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.


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

latincanuck wrote:

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.

If you ask 3 Jews what Judaism is though, you'll get 5 answers. Why leave out Messianic Jews, who hold fully that they 'are' Jews? 

latincanuck wrote:

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.

There is no scientific evidence for God, which does not mean there is no evidence. The Biblical accounts are exactly that. The Gospel authors claim to be eye witness' to both the miracles, words and resurrection of Jesus. These events so radically changed their Jewish worldview that they spent the rest of their lives witnessing these events to other Jews and to people of all nations.

They each went to violent deaths still advocating that Jesus was the Messiah and God... which would be considered blasphemy by Judaism.

 

As I said earlier, if God is not real, then I would support you entirely in the removal of a lie. I cannot though, because the evidence and experiences I've had over the years point me to the conclusion that there clearly is a God, and he is the God who speaks to us in the Bible.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:You're not

Thomathy wrote:

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.

 

Actually I AM having a discussion with you, so its rather strange that you would insist on saying I'm not responding. It is difficult to respond when you load up both veiled and direct attacks into your 'discussion' though.

Your definition of faith is a true Scotsman. Faith is not a decision based upon absence of evidence... 'what' evidence is accepted and why is a more telling difference. 

Your comment on the Bhagavad Gita is strange as well. Certainly the BG is a historical document, and through it we gain varied insights into the life and culture of the people on the Ganges plain. Because it discusses spiritual themes does not make it any less a historical document. You would be correct that it isn't a 'collection' of writings if we follow traditional views and assign sole authorship to Vyasa. 

The New Testament though is not one author, but several, so yes it is a 'collection' of historical documents.

I'm happy to discuss questions with you, but if you're unable to discuss things politely, please don't be surprised if I cease responding to you.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

I think you're under a couple of rather large misconceptions here;

1) I'm not against gays in Pastoral leadership because I dislike gays or don't 'want' them as Pastors. I don't want GLBT Pastors because that's what I see the Bible clearly stating, and despite my personal opinions, as a follower of Christ I accept that his ways rule over my own desires.

2) The issue does not deny GLBT individuals something that everyone else has. The issue is about applying the same Biblical standard to all Pastors. I'm not talking about 'liberal' churches here, since the issue is really only within churches that place the Bible as the highest source of spiritual and moral authority- so what are considered 'conservative' churches.

Within every conservative church or synod that I'm familiar with, the criteria for Pastoral leadership is not 'human' capability... it is spiritual maturity and a clear guiding by God in that direction. This also comes into the (conservative) training of Pastors, where there are numerous discussions, essays and interviews to ensure that this is the case.

Moody Bible Institute for example has a long list of undergrad spiritual and moral criteria, followed by this final disclaimer, "All character references will be thoroughly evaluated to establish the spiritual qualifications of prospective students."

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary requires a 'Spiritual Autobiography' which documents "your conversion, spiritual pilgrimage and growth, call to ministry, and life and ministry experiences." A large part of this would entail evidence of obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ (and God since they are held to be the same).

 

GLBT are not being excluded from a general right, they are being asked to comply to the same standard that applies to any person seeking to lead a body of believers. (Note again that I'm referring to traditional/conservative Christian beliefs here.)

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Dragoon wrote:

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.

 

I'm sick of people like you, you xenophobic fuck. Get over yourself. 

 

Are you so desparate in your homophobia that you are trying to find "causes" of it? What about the "causes" of heterosexuality instead?

 

The fact that you treat it like some kind of problem is the real issue here. What other people do with their lives has nothing to do with you. If they want to be a preacher, they can be a preacher. You have no say in the matter.

 

Your opinion only matters to you. You have no real bearing on the world with your dogmatic terror outside your tiny little bigoted mind. Your intolerance and lack of insight astounds me. This is your own problem, so own it. It doesn't belong to anyone else. 

 

Hiding behind a 1600 year old vague-as-fuck book that is a compilation of inane scribblings from desert tribespeople is the most laughable excuse I've heard for the fear you are showing for something you obviously don't have the first clue about.

 

I suppose most children need some kind of boogyman though.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Can you quote where exactly

Can you quote where exactly I attacked you, and not your arguments, either veiled or directly?

I have accused you of not being interested in having a conversation because I don't feel you've addressed pertinent points in my posts.  What I've done in my last few posts is to correct you and your reading of my posts.  It is tiring and it is not moving forward with the discussion.  For instance, you have consistently failed to address the fact that you are talking about homosexuals and not the GLBT community at large.  This would constitute a significant hurdle in this conversation.  It seems to me a rather important point that you clarify about whom you're talking exactly.  It appears very much that you are talking about homosexuals and not transgendered people or the other people in that larger community who are excluded from that tidy little label.

You may feel free to consult any dictionary.  Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence.  I have not made a no true Scotsman fallacy.  This is exactly the definition from which I've worked since the onset of this conversation.  I am not trying to prove an assertion by changing the definition.  It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy.  I cannot imagine that you are so ignorant as to be unaware of the definition of faith in relation to god belief.

I wrote that the Bible is not a collection of historical works anymore than the Bhagavad Gita is.  I never said that these were not historical documents.  Of course they are, like the works of Shakespeare are historical documents.  I hope you're not conflating that to mean that they're a history.  These are not books that contain a reliable written record of actual events.  In other words, they're fictional, like the works of Margaret Atwood or Chaucer.  I will not engage in an argument of semantics with you.  If you're about to consider arguing from the position that neither the Bible nor the Bhagavad Gita are fictional, you've lost whatever small credibility you had.

I hope you don't think I've been impolite thus far, because you'll be quite surprised if I do begin to be impolite.

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
Dragoon wrote:There is no

Dragoon wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for God, which does not mean there is no evidence. The Biblical accounts are exactly that. The Gospel authors claim to be eye witness' to both the miracles, words and resurrection of Jesus. These events so radically changed their Jewish worldview that they spent the rest of their lives witnessing these events to other Jews and to people of all nations.

They each went to violent deaths still advocating that Jesus was the Messiah and God... which would be considered blasphemy by Judaism.

 

As I said earlier, if God is not real, then I would support you entirely in the removal of a lie. I cannot though, because the evidence and experiences I've had over the years point me to the conclusion that there clearly is a God, and he is the God who speaks to us in the Bible.

 

What you're talking about is not evidence.  It means absolutely nothing to anyone else.  It cannot be verified.  It cannot be tested.  There is no point in having 'evidence' that is not testable.  You are very deluded.

Dragoon, who now gets to see me be impolite, the bigoted, ignorant fuck wrote:

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.

I can't believe I missed this gem.  You have not described the experience of a single homosexual or trangendered person (and now you really had best stop using GLBT to describe what you're describing).  What you've described are people with psychological disorders, people who perform sex acts for money, normal sexual exploration and people who don't actually exist (in the case of 5).

Homosexuals are not only people who have sex addictions, people who were sexually abused by their parents, people in the sex trade, people exploring their sexuality or people who don't fit societal expectations of narrowly defined genders.  Those people you've described could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.  Homosexuals are only people who are consistently attracted to the same sex for sex, love, intimacy and companionship, you know like heterosexuals without the hetero part.  You're just completely wrong.  You are an ignorant bigot.

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:There is no

Dragoon wrote:

There is no scientific evidence for God, which does not mean there is no evidence. The Biblical accounts are exactly that. The Gospel authors claim to be eye witness' to both the miracles, words and resurrection of Jesus. These events so radically changed their Jewish worldview that they spent the rest of their lives witnessing these events to other Jews and to people of all nations.

They each went to violent deaths still advocating that Jesus was the Messiah and God... which would be considered blasphemy by Judaism.

 

As I said earlier, if God is not real, then I would support you entirely in the removal of a lie. I cannot though, because the evidence and experiences I've had over the years point me to the conclusion that there clearly is a God, and he is the God who speaks to us in the Bible.

 

Again no evidence of miracles either, no evidence that those events they describe about jesus ever happened, no more evidence then all the other holy texts in the world from other religions, so far you haven't shown a bit of evidence that god is real.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:Again no

latincanuck wrote:

Again no evidence of miracles either, no evidence that those events they describe about jesus ever happened, no more evidence then all the other holy texts in the world from other religions, so far you haven't shown a bit of evidence that god is real.

Nope. None at all. But then, that wasn't what this post was about.

As I said in the opening post, I'm just attempting to clarify some misconceptions about Christian beliefs.

 


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

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
There is no scientific evidence for God, which does not mean there is no evidence. The Biblical accounts are exactly that. The Gospel authors claim to be eye witness' to both the miracles, words and resurrection of Jesus. These events so radically changed their Jewish worldview that they spent the rest of their lives witnessing these events to other Jews and to people of all nations.

They each went to violent deaths still advocating that Jesus was the Messiah and God... which would be considered blasphemy by Judaism.

 

As I said earlier, if God is not real, then I would support you entirely in the removal of a lie. I cannot though, because the evidence and experiences I've had over the years point me to the conclusion that there clearly is a God, and he is the God who speaks to us in the Bible.

 

What you're talking about is not evidence.  It means absolutely nothing to anyone else.  It cannot be verified.  It cannot be tested.  There is no point in having 'evidence' that is not testable.  You are very deluded.

Dragoon, who now gets to see me be impolite, the bigoted, ignorant fuck wrote:

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.

I can't believe I missed this gem.  You have not described the experience of a single homosexual or trangendered person (and now you really had best stop using GLBT to describe what you're describing).  What you've described are people with psychological disorders, people who perform sex acts for money, normal sexual exploration and people who don't actually exist (in the case of 5).

Homosexuals are not only people who have sex addictions, people who were sexually abused by their parents, people in the sex trade, people exploring their sexuality or people who don't fit societal expectations of narrowly defined genders.  Those people you've described could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or asexual.  Homosexuals are only people who are consistently attracted to the same sex for sex, love, intimacy and companionship, you know like heterosexuals without the hetero part.  You're just completely wrong.  You are an ignorant bigot.

Actually, I've described some friends of mine, who are either gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I'm afraid I don't truly 'know' very many trannies, but that's life. If I was writing only for you, I'd be happy to shift to the term you're comfortable with, but I'm afraid this is not just for you.

If you want to take up their life story with any of my friends feel free, that's your business.

You forgot 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." Are you trying to 'win' a debate, or discuss an issue?

 


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

Thomathy wrote:

Can you quote where exactly I attacked you, and not your arguments, either veiled or directly?

I'm not sure where you're from, but generally the phrases, "you are an ignorant bigot", "I won't be surprised if you retort with an obvious fallacy.  I await your true Scotsman.", "Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?  You suffer from it.", etc are pretty obvious attacks. They are passing judgement on a position vs discussion of the issue. 

Thomathy wrote:

You may feel free to consult any dictionary.  Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence.  I have not made a no true Scotsman fallacy.  This is exactly the definition from which I've worked since the onset of this conversation.  I am not trying to prove an assertion by changing the definition.  It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy.  I cannot imagine that you are so ignorant as to be unaware of the definition of faith in relation to god belief.

"I can't believe you're so ignorant" is another nice 'attack' as well... unfounded, but that's beside the point. Do you normally talk to people that way?

Here are some dictionary references for you. You may also want to note that there are multiple definitions. The ones to which you are referring to are not those used when speaking specifically of religious faith, so much as for situations like, "As he hung from the branch above the chasm, he had faith that someone would come soon." A persons religious faith may be based purely on irrational faith, but that is not necessarily so... note the different usages.

(religious) Faith

1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief. (Oxford)

- (1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (Mirriam-Webster)

great trust or confidence in something or someone/a particular religion/strong belief in God or a particular religion (belief -the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true) (Cambridge)

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (FreeDictionary) 

Can you see why I'm referring to your usage as a true Scotsman?

 

Thomathy wrote:

I wrote that the Bible is not a collection of historical works anymore than the Bhagavad Gita is.  I never said that these were not historical documents.  Of course they are, like the works of Shakespeare are historical documents.  I hope you're not conflating that to mean that they're a history.  These are not books that contain a reliable written record of actual events.  In other words, they're fictional, like the works of Margaret Atwood or Chaucer.  I will not engage in an argument of semantics with you.  If you're about to consider arguing from the position that neither the Bible nor the Bhagavad Gita are fictional, you've lost whatever small credibility you had.

I hope you don't think I've been impolite thus far, because you'll be quite surprised if I do begin to be impolite.

In saying they are 'fictional', you're presupposing a conclusion to the question of whether there is a God(s). In starting any investigation, an unbiased starting point is rather essential. Your starting premise  precludes the conclusion... in other words, a true Scotsman. 

 

I most certainly do think you've been impolite. The issue seems to be hitting you rather close to home, so that's partially understandable. I'm just curious whether behind the verbal jabbing you really are interested in dialogue.


Unrepentant_Elitist
Science FreakGold Member
Unrepentant_Elitist's picture
Posts: 105
Joined: 2009-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Dragoon

ClockCat wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

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.

 

I'm sick of people like you, you xenophobic fuck. Get over yourself. 

 

Are you so desparate in your homophobia that you are trying to find "causes" of it? What about the "causes" of heterosexuality instead?

 

The fact that you treat it like some kind of problem is the real issue here. What other people do with their lives has nothing to do with you. If they want to be a preacher, they can be a preacher. You have no say in the matter.

 

Your opinion only matters to you. You have no real bearing on the world with your dogmatic terror outside your tiny little bigoted mind. Your intolerance and lack of insight astounds me. This is your own problem, so own it. It doesn't belong to anyone else. 

 

Hiding behind a 1600 year old vague-as-fuck book that is a compilation of inane scribblings from desert tribespeople is the most laughable excuse I've heard for the fear you are showing for something you obviously don't have the first clue about.

 

I suppose most children need some kind of boogyman though.

Ahh, ClockCat, I finally caught you!
 

You characterized this individual as a "xenophobic fuck."

While I will agree that your words (from the Greek) denote a "rabid mistrust of those foreign to oneself," your inexact diction has raised cause for alarm; the word you were looking for (more specifically) is:

IDIOT: (noun) A person afflicted with extreme mental retardation; a foolish or stupid person.

(Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster because I refuse to pay for a subscription to the OED)

I await your plaudits while sequestered in the triple pleasures of Bach, bourbon, and Botticelli...

-UE 


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

Unrepentant_Elitist wrote:

Ahh, ClockCat, I finally caught you!
 

You characterized this individual as a "xenophobic fuck."

While I will agree that your words (from the Greek) denote a "rabid mistrust of those foreign to oneself," your inexact diction has raised cause for alarm; the word you were looking for (more specifically) is:

IDIOT: (noun) A person afflicted with extreme mental retardation; a foolish or stupid person.

(Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster because I refuse to pay for a subscription to the OED)

I await your plaudits while sequestered in the triple pleasures of Bach, bourbon, and Botticelli...

-UE 

I don't usually worry about criticisms from people who tie their ties too long... Eye-wink


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I think you're

Dragoon wrote:

I think you're under a couple of rather large misconceptions here;

1) I'm not against gays in Pastoral leadership because I dislike gays or don't 'want' them as Pastors. I don't want GLBT Pastors because that's what I see the Bible clearly stating, and despite my personal opinions, as a follower of Christ I accept that his ways rule over my own desires.

Nowhere does the bible clearly state "no gay pastors". As I pointed out in my last post, you have no way of knowing if the bible even acknowledges homosexuality. The verses you would use to justify your opinion don't even offer an adequate definition of homosexuality, no matter which way you look at it.

You even admit it yourself : "...because that's what I see the bible clearly stating". Once again, this is your personal, current interpretation, nothing more, nothing less.

I have asked you this many times already, and you keep not answering : Why have you decided to interpret the bible that way ?

Oh, and btw, you still have to deal with the problem of hypocrisy. The Jesus quote you used in #60 doesn't help you at all. "..from within, out of man's hearts, come evil thoughts.." Indeed. Like the desire to eat shrimp, even though the bible literally forbids it. So please do explain, why are the evil shrimp-eating pastors okay in your book ? Because in the bible, they aren't.

Dragoon wrote:
2) The issue does not deny GLBT individuals something that everyone else has.

It most certainly does.

Dragoon wrote:
The issue is about applying the same Biblical standard to all Pastors. I'm not talking about 'liberal' churches here, since the issue is really only within churches that place the Bible as the highest source of spiritual and moral authority- so what are considered 'conservative' churches.

Call them what you like, the issue is all about a certain interpretation of certain verses in the bible. What I would finally like to find out is why anyone would interpret the bible in that way. How many times will I have to ask you this question before you finally answer it ?

Dragoon wrote:
Within every conservative church or synod that I'm familiar with, the criteria for Pastoral leadership is not 'human' capability... it is spiritual maturity and a clear guiding by God in that direction.

Any church would define their criteria that way. Anyone can !  But that in no way clarifies their reasons for doing so.

Dragoon wrote:
This also comes into the (conservative) training of Pastors, where there are numerous discussions, essays and interviews to ensure that this is the case.

Having your interpretation of the bible checked by people who share that same interpretation ? You really aren't thinking about this at all, are you ? One again, I want to know why you, or anyone else for that matter, would decide to go with that particular interpretation.

Dragoon wrote:
Moody Bible Institute for example has a long list of undergrad spiritual and moral criteria, followed by this final disclaimer, "All character references will be thoroughly evaluated to establish the spiritual qualifications of prospective students."

Seriously, please think about this : Spiritual and moral criteria set by people who already share your opinions ! You cannot possibly be this daft.

Dragoon wrote:
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary requires a 'Spiritual Autobiography' which documents "your conversion, spiritual pilgrimage and growth, call to ministry, and life and ministry experiences." A large part of this would entail evidence of obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ (and God since they are held to be the same).

And since jesus isn't around anymore, what we're actually talking about here is evidence of obedience to a certain interpretation of the teachings of christ. Once again : there's a difference !

Dragoon wrote:
GLBT are not being excluded from a general right,

Yes, they are. They are excluded from the general right of becoming pastors, priests, whatever..

Dragoon wrote:
they are being asked to comply to the same standard that applies to any person seeking to lead a body of believers. (Note again that I'm referring to traditional/conservative Christian beliefs here.)

And I'm asking you again, why have these traditional/conservative christians decided to interpret the bible in that way ?  Please, in your next reply, will you finally answer the question ?


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi Anonymouse,I'm kinda

Hi Anonymouse,

I'm kinda tired so I'm just going to answer some small parts of your last post for now. I'll tackle the rest later, but you're asking some nice meaty questions, and to answer them fully I'm going to have to write a bit of an essay. Work is going to interfere a bit though, so please be patient, and if I seem to forget please feel free to remind me.

 

Why exactly do you think that Christians are the Borg? There is a lot of non-Christian critique that says Christians all disagree and form all these different groups. Why do you state that we all 'share the same interpretation'? To be honest, I'd agree with your statement in this regard, but I think that shows how little difference in interpretation there is on this issue. 

 

Are you at all familiar with the criteria or selection of pastors? Your comments on pastoral leadership being a general right seem at complete odds with the process and criteria as I know it (across a few different Christian groups).

 

I have nothing to do with either Moody or the Southern Baptists by the way... I simply chose two fairly well known organizations.

 

Also not sure how you see the quote from post #60 as contrary. Please explain.

 

 

 

 


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

Dragoon wrote:
Hi Anonymouse,

Hullo again,

Dragoon wrote:
I'm kinda tired so I'm just going to answer some small parts of your last post for now. I'll tackle the rest later, but you're asking some nice meaty questions, and to answer them fully I'm going to have to write a bit of an essay.

An essay ??? Oh for pete's sake, why do you need an essay to answer one simple question ? The question is about your motivations. Surely you can clearly and succinctly explain what motivates you to decide something ? Please, I beg you, don't bury me under even more theological  theories. I want to know your reason for picking that one particular interpretation of the bible. Not someone else's. Even if you agree with someone else's opinion, there has to be a reason for that. I want to know what that reason is.

Dragoon wrote:
Work is going to interfere a bit though, so please be patient, and if I seem to forget please feel free to remind me.

It really really really doesn't have to be an essay. It's a simple question. It has a simple answer.

Dragoon wrote:
Why exactly do you think that Christians are the Borg? There is a lot of non-Christian critique that says Christians all disagree and form all these different groups. Why do you state that we all 'share the same interpretation'?

You share the same interpretation as the group of christians that you've decided to agree with. Why is that so hard to understand ?

Dragoon wrote:
To be honest, I'd agree with your statement in this regard, but I think that shows how little difference in interpretation there is on this issue.

Okay, now I'm no longer sure if you're even reading my posts. This is about the difference in interpretation between you and any gay pastor and his supporters. It really couldn't be simpler : There are two interpretations here. All I want to know is why you decided on the one you have.

Dragoon wrote:
Are you at all familiar with the criteria or selection of pastors? Your comments on pastoral leadership being a general right seem at complete odds with the process and criteria as I know it (across a few different Christian groups).

You stated the criteria, and I explained to you why they don't work. Once again, anyone can make the claim that their criteria are all about being true to the bible. Anyone !

Dragoon wrote:
I have nothing to do with either Moody or the Southern Baptists by the way... I simply chose two fairly well known organizations.

It really doesn't matter which one you pick. The point is there are different interpretations.

Dragoon wrote:
Also not sure how you see the quote from post #60 as contrary. Please explain.

I already did. Please explain how it's possible for anyone to eat a shrimp without first having the desire or the intention to do so.

 


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

Dragoon wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
Can you quote where exactly I attacked you, and not your arguments, either veiled or directly?
I'm not sure where you're from, but generally the phrases, "y

ou are an ignorant bigot", "I won't be surprised if you retort with an obvious fallacy.  I await your true Scotsman.", "Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?  You suffer from it.", etc are pretty obvious attacks. They are passing judgement on a position vs discussion of the issue.

I'm from Ontario.  You appear to be an ignorant bigot.  The very things you write make you appear to be so.  That's not an attack, it's a statement of appearance.  If you didn't write things that make you seem like an ignorant bigot, I wouldn't have cause to believe that you are.  I wouldn't be surprised if you retorted at all with a logical fallacy.  Right here you've constructed a bloody straw man, that's a statement of fact.  You have retorted with fallacies and you just did.  I've not attacked you.  Further, you do appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance.  If you knew what that was you might be able to show that you don't instead of essentially ignoring the accusation and rather considering it an attack.  It's a statement derived from your apparent ability to reconcile being friendly with gays with what would otherwise be a mutually exclusive bigotry that you are protecting by using an interpretation of the Bible.  Can you please actually address my arguments?

Dragoon wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
You may feel free to consult any dictionary.  Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence.  I have not made a no true Scotsman fallacy.  This is exactly the definition from which I've worked since the onset of this conversation.  I am not trying to prove an assertion by changing the definition.  It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy.  I cannot imagine that you are so ignorant as to be unaware of the definition of faith in relation to god belief.
"I can't believe you're so ignorant" is another nice 'attack' as well... unfounded, but that's beside the point. Do you normally talk to people that way?
I did not say, 'I can't beieve you're so igonrant'.  What I wrote was, 'I cannot imagine that you are so ignorant as to be unaware of the definition of faith in relation to god belief.'  In other words, I don't think you're so ignorant (lacking in knowledge) as to be unaware of the definition of faith in relation to god belief.  I don't.  And you're not.  You have no evidence of the existence of your god and therefor you take this belief on faith.  Faith is belief without evidence.  This is not difficult.  I have not committed a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Dragoon wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
I wrote that the Bible is not a collection of historical works anymore than the Bhagavad Gita is.  I never said that these were not historical documents.  Of course they are, like the works of Shakespeare are historical documents.  I hope you're not conflating that to mean that they're a history.  These are not books that contain a reliable written record of actual events.  In other words, they're fictional, like the works of Margaret Atwood or Chaucer.  I will not engage in an argument of semantics with you.  If you're about to consider arguing from the position that neither the Bible nor the Bhagavad Gita arefictional, you've lost whatever small credibility you had.

 

I hope you don't think I've been impolite thus far, because you'll be quite surprised if I do begin to be impolite.

In saying they are 'fictional', you're presupposing a conclusion to the question of whether there is a God(s). In starting any investigation, an unbiased starting point is rather essential. Your starting premise  precludes the conclusion... in other words, a true Scotsman.
That is an evasion; a red herring.  Either the Bhagavad Gita and the Bible are works of fiction or they are works of nonfiction.  This has nothing to do with the existence of God unless you believe that your Bible is the divine word of your god, in whom you believe based on faith.  It's very nice that you have tried to evade this with your red herring, but I've not presupposed the nonexistence of your god by classifying what is ostensibly a work of fiction as a work of fiction.  Do you believe that both the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita are nonfiction?  Do you believe that the Bible is the divine word of your god?  Do you believe that the stories in both books of the Bible represent an accurate retelling of past events?  These are all yes or no questions.  You should find them all very easy to answer.  Based, however, on how you've admitted that a Christian does not need to believe in a literal six day creation leads me to believe that you do not think that the Bible is an accurate retelling of past events.  If it is not, then it is a work of fiction.  If you think this invalidates the existence of your god, then your faith is on quite weak ground.  Then, I shouldn't be surprised when you apparently believe that the Bible constitutes evidence of your god's existence.

Dragoon wrote:
I most certainly do think you've been impolite. The issue seems to be hitting you rather close to home, so that's partially understandable. I'm just curious whether behind the verbal jabbing you really are interested in dialogue.
If I'm still responding to you, there's still dialogue.  I think you're an ignorant bigot who suffers from cognitive dissonance and employs logical fallacies at a whim but as long as you keep posting, I'm going to keep responding to 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
Hey Anonymouse,I think we

Hey Anonymouse,

I think we have a very simple yet difficult problem here... our basic frameworks for the question are different. Two different paradigms if you will. What to you looks like a simple answer (because of how you view the question), I view as intensely complex (for same reason).

Anonymouse wrote:
An essay ??? Oh for pete's sake, why do you need an essay to answer one simple question ? The question is about your motivations. Surely you can clearly and succinctly explain what motivates you to decide something ? Please, I beg you, don't bury me under even more theological  theories. I want to know your reason for picking that one particular interpretation of the bible. Not someone else's. Even if you agree with someone else's opinion, there has to be a reason for that. I want to know what that reason is.

You're assuming that I've chosen to follow one pastor, teacher or theory. I haven't.

My motivation is that from my reading of the Bible, using all the tools, intellect and resources at my disposal, I have come to the conclusion that this is the only valid interpretation.

Essentially, my 'motivation' was that I believe it to be true. I was preparing a detailed summation of which sections of the Bible and other evidence influenced my decision, and the background rationale behind them... not someone else's theory.

Anonymouse wrote:

You share the same interpretation as the group of christians that you've decided to agree with. Why is that so hard to understand ?

No, that would be incredibly bad methodology... to start with my conclusion and then work backwards. I came to my own conclusion after weighing the evidence. Many others have come to the same or similar conclusion, but their specific reasons often differ from mine.

I do not not follow a group of Christians in their thinking... I follow what I see God stating clearly (and of course I may be subject to error, so forums like this are great to test my thinking and see it in light of other evidence). Funny thing is, that most Christians who believe that the Bible is God's word come to the same conclusion. Of course some merely follow... but does that also reflect the fact that the text is fairly clear?

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay, now I'm no longer sure if you're even reading my posts. This is about the difference in interpretation between you and any gay pastor and his supporters. It really couldn't be simpler : There are two interpretations here. All I want to know is why you decided on the one you have.

Because that's what I see the bible saying clearly. If you saw the various texts (and we're not simply talking about references to homosexuality), you would probably see it too. The fundamental difference between 'liberal' Christians and 'traditional' Christians is how they treat the Bible and the evidence within it.

Let me give you an example:

One of the main lines of critique in this topic is questioning whether the text is true to the original meaning. Dale Martin's "Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences” which attempts to discredit the traditional translation of the key word ‘arsenokoites’ is an often quoted point of critique. Yet Martin says "any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable."

In other words, he begins with his conclusion and forces his interpretation to conform to that presupposition. If we are seeking ‘truthful’ answers, we cannot force our interpretation to meet our own desires.

So, again... I decided upon my current interpretation because that's where I see the evidence, context and meaning clearly pointing.

Re:Shimp... If you stated it earlier, then I missed it. Please repost it or point to the thread where you asked it.

 

I still intend to write that essay though. Through your question, you showed me that there were certain areas in my thinking which would benefit from more detailed anaysis. I'll make a nice blog entry one day Eye-wink


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

Thomathy wrote:

I'm from Ontario.  You appear to be an ignorant bigot.  The very things you write make you appear to be so.  That's not an attack, it's a statement of appearance. 

Oh.... so you mean that if someone ‘appears’ to be a _________, then it’s ok to call them one? I think that same excuse has been used to justify calling people ‘uppity niggers’, 'sluts asking to be raped', ‘faggots’, ‘bitches’... should I go on? Merely because you feel ‘hurt’ by an issue or line of discussion does not give you the right to start labeling people whatever offensive term you choose.

Thomathy wrote:

Can you please actually address my arguments?

I did. In reply to your comments on ‘faith’ I posted evidence to support my contention. I notice you’ve chosen to exclude that from your post, so in case you missed it, I’ll repost it for you;

Dragoon wrote:

Here are some dictionary references for you. You may also want to note that there are multiple definitions. The ones to which you are referring to are not those used when speaking specifically of religious faith, so much as for situations like, "As he hung from the branch above the chasm, he had faith that someone would come soon." A persons religious faith may be based purely on irrational faith, but that is not necessarily so... note the different usages.

(religious) Faith

1 complete trust or confidence. 2 strong belief in a religion. 3 a system of religious belief. (Oxford)

- (1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (Mirriam-Webster)

great trust or confidence in something or someone/a particular religion/strong belief in God or a particular religion (belief -the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true) (Cambridge)

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (FreeDictionary) 

Can you see why I'm referring to your usage as a true Scotsman?

Those were from dictionaries. Yet you then reply;

Thomathy wrote:

I have not committed a no true Scotsman fallacy.

Really? If you say it over and over again does it make it true? Please provide evidence or logical argument to support your contention.

 

As to your comments on literature, I really don't know how to respond until you get a handle on what Fiction and non-Fiction are. Look up any decent book on literary genres and you'll see why your post is seriously flawed. Simply put, religious texts are considered nonfiction. Are you sure you're clear what 'fiction' is?

 

Oh, and if I followed your idea of 'polite', I could have written the previous paragraph like this;

(Note, this is an exercise to hopefully demonstrate to you how your words have been attacks, though thinly veiled... although I think you already know this but are just having trouble dealing with it) - You can't be serious? Are you so idiotic that you don't even have a 3rd grade perspective on literary genres? I have no idea how I can even communicate with a literary sub-moron about actual issues. Would you please find a Kindergarten teacher to walk you through what Fiction and Non-Fiction are??? I can't believe anyone posing as an adult sits talking about 'red herrings' when they can't even fact check their own drivel! Read my lips... religious texts are considered Non-Fiction by the world outside of your padded room! Does that hurt your fellings? Too bad... put your big girl panties on and deal with it!  

I COULD write to you like that... it's quite easy. The hard thing is to discuss issues in a respectful manner, even when they hit close to home.

 

Thomathy wrote:

If I'm still responding to you, there's still dialogue.  I think you're an ignorant bigot who suffers from cognitive dissonance and employs logical fallacies at a whim but as long as you keep posting, I'm going to keep responding to it.

Scroll up. Look in the mirror. Deal with what you see. When you’re actually ready to discuss things I’d be happy to, but this silly sparring is just wasting space.

 

Oh... and I grew up in Ontario too homey. Hung out at Bar One, the upstairs of Brass Rail on most Gay nights, and several other places that are now closed. Might be before your time, and you may not even know Toronto, since you said ‘Ontario’, but those are/were gay clubs/events. My fave was actually a little place on Queen St that used to have a latin music and a Drag queen show at midnight on Saturdays. I don’t have a ‘few gay friends’, I grew up and had great friends there. I’ve been ‘token breeder’ at more gay parties than I can remember.  I’ve been gone for awhile, but part of the reason I’m here writing this is for my friends who are/were there... both living and dead.

So please save me the ‘I know gay and you don’t’. I’m not ‘anti-gay’... I just don’t believe the Bible supports GLBT clergy. The truth might not be ‘nice’, but it doesn’t make it any less real.


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

Dragoon wrote:

Oh... and I grew up in Ontario too homey. Hung out at Bar One, the upstairs of Brass Rail on most Gay nights, and several other places that are now closed. Might be before your time, and you may not even know Toronto, since you said ‘Ontario’, but those are/were gay clubs/events. My fave was actually a little place on Queen St that used to have a latin music and a Drag queen show at midnight on Saturdays. I’ve been ‘token breeder’ at more gay parties than I can remember. 

 

If you want his number, just ask for it - this half-arsed pussy footing around isn't going to get you anywhere...

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Oh... and I grew up in Ontario too homey. Hung out at Bar One, the upstairs of Brass Rail on most Gay nights, and several other places that are now closed. Might be before your time, and you may not even know Toronto, since you said ‘Ontario’, but those are/were gay clubs/events. My fave was actually a little place on Queen St that used to have a latin music and a Drag queen show at midnight on Saturdays. I’ve been ‘token breeder’ at more gay parties than I can remember. 

 

If you want his number, just ask for it - this half-arsed pussy footing around isn't going to get you anywhere...

 

LOL Thanks. I'll remember your advice Eye-wink

 

...four beer right?


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

Dragoon wrote:

 ...four beer right?

 

Yeah - sometimes a couple more if I'm comfortable...

 

 

 

"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
Beer

Atheistextremist wrote:

Yeah - sometimes a couple more if I'm comfortable...

 

Ahhh a couple nice pints would be good right now. A nice Beamish or Hobgoblin... or a nice 'Christian' Guinness Smiling


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Can someone please fix

Can someone please fix Dragoon's posts?  They are entirely unreadable.

Edit: Never mind, I'll figure out the mess.

 

Dragoon wrote:
Oh.... so you mean that if someone ‘appears’ to be a _________, then it’s ok to call them one? I think that same excuse has been used to justify calling people ‘uppity niggers’, 'sluts asking to be raped', ‘faggots’, ‘bitches’... should I go on? Merely because you feel ‘hurt’ by an issue or line of discussion does not give you the right to start labeling people whatever offensive term you choose.
No, that's not what I mean. You've created a complete straw man. This is what I mean; you continually engage in these fallacies. I can only imagine that you've intentionally taken this spin on what I wrote, because I don't think you're stupid enough to have done it by mistake. Let's recap what I wrote:
Thomathy wrote:
You appear to be an ignorant bigot. The very things you write make you appear to be so. That's not an attack, it's a statement of appearance. If you didn't write things that make you seem like an ignorant bigot, I wouldn't have cause to believe that you are. I wouldn't be surprised if you retorted at all with a logical fallacy. Right here you've constructed a bloody straw man, that's a statement of fact. You have retorted with fallacies and you just did. I've not attacked you. Further, you do appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance. If you knew what that was you might be able to show that you don't instead of essentially ignoring the accusation and rather considering it an attack. It's a statement derived from your apparent ability to reconcile being friendly with gays with what would otherwise be a mutually exclusive bigotry that you are protecting by using an interpretation of the Bible. Can you please actually address my arguments?
I gave reasons for calling you what I called you. You are an ignorant bigot. You're an ignorant bigot because you've written things like this about who you think gay people are:
Dragoon wrote:
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.
And use excuses like this as a way to justify your belief (veiled bigotry) that gay people shouldn't be members of clergy:
Dragoon wrote:
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.
Those comments, I believe, make you an ignorant bigot. Ignorant and bigot, by the way, are two words that have very specific meanings. Would you prefer I called you, less concisely, a person who lacked knowledge of what gay people are and is intolerant of people who are different to you? In any case, it's categorically different from calling you an uppity nigger, a slut asking to be rapped, a faggot or a bitch. Now, will you actually try to refute these accussations or are you going to continue to whine about them? It would be easy, I think, for you to show how you are not an ignorant bigot. As to showing that you don't constantly employ fallacies, you could at least not use them and as for cognitive dissonance, good luck.
Dragoon wrote:
I did. In reply to your comments on ‘faith’ I posted evidence to support my contention. I notice you’ve chosen to exclude that from your post [...]
You're right, I did exclude it. I'm not going to get into an argument about this with you. The fact of the matter is that your faith in god is a belief without evidence. I don't doubt that you have belief, trust in and loyalty to your god, you just also have no evidence for it's existence, which is necessary for it to be faith in your god that you have.
Dragoon wrote:
Really? If you say it over and over again does it make it true? Please provide evidence or logical argument to support your contention.
I have already explained how I have not employed the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Thomathy wrote:
Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence. I have not made a no true Scotsman fallacy. This is exactly the definition from which I've worked since the onset of this conversation. I am not trying to prove an assertion by changing the definition. It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Which part of that is difficult to understand? I've not ad hoc redefined faith to prove an assertion.
Dragoon wrote:
As to your comments on literature, I really don't know how to respond until you get a handle on what Fiction and non-Fiction are. Look up any decent book on literary genres and you'll see why your post is seriously flawed. Simply put, religious texts are considered nonfiction. Are you sure you're clear what 'fiction' is?
I know exactly what the differences between fiction and nonfiction are, but you've failed to address or answer any of the questions I've asked you, which aren't even dependant on what you think I think fiction and nonfiction are. Let me ask you the pertinent questions again, and this time please answer them. Do you believe that the Bible is the divine word of your god? Do you believe that the stories in both books of the Bible represent an accurate retelling of past events?
Dragoon wrote:
Oh, and if I followed your idea of 'polite', I could have written the previous paragraph like this; (Note, this is an exercise to hopefully demonstrate to you how your words have been attacks, though thinly veiled... although I think you already know this but are just having trouble dealing with it) - You can't be serious? Are you so idiotic that you don't even have a 3rd grade perspective on literary genres? I have no idea how I can even communicate with a literary sub-moron about actual issues. Would you please find a Kindergarten teacher to walk you through what Fiction and Non-Fiction are??? I can't believe anyone posing as an adult sits talking about 'red herrings' when they can't even fact check their own drivel! Read my lips... religious texts are considered Non-Fiction by the world outside of your padded room! Does that hurt your fellings? Too bad... put your big girl panties on and deal with it!
First, I have never responded to you with that amount of patronizing language, and even your caricature of my responses to you still doesn't represent an attack. They're childish and they come without explanation. I've explained why I think you're an ignorant bigot, shown the logical fallacies you've committed and explained your cognitive dissonance. They aren't unwarranted accusations and you are free to refute them instead of whining about them and showing off that you can create a caricature of my posts replete with childish patronizing language. Get over your thin hide and respond to what I've written.
Quote:
I COULD write to you like that... it's quite easy. The hard thing is to discuss issues in a respectful manner, even when they hit close to home.
Only, I haven't written like that and it would certainly be more effort than writing as I have and will continue to write, which comes quite naturally to me.
Dragoon wrote:
Scroll up. Look in the mirror. Deal with what you see. When you’re actually ready to discuss things I’d be happy to, but this silly sparring is just wasting space.
I agree, your inability to respond wholly to anything I've written is wasting space. I'm very tired of correcting you, pointing out your fallacies and essentially 'sparring'. You could carry forward the discussion by answering my questions or responding with rational arguments to my comments.
Dragoon wrote:
Oh... and I grew up in Ontario too homey. Hung out at Bar One, the upstairs of Brass Rail on most Gay nights, and several other places that are now closed. Might be before your time, and you may not even know Toronto, since you said ‘Ontario’, but those are/were gay clubs/events. My fave was actually a little place on Queen St that used to have a latin music and a Drag queen show at midnight on Saturdays. I don’t have a ‘few gay friends’, I grew up and had great friends there. I’ve been ‘token breeder’ at more gay parties than I can remember. I’ve been gone for awhile, but part of the reason I’m here writing this is for my friends who are/were there... both living and dead.
This is ridiculous. I said Ontario, because it's about as specific as I cared to get with you, because my arguments here are independant of my geographical location. I don't care where you're from or where you've been from. You don't have to explicate on how many gay friends you've had or how many gay parties (which, I'm certain are so different from not-gay parties) at which you've been the 'token breeder' that you can't remember. If anything this patronizing rant only shows how much of a bigot you are. This is like the white person who talks about how she's not a racist because of all the good black friends she has. That's not a convincing argument, especially when the next thing the person says is something like:
Dragoon wrote:
So please save me the ‘I know gay and you don’t’. I’m not ‘anti-gay’... I just don’t believe the Bible supports GLBT clergy. The truth might not be ‘nice’, but it doesn’t make it any less real.
This isn't about 'knowing' gay. This is literally about how you don't know what constitutes a gay person. Gay people are not only those people you described. That's a digusting list of very inaccurate stereotypes. I've never called you anti'gay. You are an ignorant bigot, however, and the fact that you think your interpretation of the bible is a not nice truth that doesn't make it less real clearly showcases this. It's been pointed out to you, and again you've not responded to it, that you have no special reason to think that your interpretation of the bible is necessarily more accurate or more in line with the truth than anyone else's, especially when the book is open to interpreation. Do you claim now to be some sort of authority, like the Catholic or Anglican Churches so claim, on the interpretation and application of scripture? Show me that I'm wrong about you. Answer my questions and respond to me with rational arguments. No more of this dodging, this intentional misconstrueing or this hang up on semantics. Can you do that?

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."


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

Dragoon wrote:
Hey Anonymouse,

Hey. Lemme help you out here with your quote function problem : http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_rational_response_squad_radio_show/general_conversation_introductions_and_humor/7011

Dragoon wrote:
I think we have a very simple yet difficult problem here... our basic frameworks for the question are different. Two different paradigms if you will. What to you looks like a simple answer (because of how you view the question), I view as intensely complex (for same reason).

In my experience, people start viewing things as intensely complex when they're trying to avoid facing a simple truth. But sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for a few more posts.

Dragoon wrote:
Essentially, my 'motivation' was that I believe it to be true.

Yes, and I want to know why you made the decision to believe that.

Dragoon wrote:
I was preparing a detailed summation of which sections of the Bible and other evidence influenced my decision, and the background rationale behind them... not someone else's theory.

And this is what I mean when I say "hiding behind the bible". Wether or not it even has anything sensible to say about any modern issue is something we could debate about for ages, and that still wouldn't get us any closer to figuring out why you use certain bits and pieces of it to justify a certain opinion. It doesn't explain your motivations, it just obscures them, hiding them from me, and possibly from yourself as well.

Any discussion that uses bible verses as arguments is by it's very nature endless and pointless, and that's exactly the reason why so many people find it so appealing. On top of that, you never have to take responsibility for your own opinions. It's not me, it's the bible !

Dragoon wrote:
No, that would be incredibly bad methodology... to start with my conclusion and then work backwards.

How am I supposed to know that that isn't exactly what you did ? Just take your word for it ?

Dragoon wrote:
I came to my own conclusion after weighing the evidence. Many others have come to the same or similar conclusion, but their specific reasons often differ from mine.

You're saying that a whole bunch of people decided they liked the idea of supernatural justification for gaybashing ? Gosh, what a surprise.

And do tell, since you're not concerned with their actual "human capabilities", how exactly can there be any evidence that they're not suitable for the job ?

Dragoon wrote:
I do not not follow a group of Christians in their thinking... I follow what I see God stating clearly (and of course I may be subject to error, so forums like this are great to test my thinking and see it in light of other evidence).

Once again, what god states and what you see god stating are two different things, and you can debate about that for years and still not get anywhere. That's why arguments based on bible texts are useless.

The only real evidence are the pastor's "human capabilities". And that's precisely the evidence you choose to ignore. Gee, I wonder why ?

Dragoon wrote:
Funny thing is, that most Christians who believe that the Bible is God's word come to the same conclusion. Of course some merely follow... but does that also reflect the fact that the text is fairly clear?

That would be funny if you were only kidding, but you're not, are you ? Your interpretation offers people moral superiority without actually having to do something to earn it. And you're surprised that's popular ? And do I really have to explain why having a lot of followers isn't necessarily a good thing ? 

Dragoon wrote:
Because that's what I see the bible saying clearly. If you saw the various texts (and we're not simply talking about references to homosexuality), you would probably see it too.

Okay, one more time : What you see the bible saying and what the bible says = two different things. And yes, we are talking about references to homosexuality. There aren't any ! And you can never prove that there are, so why even try ?

Dragoon wrote:
The fundamental difference between 'liberal' Christians and 'traditional' Christians is how they treat the Bible and the evidence within it.

And now I'm getting worried about your definition of the word "evidence".

Dragoon wrote:
Let me give you an example:

One of the main lines of critique in this topic is questioning whether the text is true to the original meaning. Dale Martin's "Arsenokoites and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences” which attempts to discredit the traditional translation of the key word ‘arsenokoites’ is an often quoted point of critique. Yet Martin says "any interpretation of scripture that hurts people, oppresses people, or destroys people cannot be the right interpretation, no matter how traditional, historical, or exegetically respectable."

In other words, he begins with his conclusion and forces his interpretation to conform to that presupposition. If we are seeking ‘truthful’ answers, we cannot force our interpretation to meet our own desires.

Oh great. Biblical exegesis. Wonderful. Do I really need to explain why this is a waste of time ? Okay then : Prove to me that he didn't arrive at that conclusion because that's where he saw the evidence, context and meaning clearly pointing. You can't, can you ? Round and round it goes. Where does it stop ? Nowhere ! It just keeps going, and that's why it's a waste of time.

Dragoon wrote:
So, again... I decided upon my current interpretation because that's where I see the evidence, context and meaning clearly pointing.

See above.

Dragoon wrote:
Re:Shimp... If you stated it earlier, then I missed it. Please repost it or point to the thread where you asked it.

Huh ? It's in this thread. Where else would it be ? Look it's perfectly simple : Either you're a hypocrite, or you're not. If you're not, then you should have just as big a problem with shrimp-eating pastors as you claim to have with gay pastors. I already explained why your jesus quote can't save you there.

Dragoon wrote:
I still intend to write that essay though.

I really don't understand how anyone can be so confused about their own reasoning that they would need to write an entire essay to explain it.

Dragoon wrote:
Through your question, you showed me that there were certain areas in my thinking which would benefit from more detailed anaysis. I'll make a nice blog entry one day Eye-wink

I'd really prefer if you just answered the question. Oh well, I do appreciate the fact that you're trying.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the formatting

Thanks for the formatting link Anonymouse.

 

Like I said, you could only really decide for yourself if you looked at the argument yourself.

 

You're pretty heavily biased against Biblical evidence though, and you may want to think about how that presupposes your conclusions. If you view it as an entirely human document and without merit, doesn't that make it difficult to fairly judge whether there is merit to the possible existance of God?

I think you're also elevating how important the homosexual issue is. Certainly there are homophobes among any group of people, Christians included, but what makes you think that Christians in general care about GLBT issues to the degree that they would devalue the very things they believe in merely to justify it

 

 

As to, "you never have to take responsibility for your own opinions. It's not me, it's the bible";

certainly I take 'responsibilty' for it, as a 'Christian' in fact I take direct flack for it, as well as for people's misconceptions about it. Even though it may come from the Bible, I have still chosen to accept it and to call myself a follower of Jesus Christ. As you note as well, I am also responsible for my own interpretation of it.

 

I think you're also misunderstanding basic Biblical teachings in talking about moral superiority. Once again, there will be people who abuse any teaching, but the biblical teaching is that no one should take any pride or moral superiority, because we are all equally sinners in need of God. In stating that there should not be GLBT pastors, I'm not saying I or anyone else is BETTER than that person, but rather that we ALL need to be equally submissive to the teachings of Jesus Christ.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
LOL Ok, you win

LOL Ok, you win Thomathy.

Since I'm an ignorant bigot, I guess I will just have to live with this great shame to be unable to answer your deep and insightful questions. Oh my shame!


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

Dragoon wrote:

LOL Ok, you win Thomathy.

Since I'm an ignorant bigot, I guess I will just have to live with this great shame to be unable to answer your deep and insightful questions. Oh my shame!

What is so hard about answering a few questions and responding rationally to some arguments?


 

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."


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Still no answer to my

Still no answer to my question.

Dragoon wrote:
You're pretty heavily biased against Biblical evidence though,

I'm biased against any argument that by it's very nature is open to so many interpretations as to render it completely meaningless. Why aren't you ?

Dragoon wrote:
and you may want to think about how that presupposes your conclusions.

My conclusions are based on facts. You claim yours are based on a text that can be interpreted in more ways than you can imagine. Yes, you may want to start thinking about that eventually.

Dragoon wrote:
If you view it as an entirely human document and without merit, doesn't that make it difficult to fairly judge whether there is merit to the possible existance of God?

How I view it doesn't even come into it. The undeniable fact is that the bible can be interpreted however you please.

Dragoon wrote:
I think you're also elevating how important the homosexual issue is.

Hey, you brought it up. Apparently it's important enough to you to keep evading a simple question about it. And you also still have to adress the fact that your chosen interpretation turns you into a hypocrite.

And once you've done that, here's a little bit of light reading for you : http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/american_pious_irrationality_e.php

Not important, eh ? But hey, no worries. Someone can just write an essay to justify it all. Yeah, that would work.

Dragoon wrote:
Certainly there are homophobes among any group of people, Christians included, but what makes you think that Christians in general care about GLBT issues to the degree that they would devalue the very things they believe in merely to justify it

Because they've decided to believe that they're not devalueing them at all. And I asked you why you personally made that decision. You still haven't given me an answer that's not based on yet another interpretation you made.

Dragoon wrote:
certainly I take 'responsibilty' for it, as a 'Christian' in fact I take direct flack for it, as well as for people's misconceptions about it. Even though it may come from the Bible, I have still chosen to accept it and to call myself a follower of Jesus Christ. As you note as well, I am also responsible for my own interpretation of it.

Eventually you'll be confronted with more facts than even you can ignore. I hope you'll remember your responsibility then. You will need to apologise to a heck of a lot of people.

Dragoon wrote:
I think you're also misunderstanding basic Biblical teachings in talking about moral superiority. Once again, there will be people who abuse any teaching, but the biblical teaching is that no one should take any pride or moral superiority, because we are all equally sinners in need of God.

You don't even notice the contradictions anymore, do you ? If we're all equal sinners, then why sentence specific sinners to death ? If you even try to make sense of that, you'll end up with yet another endless discussion. We can avoid all that by getting to the root of your motivations, which is why I asked about them, and why you still haven't answered.

Dragoon wrote:
In stating that there should not be GLBT pastors, I'm not saying I or anyone else is BETTER than that person, but rather that we ALL need to be equally submissive to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You're just playing word games now. You judge one to be "submissive to the teachings of christ", and the other not so much. You're valueing one above the other. Do we now also have to argue about what the word "better" means ? Give me a break.

 

Look, I seem to be repeating the same argument ad nauseam here, so let's see if we can pinpoint your problem : Do you really, seriously, honestly don't understand that you can't base any kind of argument on a text that can be interpreted in uncountable ways ? And do you seriously don't get that you can't defend an interpretation of that text with yet another interpretation of another bit of the same text ? I mean, seriously ?

And please, please, please, in your next post, please deal with the problem of hypocrisy. (And I'm assuming here that you consider hypocrisy a problem)


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

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.)

*pours Marquis a real strong one*


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Actually, I've

Dragoon wrote:

Actually, I've described some friends of mine, who are either gay, lesbian, or bisexual. I'm afraid I don't truly 'know' very many trannies, but that's life. If I was writing only for you, I'd be happy to shift to the term you're comfortable with, but I'm afraid this is not just for you.

If you want to take up their life story with any of my friends feel free, that's your business.

You forgot 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." Are you trying to 'win' a debate, or discuss an issue?

Ah, now that makes a lot of sense. With "friends" like you, who needs enemies?

The reason you have such a convoluted concept of GLBT people is because the only ones who would even tolerate a bigot like you are utterly self-loathing (probably contemplating trying to get "cured&quotEye-wink and completely devoid of any self-respect or self-esteem. I invite you to try spouting this nonsense in a gay bar in Chelsea and we'll see how it's received by gays with a backbone.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Chelsea has no gay bars. You

Chelsea has no gay bars. You need to go to cambridge for teh gayness.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Re:Shimp... If

Dragoon wrote:

Re:Shimp... If you stated it earlier, then I missed it. Please repost it or point to the thread where you asked it.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHH!!!!!

 

Yeah, I can see how you might have missed it, it's only been asked about 176 times so far.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:LOL Ok, you

Dragoon wrote:

LOL Ok, you win Thomathy.

Since I'm an ignorant bigot, I guess I will just have to live with this great shame to be unable to answer your deep and insightful questions. Oh my shame!

Not only are you an ignorant bigot, you're also a coward. I don't think there has been a single pertinent, important question in this entire thread that you haven't pussyfooted around ad nauseum so you wouldn't have to ever actually answer it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Ciarin wrote:Chelsea has no

Ciarin wrote:

Chelsea has no gay bars. You need to go to cambridge for teh gayness.

The Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan, on the other hand, is practically nothing BUT gay bars.


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

Hi Anonymouse,

 

I think we'd both agree that we've hit an impasse in our discussion. I can say see that you are attempting to ask and respond with honest viewpoints, and I would hope that you can also see that I am attempting to do the same with you.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is our differing views of the Bible.

 

You view the Bible as in 'very nature is open to so many interpretations as to render it completely meaningless'. Because of this, you disavow any line of reasoning based upon the Bible, and view anyone who is in agreement with me as merely sharing in a choice to accept the same entirely subjective 'interpretation'. Any replies I give you in this regard are viewed as evasive and unacceptable, whereas for me they are central and germaine.

You ask my motivations, and I've repeatedly told you 'because that's what I see the Bible stating clearly'. This is because I do not see the text as being open to varied interpretation. If it was, I would neither view it as authoritative or binding. If I thought the texts were even vague, I would not weigh in with a conclusion on this question, but merely state that the question of GLBT pastors is an open one.

 

Lesser barriers include a difference in opinion on the meanings/intent of Christians and Biblical injunctions, but I think this is largely an offshoot of the first problem.

Would you agree with that assessment?

 

Barring a discussion on Biblical interpretation, I don't really see a way around this problem. I've certainly enjoyed your questions and your insights, but in this discussion, I'm not sure how we can progress further unless this stumbling block is addressed. Feel free to discuss other questions, though in many cases we will return to this core disagreement.

 

Re: Eating Shrimp... a hypocrisy?

I answered that well back in post #60 and #63. I answered it with a post on what Jesus taught regarding food. How do you see that as hypocrisy?


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

My apologies for the formatting problems in an earlier post. I was using a Mac and cutting and pasting text over. It looked fine on my display, but man does it look messed up when I see it now.

 

Sorry to make a mess in the room


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

Dragoon wrote:
Hi Anonymouse,

Hey.

Dragoon wrote:
I think we'd both agree that we've hit an impasse in our discussion.

You refusing to answer a simple question cannot be described as "hitting an impasse". Please answer the question.

Dragoon wrote:
I can say see that you are attempting to ask and respond with honest viewpoints, and I would hope that you can also see that I am attempting to do the same with you.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is our differing views of the Bible.

I asked you a very simple question to figure out the problem here. It's in my last post. You're not going to answer that one either, are you ?

 

Dragoon wrote:
You view the Bible as in 'very nature is open to so many interpretations as to render it completely meaningless'. Because of this, you disavow any line of reasoning based upon the Bible,

You're doing it again. For the last time, your line of reasoning isn't based on the bible, it's based on your current, personal interpretation of it. Do you really, truly not understand that ? How is that even possible ?

Dragoon wrote:
and view anyone who is in agreement with me as merely sharing in a choice to accept the same entirely subjective 'interpretation'. Any replies I give you in this regard are viewed as evasive and unacceptable, whereas for me they are central and germaine.

I have always explained why your replies are evasive and unacceptable. You have never given a counter-argument, so my argument still stands.

Dragoon wrote:
You ask my motivations, and I've repeatedly told you 'because that's what I see the Bible stating clearly'. This is because I do not see the text as being open to varied interpretation. If it was, I would neither view it as authoritative or binding. If I thought the texts were even vague, I would not weigh in with a conclusion on this question, but merely state that the question of GLBT pastors is an open one.

And all that is just another string of interpretations. I keep explaining this, and you keep ignoring it. Once again, do you really, honestly not understand that anything you have to say about the bible is nothing more or less than your personal, current interpretation ? Look at what you wrote ! : "I see...", "I do not see...", "I would neither view it as..", "If I thought....", "I would not weigh...". YES ! I KNOW ! BUT WHY ???? What are your reasons for seeing, not seeing, etc..as you've stated here ?

I asked you about your motivations for interpreting the bible in the way you do, and you respond by giving me yet more personal interpretations of the bible. Do you really not understand why that doesn't make any sense ?

Btw, THIS IS NOT A RETHORICAL QUESTION.

Dragoon wrote:
Lesser barriers include a difference in opinion on the meanings/intent of Christians and Biblical injunctions, but I think this is largely an offshoot of the first problem.

Would you agree with that assessment?

Read the above and take a wild guess.

Look, this is a discussion forum, not a let's-see-how-long-I-can-avoid-that-question forum. If you don't want to answer the question or deal with other people's arguments, then you should just go and make a blog somewhere and disable comments.

Dragoon wrote:
Barring a discussion on Biblical interpretation, I don't really see a way around this problem.

I do ! Answer my question. Pretty please with sugar on top.

Dragoon wrote:
I've certainly enjoyed your questions and your insights, but in this discussion, I'm not sure how we can progress further unless this stumbling block is addressed.

Just answer the question already, and please read my entire post this time, so you don't repeat the same mistake again. (Answering a question about your reasons for picking a certain interpretation by giving me yet more personal interpretations doesn't work ! If you don't understand why that doesn't work, tell me, and I'll explain it to you !)

Dragoon wrote:
Feel free to discuss other questions, though in many cases we will return to this core disagreement.

See above.

Dragoon wrote:
Re: Eating Shrimp... a hypocrisy?

I answered that well back in post #60 and #63. I answered it with a post on what Jesus taught regarding food. How do you see that as hypocrisy?

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you're not just jerking me around. I already told you that ! I even told you why your Jesus quote doesn't work !

Okay then, I'll tell you again : Here, from your post : "..from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts...", now please explain how it's possible for someone to eat a shrimp, without first having the evil thought to do so. I asked you that before. You didn't answer that one either. If you don't understand how that destroys your argument, just tell me and I'll explain it to you.

And now just for clarity's sake : There is no impasse, there is no core disagreement. There are just a few unanswered questions. Please, oh please answer them.

 


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

Thanks for the 'Light Reading' link Anonymouse... you like stirring up the waters don't you Eye-winkhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/american_pious_irrationality_e.php

 

I think its great that a wrongheaded bill was defeated in Uganda (to imprison and execute homosexuals). Its never ok to condemn people for the actions of a few individual deviants. Its never ok to persecute a group of people merely for trying to live life to the best of their ability.

Why does such a victory have to be turned into a platform for new hate though? Why does the author rightly condemn Uganda for their unjust attempt... and then seek to tar all Christians? Some may say that Christians have been unfair to GLBT individuals, but if something is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone.

 

"For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others." (Nelson Mandela)

I've heard reference to the Rick Warren comment on homosexuals and pedophiles before, but does anyone have the actual quote on what he actually said? The reference sounds pretty damning, but so does that 'Obama is a Muslim' stuff... until you actually read what he said.

 

By the way AnonM, you've been asking me the 'reason' for my thinking quite a bit. Where did you get this idea that the Bible is open to endless interpretation?


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey Anon,anonymouse

Hey Anon,

anonymouse wrote:
And all that is just another string of interpretations. I keep explaining this, and you keep ignoring it. Once again, do you really, honestly not understand that anything you have to say about the bible is nothing more or less than your personal, current interpretation ? Look at what you wrote ! : "I see...", "I do not see...", "I would neither view it as..", "If I thought....", "I would not weigh...". YES ! I KNOW ! BUT WHY ???? What are your reasons for seeing, not seeing, etc..as you've stated here ?

I'm going to say this one more time Eye-wink

Your problem in understanding is that you are ASSUMING that the Bible is entirely open to interpretation. Where is your proof for this assumption?

 

I'm trying o tell you that the Bible is NOT open to the type of open interpretation you're talking about, and this is why I interpret the Bible the way I do... because I do not believe there is another valid interpretation on the texts (than to say that GLBT individuals should not be pastors). When I say "I think", "I believe", etc, these phrases are to say both that I stand behind my statement, and that I do not stop looking for possible other interpretations merely because I see only one.  

Why do I trust the Bible? Because what I've read has born true in reason, action, and experience.

 

Re:Shrimp

Its not the shrimp, or even the thought of eating the shrimp, that are 'evil'. Jesus is saying that all things created by God are clean and edible. What is evil are things such as sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, etc (see Mark 7:21) which come from within men. Where are you getting the idea that either eating shrimp or the thought of eating shrimp are 'evil'?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Thanks for the

Dragoon wrote:

Thanks for the 'Light Reading' link Anonymouse... you like stirring up the waters don't you Eye-winkhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/american_pious_irrationality_e.php

 

I think its great that a wrongheaded bill was defeated in Uganda (to imprison and execute homosexuals).

*deep, deep sigh*

You have a strange way of reading. Please show me were in that article it's mentioned that the bill was defeated.

Dragoon wrote:
Its never ok to condemn people for the actions of a few individual deviants. Its never ok to persecute a group of people merely for trying to live life to the best of their ability.

And yet that's how those conservative christians have chosen to interpret the bible.

Dragoon wrote:
Why does such a victory have to be turned into a platform for new hate though? Why does the author rightly condemn Uganda for their unjust attempt... and then seek to tar all Christians?

Again, you need to actually read the article. He doesn't tar all christians. He condemns their irrationality. Nobody forces christians to be irrational. They make that decision themselves.

Dragoon wrote:
I've heard reference to the Rick Warren comment on homosexuals and pedophiles before, but does anyone have the actual quote on what he actually said? The reference sounds pretty damning, but so does that 'Obama is a Muslim' stuff... until you actually read what he said.

Google and ye shall find.

Dragoon wrote:
By the way AnonM, you've been asking me the 'reason' for my thinking quite a bit.

Noticed that, have you ? Still waiting for an aswer

Dragoon wrote:
Where did you get this idea that the Bible is open to endless interpretation?

You're kidding, right ? What stops people from having different interpretations ? Nothing. Your idea that your interpretation is the only right one, is just your opinion, and I want to know WHY you think that. You just keep on not answering me.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I'm going to

Dragoon wrote:
I'm going to say this one more time Eye-wink

Your problem in understanding is that you are ASSUMING that the Bible is entirely open to interpretation. Where is your proof for this assumption?

You have got to be kidding me. I can interpret it in hundreds of different ways right here and now. How are you going to prove that those interpretations are somehow worth less than yours ? By using even more of your personal interpretations ? Again, do I really have to explain why that doesn't work ? I will if I have to.

Dragoon wrote:
I'm trying o tell you that the Bible is NOT open to the type of open interpretation you're talking about,

And I'm trying to ask you WHY you've decided to believe that. You just keep on not answering me. What is it about this question that scares you so ?

Dragoon wrote:
and this is why I interpret the Bible the way I do... because I do not believe there is another valid interpretation on the texts (than to say that GLBT individuals should not be pastors).

WHY have you chosen not to believe that ? YOU made the decision that your interpretation is valid, and the gay pastor's isn't. WHY did you make that decision ?

Dragoon wrote:
When I say "I think", "I believe", etc, these phrases are to say both that I stand behind my statement, and that I do not stop looking for possible other interpretations merely because I see only one. 

But your only reason for rejecting the gay pastors interpretation is that you have a different one !! I know you stand behind your statement. All I want to know is WHY ! Why won't you answer me ? Why don't you understand that you can't justify an interpretation with yet another interpretation ?

Dragoon wrote:
Why do I trust the Bible? Because what I've read has born true in reason, action, and experience.

And what makes your reason, action and experience worth so much more than other people's reason, action and experience who have another interpretation ? Tell me !

 

Dragoon wrote:
Re:Shrimp

Its not the shrimp, or even the thought of eating the shrimp, that are 'evil'. Jesus is saying that all things created by God are clean and edible. What is evil are things such as sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, etc (see Mark 7:21) which come from within men. Where are you getting the idea that either eating shrimp or the thought of eating shrimp are 'evil'?

Because the bible calls it an abomination. And your jesus quote sed : "from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts". Nowhere in the bible is the phrase "sexual immorality" used. Nowhere.

edit : I stand corrected. It does mention that. But it doesn't define it. Gee, too bad. That means it's open to...(all together now)...interpretation.

You cherrypick your abominations. That makes you a hypocrite. I'm going to have to explain that too, aren't I ?

 

 

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Thanks for the 'Light Reading' link Anonymouse... you like stirring up the waters don't you Eye-winkhttp://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/01/american_pious_irrationality_e.php

 

I think its great that a wrongheaded bill was defeated in Uganda (to imprison and execute homosexuals).

*deep, deep sigh*

You have a strange way of reading. Please show me were in that article it's mentioned that the bill was defeated.

Perhaps it was wishfull thinking lol. I actually read the line where he said, "the recent attempts to create a legal justification for imprisoning and killing homosexuals in Uganda" and assumed by 'attempts' that he meant they were defeated. I'm disappointed that I was incorrect.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Its never ok to condemn people for the actions of a few individual deviants. Its never ok to persecute a group of people merely for trying to live life to the best of their ability.

And yet that's how those conservative christians have chosen to interpret the bible.

No, that's how SOME do. That 'some' is a pretty important distinction. Christianity may say that a behaviour is wrong, but the response to people, including enemies and 'sinners', is to love. You should know that...

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Why does such a victory have to be turned into a platform for new hate though? Why does the author rightly condemn Uganda for their unjust attempt... and then seek to tar all Christians?

Again, you need to actually read the article. He doesn't tar all christians. He condemns their irrationality. Nobody forces christians to be irrational. They make that decision themselves.

You need to take the blinders off when reading people you generally agree with. Comments like, "evangelical haters" and "that's the direction they want to go in: the criminalization of sexual acts that they find repugnant, the encouragement of loathing of people who don't love the people they approve. They want homosexuals to be despised, second-class citizens who don't have all the rights of good Christian heterosexuals" simply promote an 'us' vs 'them' hatred. The last paragraph is particularly fear mongering. Protect us from those horrid Christians!

 

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I've heard reference to the Rick Warren comment on homosexuals and pedophiles before, but does anyone have the actual quote on what he actually said? The reference sounds pretty damning, but so does that 'Obama is a Muslim' stuff... until you actually read what he said.

Google and ye shall find.

Googled and Yahoo'd but no accurate hits. Any links would be appreciated.

 

anonymouse wrote:
Dragoon wrote:
By the way AnonM, you've been asking me the 'reason' for my thinking quite a bit.

Noticed that, have you ? Still waiting for an aswer

Dragoon wrote:
Where did you get this idea that the Bible is open to endless interpretation?

You're kidding, right ? What stops people from having different interpretations ? Nothing. Your idea that your interpretation is the only right one, is just your opinion, and I want to know WHY you think that. You just keep on not answering me.

I have answered you... you just don't agree with my answer lol.

So Global Warming is open to interpretation? Is Evolution open to interpretation? Merely because a few extremists choose to publish 'opinions' on these things does not change that the core interpretation is largely undisputed. Tobacco maunacturers used to support research and 'interpretation' that said that smoking was not related to lung cancer. Was that interpretation valid?

But that's science you may say! So, let's consider the article you posted. Could I interpret it to say that Homosexuals are responsible for the problems in Uganda because of their public shamefulness? Of course not... because that's not what the text says. I would use the text itself to justify this.

What stops people from having different interpretations? Nothing, so long as their interpretations are based on a sound, rational look at the evidence/text involved.

 

I'd say it is exactly the same with the Bible. There is agreeement on what core passages have said. While there is room for interpretation within a limited range, the core meanings are not in dispute.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Re:Shrimp

Its not the shrimp, or even the thought of eating the shrimp, that are 'evil'. Jesus is saying that all things created by God are clean and edible. What is evil are things such as sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, etc (see Mark 7:21) which come from within men. Where are you getting the idea that either eating shrimp or the thought of eating shrimp are 'evil'?

Because the bible calls it an abomination. And your jesus quote sed : "from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts". Nowhere in the bible is the phrase "sexual immorality" used. Nowhere.

edit : I stand corrected. It does mention that. But it doesn't define it. Gee, too bad. That means it's open to...(all together now)...interpretation.

You cherrypick your abominations. That makes you a hypocrite. I'm going to have to explain that too, aren't I ?

 

I'd be happy to walk you through the Bible on clean and unclean foods. Do you really care though, or are you just using what you think is a 'gotcha' text? It's going to run you through the purpose of the Law, righteousness before God, God's 'grace' and the nature of relationship with God through Christ. Honestly, It'd be a pleasure to do it... and of course it's going to use scripture, and not 'cherry-picked' scripture but broad swathes of it.

As to 'sexual immorality' (porneia in Greek), it is fairly well defined.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

 

There are some texts talking about specific sexual immoralities, but its really about keeping sexual relations pure. God gave us a spouse to love and be united with as one person. When we stray or otherwise dishonor our spouse and our love for that person, then we are being sexually immoral. The Greek also does a nice job of describng it... but do we really not know what dishonors our wedding beds?

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Perhaps it was

Dragoon wrote:
Perhaps it was wishfull thinking lol. I actually read the line where he said, "the recent attempts to create a legal justification for imprisoning and killing homosexuals in Uganda" and assumed by 'attempts' that he meant they were defeated. I'm disappointed that I was incorrect.

"Lol" ? Did you just write "lol" ? Do you actually think that's funny ? The situation in Uganda amuses you ?

Does that happen a lot, wishfull thinking influencing your reasoning ? Care to change your mind about me overestimating the importance of the "homosexual issue" ?

Dragoon wrote:
No, that's how SOME do.

But that's exactly what I said !! "..that's how those conservative christians have chosen to interpret the bible.." . Wishfull thinking already ? Read what I write !

Dragoon wrote:
That 'some' is a pretty important distinction.

I made that distinction ! Will you quit with the wishfull thinking already and read what I write !

Dragoon wrote:
Christianity may say that a behaviour is wrong, but the response to people, including enemies and 'sinners', is to love. You should know that...

Tell it to the christians who lobbied that bill. Apparently, they don't know that. Could that possible be because they have a different interpretation of christianity ? YES, IT COULD. Now tell me why you have chosen yours.

Dragoon wrote:
You need to take the blinders off when reading people you generally agree with.

You're telling me to take my blinders off ? You just admitted you missed the entire point of the article because of wishfull thinking !! You've got some nerve, I'll give you that much.

Dragoon wrote:
Comments like, "evangelical haters" and "that's the direction they want to go in: the criminalization of sexual acts that they find repugnant, the encouragement of loathing of people who don't love the people they approve. They want homosexuals to be despised, second-class citizens who don't have all the rights of good Christian heterosexuals" simply promote an 'us' vs 'them' hatred. The last paragraph is particularly fear mongering. Protect us from those horrid Christians!

This is unbelievable ! Are you saying we don't need protecting from christians like that ? We should just let them get on with it ? Are you saying there's no such thing as "evangelical haters" ? In the light of what's actually happening in Uganda right now, you actuallly have the gall to pretend that this quote is anything but the factual truth ??

Dragoon wrote:
Googled and Yahoo'd but no accurate hits. Any links would be appreciated.

Found it on the first try, first hit. You really are just jerking me around, aren't you ?

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867664,00.html

Dragoon wrote:
I have answered you... you just don't agree with my answer lol.

I have explained WHY your answers don't make sense ! You have ignored that each and every time.

Once again, a reason for an interpretation can't be yet another interpretation ! Why is that so hard to understand ???

Me : "What's your reason for interpreting the bible the way you do ?"

You: "Because mine's the right interpretation"

Me : "Why do you think that's the right interpretation ?"

You : "Because it's the only one"

Me : "But there ARE others ! Why do you believe yours is the only one ?"

You : "Because mine's the right interpretation"

Do you still not get what the problem is here ????

Please, break free from your circular reasoning, switch off your wishfull thinking and answer my question !

Dragoon wrote:
So Global Warming is open to interpretation? Is Evolution open to interpretation? Merely because a few extremists choose to publish 'opinions' on these things does not change that the core interpretation is largely undisputed.

You're comparing scientific data to an ancient religious text now ? Desperate much ?

Dragoon wrote:
Tobacco maunacturers used to support research and 'interpretation' that said that smoking was not related to lung cancer. Was that interpretation valid?

Nope, but their reasons for doing that are so transparant I don't even have to ask them about it. Yours ,on the other hand, seem to be hidden from yourself as well.

Dragoon wrote:
But that's science you may say! So, let's consider the article you posted. Could I interpret it to say that Homosexuals are responsible for the problems in Uganda because of their public shamefulness? Of course not... because that's not what the text says. I would use the text itself to justify this.

If you did that, I'd wonder why, and I'd ask you, and I wouldn't get an answer.

Dragoon wrote:
What stops people from having different interpretations? Nothing, so long as their interpretations are based on a sound, rational look at the evidence/text involved.

And why do you think that the gay pastor's interpretation isn't based on a sound, rational look ? Because you have a different opinion. That's all you have : your opinion of what the bible says. No scientific facts, just your own opinion. You reasoning has led you to that opinion ? Then tell me on which facts you base that reasoning. Tell me ! Stop stalling !

Dragoon wrote:
I'd say it is exactly the same with the Bible. There is agreeement on what core passages have said. While there is room for interpretation within a limited range, the core meanings are not in dispute.

You consider those core passages, do you ? And on which facts do you base that reasoning ? Because a lot of people agree ? Well, then surely one of those many people must know on which facts that reasoning is based. Since you don't seem to know, I suggest you ask him and get back to me.

And there most certainly IS a dispute. That's why I asked you the question.

So let's try the the newest rephrazing, shall we ? :

On which facts do you base the reasoning that led you to your current interpretation of whatever verses you use to disaprove of gay pastors ?

And remember, you can't justify an interpretation with another interpretation, okay ?  Okay, then. Answer please.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I'd be happy

Dragoon wrote:

I'd be happy to walk you through the Bible on clean and unclean foods. Do you really care though, or are you just using what you think is a 'gotcha' text? It's going to run you through the purpose of the Law, righteousness before God, God's 'grace' and the nature of relationship with God through Christ. Honestly, It'd be a pleasure to do it... and of course it's going to use scripture, and not 'cherry-picked' scripture but broad swathes of it.

Unless you can point me to a verse that literally states : "No gay pastors", then all you have are your interpretations. And it really doesn't matter how many people share them. It's a religious text, not a catalogue of facts.

But what it does literally say, is that eating shrimp is an abomination. I'd say there's not much wriggle room there. You're of a different opinion. I wonder if there's anything to back up that opinion that isn't just another interpretation of another verse.

If there isn't, then you're a hypocrite.

So, is there ?

Dragoon wrote:
As to 'sexual immorality' (porneia in Greek), it is fairly well defined.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

Fairly well defined ? That's your opinion. Keeping your marriage bed pure = open to interpretation (Could just mean don't eat shrimp in bed) . So the same still goes for "sexually immoral".

Dragoon wrote:
There are some texts talking about specific sexual immoralities, but its really about keeping sexual relations pure.

The meaning of which is open to interpretation.

Dragoon wrote:
God gave us a spouse to love and be united with as one person. When we stray or otherwise dishonor our spouse and our love for that person, then we are being sexually immoral. The Greek also does a nice job of describng it... but do we really not know what dishonors our wedding beds?

Well, if you don't want to take any chances, you could just interpret it literally, and do all the questionable stuff outside the wedding bed. There you go, problem solved. It's all down to how you choose to interpret it.

 

Okay, enough playing around : My question again : On which facts do you base the reasons for your interpretations ? 


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

Anonymouse wrote:
And remember, you can't justify an interpretation with another interpretation, okay ?  Okay, then. Answer please.
Anonymouse, this is a person who has flatly refused to answer a question asking if he believes the Bible to be the divine word of his god - a question that can easily be satisfactorily answered with either a 'yes' or a 'no' and with very little explanation if any.  This is a person who has stated that it is not a requirement of Christians to believe in a literal six day creation as put forth in the book of Genesis and still flatly refuses to answer that question.  This is a person who is either avoiding a contradiction or who is just jerking us around.  And those are the reasons your question hasn't been answered, and I think isn't going to be answered.  Well, that game is clearly up.


 

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."


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

Thomathy wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:
And remember, you can't justify an interpretation with another interpretation, okay ?  Okay, then. Answer please.
Anonymouse, this is a person who has flatly refused to answer a question asking if he believes the Bible to be the divine word of his god - a question that can easily be satisfactorily answered with either a 'yes' or a 'no' and with very little explanation if any.  This is a person who has stated that it is not a requirement of Christians to believe in a literal six day creation as put forth in the book of Genesis and still flatly refuses to answer that question.  This is a person who is either avoiding a contradiction or who is just jerking us around.  And those are the reasons your question hasn't been answered, and I think isn't going to be answered.  Well, that game is clearly up.

Ah, I thought it was just me he wasn't answering. Thanks, Thom. Guess I'd better stop wasting my time before we get another 1000+ thread with nothing but repeated questions.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
You mean thread à la

You mean thread à la Paisley ...or Caposkia.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
What sort of lame arsed definition

Dragoon wrote:

As to 'sexual immorality' (porneia in Greek), it is fairly well defined.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

Of sexual immorality is that? That's typically bible pathetic. A few orders and a threat. Nice one lord, Your definitions really set the standard.

 

 

 

 

 

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

As to 'sexual immorality' (porneia in Greek), it is fairly well defined.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Hebrews 13:4)

Of sexual immorality is that? That's typically bible pathetic. A few orders and a threat. Nice one lord, Your definitions really set the standard.

And it doesn't even say "all the sexually immoral" in my translation. It just sez "all the whores and fornicators". Turns out I was right the first time. You really have to be a total bigot to want to try and fit the gays in that definition.