interpretation. They have accepted and taken ownership of it. That does not mean that people do not take in and consider other ideas though.

 

Are the things you're terming 'fallacies' merely reflective of my voicing viewpoints you don't choose to accept?

As to Religious Tolerance, I'm quite familiar with them. Part of the problem in any discussion is evidence; what is included or excluded, and how it is phrased. RT purports to be "a multi-faith group consisting of an Agnostic, Atheist, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist" and thus unbiased, but until recently their website was rather vague about the fact that Bruce A. Robinson was virtually the sole author and contributer. Please look over their opening webpage on 'Homosexuality' and note the different use of language to describe the GLBT and Christian positions. 'Fair' appraisal of an issue requires that we look at writers on various sides of an issue, so I'm happy to look at what Mr. Robinson has written... but I would consider it a rather biased source.

Kilt comments- Nothing homoerotic about them. My kilts in my cubboard and I wear it whenever I go to a ceilidh, and I have no problem joking about how my legs look in them Eye-wink. Why is it that your first thought is that a comment has to be sexual?


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Choice

I think there is some confusion over what I mean by 'choice' in the matter of GLBT sexuality. First of all, let me say that I don't believe there is any really conclusive science on this issue... the field is too new, samplings have been too small, and generally there are too many unaccounted variables. For many Christians as well, sex (even heterosexual sex) is rather a taboo subject that makes them uncomfortable. This is unbiblical, as there is nothing wrong with sex (between married men and women) in the Bible.

When I say GLBT life can be a choice, I'm really basing it on my personal observations, and here are some example situations of what I mean;

 

1) A person builds their life around sex. People begin to be nothing more than collections of body parts for sexual gratification, and there is always the urge to 'try' more in search of that sexual 'high'. As boundaries get blurred, it really doesn't matter which sex is pleasuring the person.

2) A person is sexually abused by a parent. The trauma of trying to reconcile love for the parent and realization that something 'wrong' is happening affect that person's idea of sex. Sex can become a way to please people, regardless of gender.

3) A person is involved in the sex trade. All sex becomes 'work' and tarnished. The very idea of sex can become terrible, and sometimes the care and 'different' sex with a same sex partner can ease the pain... especially if they share similar backgrounds.

4) Homosexuality is seen as a 'rebellious', modern lifestyle. If a person is at a point in their life where they are seeking to find their own identity, but dislike the 'norm', then there can be a facination with the edgey.

5) A person is either not masculine or feminine enough by the standards of their peers. In seeking love they embrace where they are welcome... which may be a GLBT relationship.

 

These are just a few rough example scenarios, but I hope they clarify my meaning.

Are all GLBT individuals products of this? Of course not, but my point is that I see 'choice' playing a part in the sexual preference.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, my role would always be the same; to love, cherish and respect people for who they are... but to also be honest with them on what I believe God says to us in scripture. Not because God hates them, but because God loves us, created us, and desires that our lives would be fully and completely 'whole'.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Meh...

Dragoon wrote:

I think there is some confusion over what I mean by 'choice' in the matter of GLBT sexuality. First of all, let me say that I don't believe there is any really conclusive science on this issue... the field is too new, samplings have been too small, and generally there are too many unaccounted variables. For many Christians as well, sex (even heterosexual sex) is rather a taboo subject that makes them uncomfortable. This is unbiblical, as there is nothing wrong with sex (between married men and women) in the Bible.

When I say GLBT life can be a choice, I'm really basing it on my personal observations, and here are some example situations of what I mean;

 

1) A person builds their life around sex. People begin to be nothing more than collections of body parts for sexual gratification, and there is always the urge to 'try' more in search of that sexual 'high'. As boundaries get blurred, it really doesn't matter which sex is pleasuring the person.

2) A person is sexually abused by a parent. The trauma of trying to reconcile love for the parent and realization that something 'wrong' is happening affect that person's idea of sex. Sex can become a way to please people, regardless of gender.

3) A person is involved in the sex trade. All sex becomes 'work' and tarnished. The very idea of sex can become terrible, and sometimes the care and 'different' sex with a same sex partner can ease the pain... especially if they share similar backgrounds.

4) Homosexuality is seen as a 'rebellious', modern lifestyle. If a person is at a point in their life where they are seeking to find their own identity, but dislike the 'norm', then there can be a facination with the edgey.

5) A person is either not masculine or feminine enough by the standards of their peers. In seeking love they embrace where they are welcome... which may be a GLBT relationship.

 

These are just a few rough example scenarios, but I hope they clarify my meaning.

Are all GLBT individuals products of this? Of course not, but my point is that I see 'choice' playing a part in the sexual preference.

As a follower of Jesus Christ, my role would always be the same; to love, cherish and respect people for who they are... but to also be honest with them on what I believe God says to us in scripture. Not because God hates them, but because God loves us, created us, and desires that our lives would be fully and completely 'whole'.

 

What about slotting in the fundamental that some people are flat out gay? I have a couple of gay friends - they're just plain old gay. They pretty much always have been. Most their outs were extremely painful and if they could have switched straight to avoid the dislocation with family and friends then they would have. But they were gay. I don't buy into examples that try to creep around the edges of tolerance and into a zone where gayness is the result of some personal damage or subconscious shortcut or social problem. Ten per cent of mammals are gay. The science is done. Who the hell knows. God might have a crocodile skin manbag and go around with a pink cashmere sweater tied round his neck drinking camomile tea. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:What

Atheistextremist wrote:

What about slotting in the fundamental that some people are flat out gay?

 

That would be the part where I said, "Are all GLBT individuals products of this? Of course not, but my point is that I see 'choice' playing a part in the sexual preference." It also doesn't really fit into a discussion where I'm relating how 'choice'/environment can play a role.

 

This is not about whether GLBT should be treated with love and respect... Christians should be 100% for that, and I'd stand by you on the picket lines to support that point (from a Biblical standpoint of course Eye-wink)

The issue here is GLBT as leaders of churches, where the Bible is clearly against it (feel free to look into the theological debate. Essentially, the GLBT side builds its case around the need to love all people, but love does not mean to tell a person that what is biblically believed to be wrong is right).

 

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't agree people choose to be gay.

Dragoon wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

What about slotting in the fundamental that some people are flat out gay?

 

That would be the part where I said, "Are all GLBT individuals products of this? Of course not, but my point is that I see 'choice' playing a part in the sexual preference." It also doesn't really fit into a discussion where I'm relating how 'choice'/environment can play a role.

 

I think I get you Dragoon, I just don't see that choice plays a part in sexuality.

I choose to ride a motorcycle, eat ice cream and watch test match cricket live. I didn't choose to like girls. I was in love with Heather Muir when I only 4 years old and I wanted to marry her. Helen Anderson was my next love when I was 6. When I was 8-10 it was Katherine Powell - though I also had a thing for Caroline Brooking in fifth class. In first form it was Sharon Keighley and at the end of that year after she rejected me, I fell for Marie Henderson from Waipawa at Riverbend Christian Camp - a sweeter person I have not met - though that did not stop me from pashing Melodie Carruthers under an upturned rubber dinghy in the swimming pool in her backyard in the summer of 1978. Being at an all boy's boarding school cramped my style from 11yo to 17 but I still managed to fall in love with Rosemary Fogerty in third form and then in the fourth I fell for Michelle Simpson proprly and that lasted till my late 20s.

I never made any decisions about any this, I just went with my gut instinct. Do you seriously think gay people are any different? That they are not just going with what is natural to them? If you insist on god being 100 per cent perfect then I appreciate you don't want to admit the hand of the potter shook - gay people have to have made a choice of some sort to be gay or god's short-circuiting freewill, right? 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Hi Atheistextremist,

 

I think you're hitting on a really key point, not just about homosexuality but about all things that the Bible talks about as 'sin'.

In all of them, people are behaving naturally.

 

In speaking of sin, Christians are not talking about being 'abnormal'/evil (in a human sense), but often simply choosing what this world considers 'natural'. A huge part of the Biblical message is that this world, and all things in it, are 'fallen'. Why do nations rage and war, why does justice seem only for the rich, why do greed and avarice drive our economies, why do young children die at the hands of sexual predators, why do we fail and hurt the people we love the most...

This world is not the way God created it. It is 'wrong'.

 

All of creation has been groaning in pain and eagerly awaiting liberation.

If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world- the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does- comes not from the Father but from the world. (1John 2:15-16)

Yes, Christians often fail to follow what the Bible teaches, and many who call themselves 'Christian' do not follow at all... but what the God of the Bible asks of us is to turn away from what often seems the most natural to us; desire for power, lust for sex, hope in riches, safety in 'taking care of number one', protection of our pride

...and to turn to trust in Him and the one he sent.

 

 

That's really the Gospel right there. Turn and come back into your Father's arms, because he has never abandoned you.

 

Gays are no different than the rest of us.

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ok, then.

Quoting that Kombi-driving tripper John is not going to work that well for me, I'm sorry. John says if we love the world we don't love god? Could you disentangle the commandment: Love your brother from this, please? I'm confused. 

What teachings am I following as an atheist when I do the things that feel naturally right to me that are morally correct? Surprisingly, Dragoon, this happens a lot. Instead of raping, murdering, bashing my neighbours and so on, I tend towards being a reasonably nice person. Most other people who haven't been drinking are above the baseline for niceness, too. And where does freewill fit in a world plan where humans are incapable of doing anything good, save just trusting in the mercy of "Him and the one He sent"?

Lines like "Why do the nations rage and war" slip off the keyboard's tongue so sweetly but while I agree there is war, there is plenty of peace, too. And a reasonable amount of justice - though more for the rich, I concede. It's not just greed that drives economies. It's basic needs, inventiveness and innovation, and just reward for labour. I agree things could be better but kids no longer work in mines and cotton mills and that's a step in the right direction. 

I'm nearly 43. I have no desire for power, I have given up on the idea of a woman with a man-sized sex drive - there's no point lusting after something that doesn't exist. And unfortunately for me, while I like looking at girls, I'm monogamous. Onanism is no doubt a dire sin but I did not create my testosterone or my dick and at least it helps me sleep. I don't hope for riches. Like other people my age I am realising that material is irrelevant aside from the ability it gives you to protect and support people you love. And as for being number 1 - no parent is - unless the pride is referred and occurs through elevation of an extension of their own bodies in their genetic child but care is needed here. If we sail to close to this reef we might neuter towering god-concepts like love...

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's a winding country lane

Dragoon wrote:

A huge part of the Biblical message is that this world, and all things in it, are 'fallen'.

This world is not the way God created it. It is 'wrong'.

All of creation has been groaning in pain and eagerly awaiting liberation.

 

we should not meander up today, Dragoon, but we'll have to discuss "the fall" in detail sometime. Eve, who really has no knowledge of right and wrong at this point, is told not to eat some sort of biblical fruit. But lo, she scoffs it down, bringing it over to adam for a bite. But neither of them can have been appraised of the fact eating this pomegranate is going see billions burn screechingly in a lake of fire or they would never, ever have eaten it. Never, ever, ever. 

Poor eve, the slander monkey for an entire gender. No doubt this bedouin tent myth helped explain the curse of menstruation. The whole concept of the fall, that we should be responsible for another's sin, that all our makeups for every generation should be broken for ever by that sin is beyond any sense. The best explanation is that human's have a useful working conscience that allows us to function in groups through the projection of empathy and the understanding of fairness in a group that must share. Let's just get over it and move on. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I use GLBT

Dragoon wrote:
I use GLBT merely to be respectful, so please take it in that light.
But it's not respectful.  It is wholly ridiculous.  Transgendered people are not (necessarily) homosexual and who you're really talking about are homosexuals.  Trying to be inclusive as you are by using GLBT show off your ignorance and is more exclusive.  You're missing two-spirited people and a host of other sexual and gender identities.  Since you're obviously talking about people who have sex with people of the same sex, it is ridiculous to use GLBT.

 

Quote:
Of course a 'choice' can be subconscious.
No, it really can't.  That doesn't even make sense.  Further, choice is an illusion that can be very simply demonstrated not to actually exist.

Quote:
Subconscious does not mean lacking in processing/thought, but rather that the processing is taking place at a level we are not actively aware of. In the words of Mark Hallet (National Institute of Health), "Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing." Just as the colors and images on cereal boxes are designed to influence our decisions, our choices can and often are subconscious. Perhaps the Scotsman is living in your own crannog?
This would be a very silly argument to have.  Choice is a conscious experience, necessarily.  But you're not talking about the choice between purchasing different brands of cereal, you're talking about people choosing their sexuality.  People do not choose their sexuality, not even in the illusory sense.

Quote:
If you like, we could get into the Biblical reasoning on the GLBT issue and you can decide which you feel is most valid, but I would suggest a private conversation for that.
Unnecessary.  There is no valid interpretation of a piece of literature.  It's an almost entirely a subjective experience.  That must be difficult to reconcile with a belief that the Bible is a book of 'truth'.

Quote:
Kilt comments- Nothing homoerotic about them. My kilts in my cubboard and I wear it whenever I go to a ceilidh, and I have no problem joking about how my legs look in them Eye-wink. Why is it that your first thought is that a comment has to be sexual?
I'm afraid I don't understand.  I never thought that the comment was sexual and never wrote anything to suggest that I did.  I was pointing out that what I had said wasn't a joke.  You're subtly employing the No True Scotsman fallacy, a fallacy you seem to be entirely unaware of.

Quote:
Are the things you're terming 'fallacies' merely reflective of my voicing viewpoints you don't choose to accept?
No, you're literally employing logical fallacies.  Shall I begin to make a list of them for you?

Quote:
As to Religious Tolerance, I'm quite familiar with them. Part of the problem in any discussion is evidence; what is included or excluded, and how it is phrased.
This is extraordinarily ironic coming from someone whose belief is necessarily based in faith.  I don't particularly care what you think of Religious Tolerance.  It is one website offering a viewpoint.  There are many others.  I was merely using it to show that there is a viewpoint counter to your own that appears to be every bit as valid as your own, given the laughable idea of correct biblical interpretation.

The crux of your position is that you can't see how a homosexual can consistently be a Christian and be a Christian 'leader'.  The truth is that it doesn't matter and I don't very much care what you think a Christian 'leader' ought to be.  As far as I'm concerned, and as Christians demonstrate, there is only one criteria for being a Christian and the rest of it is just fluff.  What you're doing is using your interpretation of Christianity to justify a thinly veiled bigotry.  "The problem isn't that homosexuals are sinners", as you put it, but, "that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings."  -If they're not any more a sinner than you, then I can't imagine how their lives are directly in disobedience to God's teachings, from their perspective.  The problem here would seem to be your interpretation of the Bible as condemning homosexuality and your further belief that homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals (and now you must see the absurdity of your using GLBT) to be 'leaders' in a Christian church.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?  You suffer from it.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Quoting that Kombi-driving tripper John is not going to work that well for me, I'm sorry. John says if we love the world we don't love god? Could you disentangle the commandment: Love your brother from this, please? I'm confused. 

What teachings am I following as an atheist when I do the things that feel naturally right to me that are morally correct? Surprisingly, Dragoon, this happens a lot. Instead of raping, murdering, bashing my neighbours and so on, I tend towards being a reasonably nice person. Most other people who haven't been drinking are above the baseline for niceness, too. And where does freewill fit in a world plan where humans are incapable of doing anything good, save just trusting in the mercy of "Him and the one He sent"?

Lines like "Why do the nations rage and war" slip off the keyboard's tongue so sweetly but while I agree there is war, there is plenty of peace, too. And a reasonable amount of justice - though more for the rich, I concede. It's not just greed that drives economies. It's basic needs, inventiveness and innovation, and just reward for labour. I agree things could be better but kids no longer work in mines and cotton mills and that's a step in the right direction. 

I'm nearly 43. I have no desire for power, I have given up on the idea of a woman with a man-sized sex drive - there's no point lusting after something that doesn't exist. And unfortunately for me, while I like looking at girls, I'm monogamous. Onanism is no doubt a dire sin but I did not create my testosterone or my dick and at least it helps me sleep. I don't hope for riches. Like other people my age I am realising that material is irrelevant aside from the ability it gives you to protect and support people you love. And as for being number 1 - no parent is - unless the pride is referred and occurs through elevation of an extension of their own bodies in their genetic child but care is needed here. If we sail to close to this reef we might neuter towering god-concepts like love... 

 

LOL 

Enjoying your sense of humor AE Eye-wink

You're absolutely right that you do not need to be a believer in Christ to be a 'good' person (in the human scale of things). As a Christian, I believe this is because we are created in the image of God, and since God is spirit, I would assume this means that our spirit desires 'goodness'. The miracle is that there IS so much 'good' in the world and in people. In Christ, God merely offers the eternal fulfillment of that. There will be a time and a place where this creation will be set right again, and our hearts should cry out for it... because that is what we were created for.

Free will really is the choice to choose what our action/response to both God and the world will be. If God really is the all-powerful, all-knowing entity that the Bible portrays, how could any man resist that? The answer is free will. In other words, God has limited himself so that we might be given the right to choose.

 

Re: "that Kombi-driving tripper John"

The 'world' is not other men. The 'world' is this creation and the brokeness in it. Things such as bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every kind of malice. Immorality, greed, pride, obscenity and lies are all part of 'this world'.

The impetus to love our brother is not because our brother is 'good', because what then do we do when our brother hurts us or does that which isn't good? The reason (in Christianity) to love our brother, is because God loves him. If we, who are sinful (and we each know where our failings lie) have been forgiven of those things by God, then how can we refuse to love others who are no worse than ourselves... especially if we know that God loves them too. That is why we are to love even and perhaps especially our enemies as well...

Only if we don't love our pride, greed, lust etc can we truly love God, and from our love for Him to love all our fellow creation.

Hope that helps. I've paraphrased a fair bit of scripture in there, but if you want to know where it comes from (so you know I'm not making up my 'own' message) please ask. I really don't like 'paraphrasing' because I feel like I'm plagiarizing God's words as my own... so let me say the 'good' stuff in there is from God. Any messed up/confusing bits are mine Eye-wink

 


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Dragoon

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I use GLBT merely to be respectful, so please take it in that light.
But it's not respectful.  It is wholly ridiculous.  Transgendered people are not (necessarily) homosexual and who you're really talking about are homosexuals.  Trying to be inclusive as you are by using GLBT show off your ignorance and is more exclusive.  You're missing two-spirited people and a host of other sexual and gender identities.  Since you're obviously talking about people who have sex with people of the same sex, it is ridiculous to use GLBT.

 

Quote:
Of course a 'choice' can be subconscious.
No, it really can't.  That doesn't even make sense.  Further, choice is an illusion that can be very simply demonstrated not to actually exist.

Quote:
Subconscious does not mean lacking in processing/thought, but rather that the processing is taking place at a level we are not actively aware of. In the words of Mark Hallet (National Institute of Health), "Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing." Just as the colors and images on cereal boxes are designed to influence our decisions, our choices can and often are subconscious. Perhaps the Scotsman is living in your own crannog?
This would be a very silly argument to have.  Choice is a conscious experience, necessarily.  But you're not talking about the choice between purchasing different brands of cereal, you're talking about people choosing their sexuality.  People do not choose their sexuality, not even in the illusory sense.

Quote:
If you like, we could get into the Biblical reasoning on the GLBT issue and you can decide which you feel is most valid, but I would suggest a private conversation for that.
Unnecessary.  There is no valid interpretation of a piece of literature.  It's an almost entirely a subjective experience.  That must be difficult to reconcile with a belief that the Bible is a book of 'truth'.

Quote:
Kilt comments- Nothing homoerotic about them. My kilts in my cubboard and I wear it whenever I go to a ceilidh, and I have no problem joking about how my legs look in them Eye-wink. Why is it that your first thought is that a comment has to be sexual?
I'm afraid I don't understand.  I never thought that the comment was sexual and never wrote anything to suggest that I did.  I was pointing out that what I had said wasn't a joke.  You're subtly employing the No True Scotsman fallacy, a fallacy you seem to be entirely unaware of.

Quote:
Are the things you're terming 'fallacies' merely reflective of my voicing viewpoints you don't choose to accept?
No, you're literally employing logical fallacies.  Shall I begin to make a list of them for you?

Quote:
As to Religious Tolerance, I'm quite familiar with them. Part of the problem in any discussion is evidence; what is included or excluded, and how it is phrased.
This is extraordinarily ironic coming from someone whose belief is necessarily based in faith.  I don't particularly care what you think of Religious Tolerance.  It is one website offering a viewpoint.  There are many others.  I was merely using it to show that there is a viewpoint counter to your own that appears to be every bit as valid as your own, given the laughable idea of correct biblical interpretation.

The crux of your position is that you can't see how a homosexual can consistently be a Christian and be a Christian 'leader'.  The truth is that it doesn't matter and I don't very much care what you think a Christian 'leader' ought to be.  As far as I'm concerned, and as Christians demonstrate, there is only one criteria for being a Christian and the rest of it is just fluff.  What you're doing is using your interpretation of Christianity to justify a thinly veiled bigotry.  "The problem isn't that homosexuals are sinners", as you put it, but, "that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings."  -If they're not any more a sinner than you, then I can't imagine how their lives are directly in disobedience to God's teachings, from their perspective.  The problem here would seem to be your interpretation of the Bible as condemning homosexuality and your further belief that homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals (and now you must see the absurdity of your using GLBT) to be 'leaders' in a Christian church.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?  You suffer from it.

I'm getting more impressed with atheists every day. Thank you.

While being gay is only one small facet of a personality as complex as anyone else's personality, it is simply who I AM, period. I didn't decided it. I can't ignore it. I can't change it. So essentially, god puts my soul into this body and says "here's your body, with all its needs and desires. Isn't that a great body I gave you? But don't even think that you can ever be a 'church leader' in that body. I didn't make yours perfectly enough for that." It's completely ridiculous.

Also, Dragoon, keeping this in mind, I'd like you to go back and replace every mention of "GLTB" with "black people," "women," "the physically disabled," or any other category of person you choose--for that matter, "heterosexuals"--to see how disgusting this looks to me.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:let me say the

Dragoon wrote:

let me say the 'good' stuff in there is from God. Any messed up/confusing bits are mine Eye-wink

LMAO

I...just...I have no words.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander

Jormungander wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Now I'm confused...I thought "things entering a man from the outside" is exactly what you were complaining about...

Possibly the funniest thing that I have read on this forum. Way to go, smartypants.

I aim to please.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I'm

smartypants wrote:
I'm getting more impressed with atheists every day. Thank you.

While being gay is only one small facet of a personality as complex as anyone else's personality, it is simply who I AM, period. I didn't decided it. I can't ignore it. I can't change it.

Thank you, I aim to impress.  I also happen to be gay.  Don't I just look gay?  So adorable too.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:
I'm getting more impressed with atheists every day. Thank you.

While being gay is only one small facet of a personality as complex as anyone else's personality, it is simply who I AM, period. I didn't decided it. I can't ignore it. I can't change it.

Thank you, I aim to impress.  I also happen to be gay.  Don't I just look gay?  So adorable too.

*clapclap* Less talk, more buttsex.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Dragoon

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I use GLBT merely to be respectful, so please take it in that light.
But it's not respectful.  It is wholly ridiculous.  Transgendered people are not (necessarily) homosexual and who you're really talking about are homosexuals.  Trying to be inclusive as you are by using GLBT show off your ignorance and is more exclusive.  You're missing two-spirited people and a host of other sexual and gender identities.  Since you're obviously talking about people who have sex with people of the same sex, it is ridiculous to use GLBT.

 

Quote:
Of course a 'choice' can be subconscious.
No, it really can't.  That doesn't even make sense.  Further, choice is an illusion that can be very simply demonstrated not to actually exist.

Quote:
Subconscious does not mean lacking in processing/thought, but rather that the processing is taking place at a level we are not actively aware of. In the words of Mark Hallet (National Institute of Health), "Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing." Just as the colors and images on cereal boxes are designed to influence our decisions, our choices can and often are subconscious. Perhaps the Scotsman is living in your own crannog?
This would be a very silly argument to have.  Choice is a conscious experience, necessarily.  But you're not talking about the choice between purchasing different brands of cereal, you're talking about people choosing their sexuality.  People do not choose their sexuality, not even in the illusory sense.

Quote:
If you like, we could get into the Biblical reasoning on the GLBT issue and you can decide which you feel is most valid, but I would suggest a private conversation for that.
Unnecessary.  There is no valid interpretation of a piece of literature.  It's an almost entirely a subjective experience.  That must be difficult to reconcile with a belief that the Bible is a book of 'truth'.

Quote:
Kilt comments- Nothing homoerotic about them. My kilts in my cubboard and I wear it whenever I go to a ceilidh, and I have no problem joking about how my legs look in them Eye-wink. Why is it that your first thought is that a comment has to be sexual?
I'm afraid I don't understand.  I never thought that the comment was sexual and never wrote anything to suggest that I did.  I was pointing out that what I had said wasn't a joke.  You're subtly employing the No True Scotsman fallacy, a fallacy you seem to be entirely unaware of.

Quote:
Are the things you're terming 'fallacies' merely reflective of my voicing viewpoints you don't choose to accept?
No, you're literally employing logical fallacies.  Shall I begin to make a list of them for you?

Quote:
As to Religious Tolerance, I'm quite familiar with them. Part of the problem in any discussion is evidence; what is included or excluded, and how it is phrased.
This is extraordinarily ironic coming from someone whose belief is necessarily based in faith.  I don't particularly care what you think of Religious Tolerance.  It is one website offering a viewpoint.  There are many others.  I was merely using it to show that there is a viewpoint counter to your own that appears to be every bit as valid as your own, given the laughable idea of correct biblical interpretation.

The crux of your position is that you can't see how a homosexual can consistently be a Christian and be a Christian 'leader'.  The truth is that it doesn't matter and I don't very much care what you think a Christian 'leader' ought to be.  As far as I'm concerned, and as Christians demonstrate, there is only one criteria for being a Christian and the rest of it is just fluff.  What you're doing is using your interpretation of Christianity to justify a thinly veiled bigotry.  "The problem isn't that homosexuals are sinners", as you put it, but, "that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings."  -If they're not any more a sinner than you, then I can't imagine how their lives are directly in disobedience to God's teachings, from their perspective.  The problem here would seem to be your interpretation of the Bible as condemning homosexuality and your further belief that homosexuals are less fit than heterosexuals (and now you must see the absurdity of your using GLBT) to be 'leaders' in a Christian church.  Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?  You suffer from it.

 

Hey Thomathy,

Please read post #80 and see if that helps clarify my position on 'Choice' for you.

 

As to the Scotsman comment, merely because I chose to meet your critique with humour does not mean I'm unaware of it... 

Dragoon wrote:

Of course a 'choice' can be subconscious. Subconscious does not mean lacking in processing/thought, but rather that the processing is taking place at a level we are not actively aware of. In the words of Mark Hallet (National Institute of Health), "Your consciousness is only aware of some of the things your brain is doing." Just as the colors and images on cereal boxes are designed to influence our decisions, our choices can and often are subconscious. Perhaps the Scotsman is living in your own crannog?

That last sentence might have been a clue... and hint that maybe you're guilty of being stuck in your own true Scotsman Eye-wink

 

RE:Interpretation-

There is no valid interpretation of a work of 'fiction'. If you automatically class the Bible as fiction, then call out the Black Watch because that's a whole regiment of true Scotsmen. There is however more or less valid interpretation of historical, scientific and other 'factual' documents. Even if a person does not consider the Bible to be inspired by God, it is still a collection of historical sources.

 

Your comment on 'faith' in the context of the Religious Tolerance website is interesting. Do you actually think that 'faith' means people do not think critically? Merely because someone has reached a different conclusion than you have, does not mean that their thought process is at fault. There is fuzzy thinking among human beings... not just the humans that differ in opinion from ourselves.

...and yes, if you think there is a fallacy in my writing, I would appreciate you actually specifying what you think it is so that we can discuss it. Vague generalities tend to be ummm vague.

 

Perhaps what I 'suffer' from is not 'cognitive dissonance', but rather an opinion that is different from yours. If that is so, perhaps a bit less name calling and a bit more open discussion might be the cure.

 

----

Much as it bores me to tears, I will now do a short aside on why I usually use the term GLBT here;

- Gays & Lesbian are included (and since we're talking about same-sex sexuality, they should be)

- Bisexuals are included, because some people who are sexually attracted to the same-sex are ALSO attracted to the opposite sex, and thus should be included in the discussion

- Transexuals... now we're getting esoteric. This is a question that has not come up yet (to my knowledge), and they certainly shouldn't be left out of the fun! 

 


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You're not really interested

You're not really interested in having a discussion at all are you?  It would explain how you've failed to address any pertinent point in my post.  I'm probably feeding a troll now, but I'm going to respond to your above post.

The bible is not a collection of historical sources anymore than the Bhagavad Gita is.  You're about to employ circular reasoning.  Please, don't do this as it is only annoying.

I don't know what you mean by my 'comment on faith in the context of the Religious Tolerance website'.  I was not speaking of faith in the context of that website.  I was talking about faith as you have it; the belief in something despite evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary -you know, what faith is.  The irony noted is on you talking about evidence.  Evidence is something that your belief is necessarily devoid of, being a belief based on faith.  Faith means not thinking critically.  A person who has faith in something is precluded from thinking critically about it because then theirs wouldn't be a position of faith.  Do not now equivocate on different meanings of the word faith.  When we're talking about religious belief, we're talking about belief without evidence.  That's faith.

So far you've employed the no true Scotsman fallacy, conflated terms and equivocated on terms.  Minor, but annoying fallacies.

No, you clearly seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance.

The 'T' in GLBT is for transgender, not transexual.  But it doesn't matter since you're clearly talking about homosexuals (people who have sex with people of the same sex, which necessarily includes bisexuals).  You can start being honest about what your discussing whenever you want and drop the patronizing "inclusivity" of GLBT.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Sounds good

Dragoon wrote:

Sounds good Latin. I'd echo Atheistextremist's post above too... read up on the Josephus issue. I think you'll find it's been heavily politicized, but that the core issue is hardly a smoking gun.

Why do you look at how some elements of Jewish society reject Jesus though, and not also at the reverse... why do some accept him as the Messiah? This to me is the greater mystery. Rejection is easy, accepting such a radical paradigm shift is fascinating. In essence, any Jew who accepts the claims of Jesus is altering their perception of how YHWH is 'one'. 

I'm all with you on the weeding out falsehoods side, and please call me on anything I post which you think may be less than truthful.

 

If God is 'real', then we do not need any falsehood or sales pitch in discussing him.

If God is not true, then we should stamp Christianity out. 

I look at what the context as for the rejection of the messiah by those of the jewish religion, those of the jewish faith do not consider those that follow jesus as jewish per se, as such I am looking at in that context from a jewish perspective and those that I have discussed with of the jewish faith regarding jesus and their views on it.

Accepting someone making claims that has no evidence to back it up and that the evidence shows to the contrary is neither rational nor logical nor warranted.

However with god not being real or any deity not being real, I see the day in which all religion is gone to the area of mythology and we move forwards with the facts, evidence, science and truth.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Please read my

Dragoon wrote:

Please read my post over again Anonymous. I have nothing against people being open about who they are, and I would hope that I've been entirely open about who I am in this thread.

Like I said, I read it the first time. I'm familiar with this type of moral blind spot you're displaying here, so I'm quite happy to explain this untill you get it : Being religious doesn't give you the right to discriminate. If a capable gay guy wants the job, and you don't want to give it to him because he's gay, then it really doesn't matter how you personally interpret the bible.

 

Dragoon wrote:
It is not any person being openly or proudly GLBT that is the issue... but rather a pastor/Christian leader openly and proudly saying, "I am living in direct contradiction to the teachings of God." If a person chooses to be a 'Christian', the main component is turning away from what we do that is wrong (in God's eyes) and turning towards God. In essence, we are saying, "God, I accept that your view is greater than mine. You are now my Lord and Master."

You have no way of knowing if he's living in contradiction to the teachings of god. You just choose to interpret the bible that way. Heck, you can't even know if the people who wrote that thing even recognised homosexuality. They might have been talking about people who will fuck anything if they're drunk enough.

Your decision to condemn openly gay priests remains your decision. You can't blame god or the bible. It's you. So I ask again : Why ?

Dragoon wrote:
We all have failings, but if a person is going to step into leadership and become a teacher and role model for others in their faith, then that person should be exactly that... a role model that reflects the teachings of Christ. Absolutely many fail, and when they do, our response should be the same; love and a call to return to being holy as God is holy.

You want him to reflect your personal interpretation of the teachings of christ. Different thing entirely.

Dragoon wrote:
Hope that helps clarify the issue.

Well, if you really think your arguments make sense, then it would seem you have convinced yourself that your current interpretation of the bible is the correct one. How can you possible know that ? You can't, so any decision you make based on that interpretation is simply your own opinion, completely devoid of any supernatural morality.

Dragoon wrote:
I looked over the article you linked, and it was quite interesting. I'd love to discuss certain topics with the author, because as a follower of Christ I do take what the Bible says seriously. Please note however that the article you link to is not about GLBT as leaders in the church, which is a very different though connected topic, and it is this latter that I have been solely discussing.

You're a follower of your own current interpretation of christ, as are all christians. This is what makes biblical arguments and bible quoting so completely and utterly useless. No matter what side of the argument you christians are on, you all claim that god has your back. Even when you switch sides, you just claim you suddenly had a "deeper understanding", or what the heck, even a personal visit from god to clear things up.

I'm not saying that you and the author of that article couldn't have a sensible discussion, but after all the theological bickering is over, I think you'll be left with the same question I put to you : Why ? Why do you choose to interpret the bible that way ? What are your reasons for doing that ?


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:people who

Anonymouse wrote:
people who will fuck anything if they're drunk enough

 

Oi! Don't slag us hedonists! We may not be politically correct - but at least we drink. And fuck. (Not always in that order though.) (Not to say that if even any valid concept of "order" existed, we would enthusiastically follow it; we probably wouldn't.) (But at least we drink. And fuck.)

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Dragoon

smartypants wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Uhm....you have read the bible, right ? You're not allowed to eat lobster either, btw. Sorry.

Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.

What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

Not my words, but rather the words of my teacher; Jesus the Christ.

 

Now I'm confused...I thought "things entering a man from the outside" is exactly what you were complaining about...

Lol. Oh, he's got you there.

That's not just funny, it also works as a valid biblical interpretation, which is worth just as much as yours are.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I beg to differ

Marquis wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
people who will fuck anything if they're drunk enough

Oi! Don't slag us hedonists! We may not be politically correct - but at least we drink. And fuck. (Not always in that order though.) (Not to say that if even any valid concept of "order" existed, we would enthusiastically follow it; we probably wouldn't.) (But at least we drink. And fuck.)

 

Depressingly, about 4 beers is all that's need to ensure that drinking is all I will be doing. It's such a depressing business, given I generally only have the confidence to approach a lady when I'm too squiffy to do anything about it.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck