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.


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

Thomathy wrote:

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

More à la Cap or Fonzie/meph (who's working on his second thread). Paisley actually gave me an straight, honest answer to a simple question a while ago.

But this guy ? Comes right out and admits he misread a text out of sheer wishfull thinking, and then does it again.

I think I'll go talk to a theist who can actually read.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

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 !

Other than completely misrepresenting my opinions and comments, you have it completely correct Smiling

What I've said to you all along is simply that its what the text of the Bible clearly states. Because you have a misconception on Biblical interpretation, you 'interpret' my response as 'that's my interpretation'.

When I've said to you, "ok, let's look at the text and you can decide", your response has been essentially that you KNOW the text is open to interpretation so you don't want to.

 

anonymouse wrote:

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.

No, not desperate at all. Simply trying to phrase the answer in a way that might break through your preconceptions.

I think the pro-gay interpretations are wrong after looking at them and considering their arguments. Their perspectives on social injustice towards homosexuals is often entirely valid, but their interpretation of Biblical texts ignores key themes and passages. My answer to you has never been about numbers agreeing... its been about the text of the Bible agreeing.

 

 

Anonymouse, I can see where you've had difficulty in discussions with Christians before, and probably will in future. You simply don't understand the Christian position because you're starting from an incorrect assumption about Biblical validity/interpretation.

When you've responded on this, your view seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), because there are different viewpoints expressed by Christians, and each says their view is based upon the Bible, therefor all interpretations are equally valid and the Bible is open to this type of wild speculation.

Quite simply, this is incorrect.

Merely because some people doubt Global Warming, does not mean that their interpretation is therefor equally valid and that the evidence is open to endless interpretation. There may be areas where knowledge is incomplete, but the core evidence is there.

Until you are willing to actually test your theory on Biblical interpretation (since we're looking at GLBT issues that might be an interesting area to start), how can you assert anything?

 

Gotta run. I'll answer some of the other stuff later. Fun talking to you as always  Eye-wink

 

 


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

Thomathy wrote:

... 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.

No Smiling

This is a person who stopped answering you because you can't seem to form or reply to logic. Here's 3 examples:

Example 1::-------------------------------------

  1. You made some comments in post #95 about 'faith', and when I questioned you on it, you replied in post #105 "You may feel free to consult any dictionary.  Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence."
  2. So, I went and gave you 4 dictionary definitions (Oxford, Miraim-Webster, Cambridge, FreeDictionary) which showed your definition was wrong (see post #110), in other words, you were using a 'no True Scotsman' fallacy and wording your definition to suite your answer
  3. Your reply in post #116 was " Faith is belief without evidence.  This is not difficult.  I have not committed a no true Scotsman fallacy."

...Ummmm you gave no evidence, totally ignoring the dictionary definitions you'd asked for, and simply restated your incorrect definition. Hmmmmm.

 

 

Example 2::-------------------------------------

  1. In post #105 you said the Bible is a work of fiction.  "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.
  2. I told you you were in error, and that " Simply put, religious texts are considered nonfiction". I invited you to look it up, since I doubted you'd just take my word for it (and because you'd asked me to earlier, so fair is fair)
  3. You refuse to verify your 'facts' and simply state "I know exactly what the differences between fiction and nonfiction are" (post #123).

You simply ignore the facts, restate your own flawed opinion again. Religious texts are classed as non-Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_genres ... ok, it's wiki, but wiki is useful for these broad questions). That's why libraries and book stores have the Bible, Koran, etc in the stacks with other Non-Fiction.

 

Example 3:-------------------------------------

  1. I ask you to at use politeness (post #102) so that we can discuss the issues fairly
  2. Post #105 you ask for examples of where you've 'attacked'
  3. In post #110, I run through a few of your more direct attacks with you.
  4. Your reply is an incredible "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." Ummmm ok...
  5. So post #118 I try again. "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." I was kinda hoping you'd see the parallel between how others may hurt you, and how your  trying to hurt others is the same thing...
  6. You reply "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.... You are an ignorant bigot. You're an ignorant bigot because you've written things like this..." in other words it 'appears to be', which is what I said. Hmmm how is accurately repeating your position a straw man???

Once again, you seem unfazed by actual facts or logic, and simply repeat your statement over again... along with a paraphrase of your statement which you categorized as a straw man!

I wonder if I should pass a link of your 'logic' on this to the KKK, the Aryan Nations, the Nationl Front, and other hate groups, and tell them that according to you its 'OK' for them to call others whatever they want, as long as they APPEAR to be....

 

I'm happy to talk with you or anyone else on questions you may have about Christianity, but you seem unable or unwilling to make factual statements or to accept them at this time. When you're able to discuss things... and to do so without all your hurt pouring out as insults... I'd be happy to speak to you again.

The rest is silence. O, o, o, o. 

 

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

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 ?

Actually I was laughing at the mistake I'd made in my reading. I think the sentence makes very clear how I feel about the issue... so why are you focussing on the 'LOL' instead of on the issue?

 

 

Anonymouse wrote:

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.

You follow this with a couple of 'interpretations' on my reply to you on your sexual immorality question.

AnonyM... do you SERIOUSLY think those things you posted ( "don't eat shrimp in bed", " just interpret it literally, and do all the questionable stuff outside the wedding bed&quotEye-wink are valid interpretations of the text???? You can't be serious that you're basing your idea on multiple possible Biblical interpretations on the ability to say totally invalid things that no intelligent person could consider as applicable... unless they merely wanted an excuse.

You ask why I don't accept the pro-Gay pastor arguments I've read... because like your post above, they evade central issues and do not provide solid evidence.

 

You mentioned earlier that you could understand the false lobbying and disinformation by Tobacco companies in the past, because their reasons were transparent (post #144). You seem very willing to critique the Biblical Christian interpretation in this light, but what about the GLBT side? Why don't you apply the same measure to both sides equally?

Gays obviously desire mosre inclusivity in society and the church, something which they've been denied through most of human history. The pro-Gay pastor arguments are merely part of this overall battle. Why can't you apply the same standards to the side you agree with and see that PERHAPS there's some reason to fudge interpretation there?

It would be difficult to say this criteria applies to the normal Biblical interpretation, since that has been there long long before the issue of GLBT pastors came up.

 

As to an answer, I've given it to you over and over again. Post #117, Post #139 for example. Posts #135, #103, and #125 are related as well.

You simply haven't been able to understand/accept the answer at this time.

 

anonymouse wrote:
 

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.

Thanks for trying anonymouse Smiling

I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions. Give me a strong, valid case for GLBT pastors and I'd be the first one to say, "YES!"

 

It all comes back to the Bible and God.

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Other than completely misrepresenting my opinions and comments, you have it completely correct Smiling

What I've said to you all along is simply that its what the text of the Bible clearly states. Because you have a misconception on Biblical interpretation, you 'interpret' my response as 'that's my interpretation'.

When I've said to you, "ok, let's look at the text and you can decide", your response has been essentially that you KNOW the text is open to interpretation so you don't want to.

Of course I know the text is open to interpretation. I already told you why. Because there are other interpretations. Have you wishfully thought them all away ?

Look, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, but when you look at a text and decide how you're going to interpret it, you WILL have a reason for choosing the one you do.

You and the gay pastor have different interpretations. He has one, which is different from yours. You have another, which is different from his. BOTH OF YOU THINK IT'S THE ONLY RIGHT ONE !!!!

Now, I already know why the gay pastor picked his interpretation. Now I want to know why you picked yours, why you decided that that is what the bible clearly states.

So far, your answer comes down to "just because" and "because a lot of other people agree".

And try to remember, unless you're god, or the person who actually wrote the bible, which you're not (sorry to be the one to tell you this), there will never, ever be any way whatsoever for you or anyone else to be sure if their interpretation is the correct one.

Do you not understand this ? (This is not a rethorical question). Then tell me, and I will explain it to you.

Dragoon wrote:
Anonymouse, I can see where you've had difficulty in discussions with Christians before, and probably will in future.

Actually, I have a christian sitting right next to me right now, and he's trying to convince me you're a mental patient. As for other christians on this forum, nope, sorry, they can all read.

Dragoon wrote:
You simply don't understand the Christian position because you're starting from an incorrect assumption about Biblical validity/interpretation.

My position is that you can't simply make your interpretation the only right one just by saying it is. You seem to have convinced yourself that's possible. Again, sorry to have to tell you this, but that's completely insane.

Dragoon wrote:
When you've responded on this, your view seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), because there are different viewpoints expressed by Christians, and each says their view is based upon the Bible, therefor all interpretations are equally valid and the Bible is open to this type of wild speculation.

Quite simply, this is incorrect.

Care to back up that assertion ?

Dragoon wrote:
Merely because some people doubt Global Warming, does not mean that their interpretation is therefor equally valid and that the evidence is open to endless interpretation. There may be areas where knowledge is incomplete, but the core evidence is there.

An ancient religious text isn't the same thing as modern scientific data ! I already told you that ! If you don't understand that, then tell me and I'll explain it to you ! Don't just keep repeating the same nonsense !

Dragoon wrote:
Until you are willing to actually test your theory on Biblical interpretation (since we're looking at GLBT issues that might be an interesting area to start), how can you assert anything?

My theory is simply this : You aren't god. You didn't write the bible. The bible is an ancient religious text and not a collection of modern scientific data.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't agree with that ? Are you seriously telling me that you don't understand the implications of those facts ? Then tell, and I will explain it to you.

Btw, none of these questions are rethorical.

Dragoon wrote:
Gotta run. I'll answer some of the other stuff later. Fun talking to you as always  Eye-wink

Yeah, I'm sure it must be fun to jerk people around.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:No This is a

Dragoon wrote:
No Smiling

This is a person who stopped answering you because you can't seem to form or reply to logic. Here's 3 examples:

Example 1::-------------------------------------

  1. You made some comments in post #95 about 'faith', and when I questioned you on it, you replied in post #105 "You may feel free to consult any dictionary.  Faith, particularly belief in god, is belief without evidence."
  2. So, I went and gave you 4 dictionary definitions (Oxford, Miraim-Webster, Cambridge, FreeDictionary) which showed your definition was wrong (see post #110), in other words, you were using a 'no True Scotsman' fallacy and wording your definition to suite your answer
  3. Your reply in post #116 was " Faith is belief without evidence.  This is not difficult.  I have not committed a no true Scotsman fallacy."

...Ummmm you gave no evidence, totally ignoring the dictionary definitions you'd asked for, and simply restated your incorrect definition. Hmmmmm.

You can't read can you?  And you've quoted me out of context.  I have explained to you exactly why I've not used the no true Scotsman fallacy.  You have yet to even respond to a single point I've made.  These contentions of your are completely bogus.  Once more, I'll spend yet another response correcting you instead of forwarding the conversation.

This is directly from Wikipedia (so you should appreciate the source):

Wikipedia wrote:
No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy where the meaning of a term is ad hoc redefined to make a desired assertion about it true. It is a type of self-sealing argument.

Thomathy wrote:
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.

Thomathy wrote:
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.

Thomathy wrote:
Which part of that is difficult to understand? I've not ad hoc redefined faith to prove an assertion.

The kind of faith that you have in your god is belief without evidence.  This is very simple to understand.  Evidence is a very simple concept to understand.  You don't have any.  What has happened, in fact, is that you believe that you do have evidence for your god and that you've presented a definition that seems to contradict mine.  But I've never changed my definition to prove an assertion.  I have used the same definition the whole time.  That's not a no true Scotsman.  I really don't think you're stupid.  You must be able to see how I've not employed that fallacy.  Now, move on from this, because it's tiresome, and answer my bloody questions.

Dragoon wrote:
Example 2::-------------------------------------

  1. In post #105 you said the Bible is a work of fiction.  "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.
  2. I told you you were in error, and that " Simply put, religious texts are considered nonfiction". I invited you to look it up, since I doubted you'd just take my word for it (and because you'd asked me to earlier, so fair is fair)
  3. You refuse to verify your 'facts' and simply state "I know exactly what the differences between fiction and nonfiction are" (post #123).

You simply ignore the facts, restate your own flawed opinion again. Religious texts are classed as non-Fiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_literary_genres ... ok, it's wiki, but wiki is useful for these broad questions). That's why libraries and book stores have the Bible, Koran, etc in the stacks with other Non-Fiction.

This isn't an example of illogic, by the way.  You've illustrated, if anything, that I'm consistent.  My argument is cogent.

Where I'm from libraries put religious texts in their own special section and so do book stores, so please don't try to argue that the placement of books into categories has anything to do with whether their content is fictional or not, a point which is entirely aside from the questions I've asked you, as I have pointed out and which you have intentionally left out of the quote you voided of context above.

For the sake of disclosure, the entirety of what I wrote follows:

Thomathy wrote:
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?
So, you don't think I know the differences between fiction and nonfiction.  That's all well and good, but it doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with the questions I asked, which are independent of what I think fiction and nonfiction are.  So, will you answer the questions or are you going to dodge yet again?

Dragoon wrote:
Example 3:-------------------------------------

  1. I ask you to at use politeness (post #102) so that we can discuss the issues fairly
  2. Post #105 you ask for examples of where you've 'attacked'
  3. In post #110, I run through a few of your more direct attacks with you.
  4. Your reply is an incredible "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." Ummmm ok...
  5. So post #118 I try again. "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." I was kinda hoping you'd see the parallel between how others may hurt you, and how your  trying to hurt others is the same thing...
  6. You reply "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.... You are an ignorant bigot. You're an ignorant bigot because you've written things like this..." in other words it 'appears to be', which is what I said. Hmmm how is accurately repeating your position a straw man???

Once again, you seem unfazed by actual facts or logic, and simply repeat your statement over again... along with a paraphrase of your statement which you categorized as a straw man!

You did not rephrase my statement and once again you've left out all context to what you've quoted and this time you've intentionally left out an explanation as to why what you wrote is a straw man.  You are very dishonest (are you going to consider that an attack too?  Because you really have been dishonest in your presentation of what I've written.)

Thomathy wrote:
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.
See, I even show you exactly what I mean by 'ignorant bigot'.  I've shown that they are categorically different from calling you an uppity nigger, nigger being an insult that can't otherwise be handled by a mere change in expression and which isn't ever reflective of a person's actual actions (nigger being an insult directed only at black people only because they're black), or calling you a slut asking to be raped, which is a misogynistic remark based in ignorance, or calling you a faggot, another insult that can't otherwise be handled by a mere change in expression and which isn't reflective of a person's actual actions (faggot being an insult directed only at gay people only because they're gay), or calling you a bitch, which would serve no purpose since I don't know if there is a universal definition for the colloquial use as a general insult that you fit.  None of which seems to matter to you, however, since you don't like to be called an ignorant bigot, I'll from now on call you a person who lacks knowledge of what gay people are and is intolerant of people who are different from you.

Next time you quote me, you had better take my quote in context and you had better fully disclose what you're quoting.  It is extremely dishonest to do what you've done and I do not take kindly to having an action like that taken against what I've written.

Dragoon wrote:
I wonder if I should pass a link of your 'logic' on this to the KKK, the Aryan Nations, the Nationl Front, and other hate groups, and tell them that according to you its 'OK' for them to call others whatever they want, as long as they APPEAR to be....
Except that it's categorically different to point someone out as an ignorant bigot (of which all the organizations you've listed are full of, funnily enough) because they've written ignorant and bigoted things from calling someone a nigger only because their skin is black and to dehumanise them with all the context and connotation that word carries.  I don't call you an ignorant bigot to insult you (though you're clearly insulted and that's probably why you don't see the difference between nigger and ignorant bigot), I call you an ignorant bigot because it means something specific regarding your actions and I've shown that again and again that what you've written qualifies what I call you.  But, no more of that.  From now on you are a person who lacks knowledge of what gay people are and is intolerant of people who are different from you, if I need to point it out again.

Quote:
I'm happy to talk with you or anyone else on questions you may have about Christianity, but you seem unable or unwilling to make factual statements or to accept them at this time. When you're able to discuss things... and to do so without all your hurt pouring out as insults... I'd be happy to speak to you again.

The rest is silence. O, o, o, o.

Oh, please.  Cut the crap.  You've arbitrarily decided what you'll accept as polite and what you won't.  You still haven't answered a single question I've asked.  Are you going to?  Please, answer the questions I've asked.

(EDITED to correct quote=name error.)

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
Anony,Like I said earlier. I

Hi Anony,

Like I said earlier. I think our conversation is really at an impasse. Anything further we say is just going to go in circles, because the issue is not Gay pastors right now... its authority and interpretation of the Bible.

Wow. You got a pet Christian? Careful, not all of us are house trained Eye-wink. If your Christian friend thinks I'm loopy, please ask him what it is that makes him a Christian. I'm just curious how he'll answer.

 

anonymouse wrote:

My position is that you can't simply make your interpretation the only right one just by saying it is. You seem to have convinced yourself that's possible. Again, sorry to have to tell you this, but that's completely insane.

If you mean that GLBT individuals should not be pastors, yes I'm afraid I do fully believe its the only way to read the text. I've never said it was "just because" and "because a lot of other people agree" though... my answer has always been that the texts are quite clear and that other interpretations are not strong enough to stand. I've even told you, "Give me a strong, valid case for GLBT pastors and I'd be the first one to say, "YES!""

I say this after weighing the textual interpretations by both sides, prayer on the issue, and testing it in discussion with others. Why does it confuse you that a person can weigh the issues and come to a conclusion?

 

anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Merely because some people doubt Global Warming, does not mean that their interpretation is therefor equally valid and that the evidence is open to endless interpretation. There may be areas where knowledge is incomplete, but the core evidence is there.

 

An ancient religious text isn't the same thing as modern scientific data ! I already told you that ! If you don't understand that, then tell me and I'll explain it to you ! Don't just keep repeating the same nonsense !

The issue isn't type of data or age though... the issue is simply the openess of any series of statements to be interpreted. The nonsense was the silliness you posted about eating shrimp in bed.

 

anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
You simply don't understand the Christian position because you're starting from an incorrect assumption about Biblical validity/interpretation.

 

My position is that you can't simply make your interpretation the only right one just by saying it is. You seem to have convinced yourself that's possible. Again, sorry to have to tell you this, but that's completely insane.

"You can't simply make your interpretation the only right one just by saying it is." Hmmmm then why is that your opinion on the Bible being open to endless interpretation is held up in this way?

 

anonymouse wrote:

 

Dragoon wrote:
When you've responded on this, your view seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong), because there are different viewpoints expressed by Christians, and each says their view is based upon the Bible, therefor all interpretations are equally valid and the Bible is open to this type of wild speculation.

 

Quite simply, this is incorrect.

 

Care to back up that assertion ?

Sure. I've offered several times to take you through my interpretation, and you can decide yourself whether it is valid and correct.

 

Barring that though, I really think we need to let this topic rest. If all we're going to do is run in circles, then that's not really a productive activity for either of us. Jogging, especially around a track, was always my least favorite part of PE.

 

 


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

Dragoon wrote:
Actually I was laughing at the mistake I'd made in my reading. I think the sentence makes very clear how I feel about the issue... so why are you focussing on the 'LOL' instead of on the issue?

You misread an entire text out of sheer wishful thinking, and you think this isn't an issue ?? You read what you want it to say, not what it actually says, and you don't think that's an issue ?

Dragoon wrote:
You follow this with a couple of 'interpretations' on my reply to you on your sexual immorality question.

AnonyM... do you SERIOUSLY think those things you posted ( "don't eat shrimp in bed", " just interpret it literally, and do all the questionable stuff outside the wedding bed&quotEye-wink are valid interpretations of the text????

What you don't seem to realise is that interpreting ancient texts is never an exact science, no matter who's doing it. Like I said in my above post, I will explain the difference to you if you don't understand it, but you have to tell me first.

My shrimp interpretation makes you reach for multiple question marks and bold text, does it ? You seemed less outraged when someone interpreted the bible as justification for institutionalised murder. You have strange priorities.

Dragoon wrote:
You can't be serious that you're basing your idea on multiple possible Biblical interpretations on the ability to say totally invalid things that no intelligent person could consider as applicable... unless they merely wanted an excuse.

I'm basing my idea of multiple possible biblical interpretations and the fact that there are multiple interpretations (something only an idiot would deny), and on the not unimportant fact that you are neither god nor the writer of the bible, and the also not-to-be-underestimated truth that the bible is an ancient religious text, and not a collection of modern scientific data.

All you have boils down to "just because". I asked you if there was anything for more, but so far, nothing... Shall I ask again ? Nah, I don't think I'll bother.

Dragoon wrote:
You ask why I don't accept the pro-Gay pastor arguments I've read... because like your post above, they evade central issues and do not provide solid evidence.

Gay pastors can do the job. There's more than enough proof for that. What you're concerned with is if the bible can be interpreted in such a way that they aren't allowed to do their job. In other words, your "central issues" and "solid evidence" are just fancy synonyms for yet more personal, current interpretations of certain bible verses.

And I think I've explained ad nauseam why that doesn't work. (Don't remember ? Re-read my last post and look for the phraze "if you don't understand, then tell me, and I'll explain it to you&quotEye-wink

Dragoon wrote:
You mentioned earlier that you could understand the false lobbying and disinformation by Tobacco companies in the past, because their reasons were transparent (post #144). You seem very willing to critique the Biblical Christian interpretation in this light, but what about the GLBT side? Why don't you apply the same measure to both sides equally?

Oh, but I do. But I'm not talking to a gay pastor here, am I ?

Dragoon wrote:
Gays obviously desire mosre inclusivity in society and the church, something which they've been denied through most of human history. The pro-Gay pastor arguments are merely part of this overall battle. Why can't you apply the same standards to the side you agree with and see that PERHAPS there's some reason to fudge interpretation there?

You don't get it, do you. I don't agree with ANY biblical arguments. Hello ? I'm an atheist ! I'm on the gay pastor's side because he has reason on his side.

Dragoon wrote:
It would be difficult to say this criteria applies to the normal Biblical interpretation, since that has been there long long before the issue of GLBT pastors came up.

Calling it "normal" is yet another interpretation.

Dragoon wrote:
As to an answer, I've given it to you over and over again. Post #117, Post #139 for example. Posts #135, #103, and #125 are related as well.

You simply haven't been able to understand/accept the answer at this time.

And in each and every one of those posts, I have explained WHY your answer doesn't work ! And in each and every one of those posts, you have ignored that, and simply repeated that you already answered me !

Once again, look for the phraze "if you don't understand this, then tell me !"

Dragoon wrote:
Thanks for trying anonymouse Smiling

I'm sure you'll excuse me for not thanking you for jerking me around.

Dragoon wrote:
I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions.

Your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe that you really don't get that. I'm mean, nobody can be THAT dense.

Dragoon wrote:
Give me a strong, valid case for GLBT pastors and I'd be the first one to say, "YES!"

I already have. Your arguments are nothing but your own current, personal interpretations of an ancient religious text. You keep ignoring this. Not my fault.

Dragoon wrote:
It all comes back to the Bible and God.

You're not the writer of the bible.

You're not god. Nobody is.

You're just you. That's what it all comes back to, and that's what you keep ignoring.

 


 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Hi Anony,

Like I said earlier. I think our conversation is really at an impasse. Anything further we say is just going to go in circles, because the issue is not Gay pastors right now... its authority and interpretation of the Bible.

It's not at an impasse. It's just getting a bit uncomfortable for you. Tough.

The circles we're going in are of your making. You can't seem to get your mind around that fact that you can't justify one interpretation with another. You just keep doing it.

Dragoon wrote:
Wow. You got a pet Christian? Careful, not all of us are house trained Eye-wink. If your Christian friend thinks I'm loopy, please ask him what it is that makes him a Christian. I'm just curious how he'll answer.

Same way you do. Same way they all do. He believes his interpretation is correct and yours is wrong. Any arguments you both come up with to defend your position are just more interpretations.

Dragoon wrote:
If you mean that GLBT individuals should not be pastors, yes I'm afraid I do fully believe its the only way to read the text. I've never said it was "just because" and "because a lot of other people agree" though... my answer has always been that the texts are quite clear and that other interpretations are not strong enough to stand.

But that's just your opinion !! That's all you have ! That's all anyone can have when analysing an ancient religious text. If you say the texts are quite clear to you, but you can't come up with a reason for your certainty that isn't based on more interpretations of the same text, then that's exactly the same as saying "just because" !

Do you really not understand this ?

Dragoon wrote:
I've even told you, "Give me a strong, valid case for GLBT pastors and I'd be the first one to say, "YES!""

Your case against them is built on your personal interpretations, and you keep refusing to give a reason for them ! "The text is quite clear to me", and "other interpretations are not strong enough" are just opinions ! If your personal opinion is your reason for disagreeing with someone, then it's only natural for me to ask what facts you base it on ! And you can't just base your opinion on another opnion and call it evidence ! Why can't you understand that ? Answer me !

Dragoon wrote:
I say this after weighing the textual interpretations by both sides, prayer on the issue, and testing it in discussion with others. Why does it confuse you that a person can weigh the issues and come to a conclusion?

What confuses me is how a person can't tell the difference between an opinion based on facts, and an opinion based on opinions. You have yet to explain that. You're never going to, are you ? You're just wishfull thinking your way through this reply too, right ?

Dragoon wrote:
Sure. I've offered several times to take you through my interpretation, and you can decide yourself whether it is valid and correct.

For pete's sake ! You can't back up an assertion with nothing but an opinion !! Do you really not understand that ? Answer me !

Dragoon wrote:
Barring that though, I really think we need to let this topic rest.

No, you need to answer me ! What, do I need to pay you money or something ? Don't you notice the question marks ? "If you don't understand, then tell me !" Didn't notice that either ?

Dragoon wrote:
If all we're going to do is run in circles, then that's not really a productive activity for either of us. Jogging, especially around a track, was always my least favorite part of PE.

If you want out of the circle, then answer my question, and stop pretending you already have.

And get it through your thick brain : You can't back up an opinion with yet another opinion. If you don't understand that , TELL ME !


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hey Anony,This is going

Hey Anony,

This is going nowhere Eye-wink

I see your side... I just don't agree with you.

I've answered your question numerous times, you just don't agree with it or understand it.

If you want to put a last word in, please go ahead, as I wouldn't want you to feel like I'm trying to silence you.

 

If you'd like to discuss another topic, please post it and I'd be happy to talk it over with you, but the music is fading on this dance.


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

Dragoon wrote:

Hey Anony,

This is going nowhere Eye-wink

I see your side... I just don't agree with you.

I've answered your question numerous times, you just don't agree with it or understand it.

If you want to put a last word in, please go ahead, as I wouldn't want you to feel like I'm trying to silence you.

 

If you'd like to discuss another topic, please post it and I'd be happy to talk it over with you, but the music is fading on this dance.

I've been insisting you answer this question because I've encountered this blind spot many times before with other christians. And at the point where denying their obvious mistake becomes undeniably ridiculous even to themselves, they always decide to run.

I'll give you one more chance. Let's boil down my problem with your reasoning to one single question again.

Do you understand that when you back up an opinion with another opinion, all you have is an opinion, and nothing more ?

Since this entire thread is riddled with examples of you doing just that, I'd think carefully before answering if I were you.

This is a simple question. You have absolutely no excuse for not answering it. And if you don't, then what use is discussing anything else with you ?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Just to remind you what this

Just to remind you what this is about, this little gem deserves to be reposted :

 

 

Dragoon wrote:
I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions.

Your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions.

 

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

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?

 

Homosexuality DOES NOT = adultery. I know gay couples who have been faithful to each other for thirty years or more.

I also love how you keep jumping back and forth from the new to old testaments and back again, despite the fact that Jesus himself, as I said before, never spoke a single word about your favorite scapegoat, the gays.

But I'm sure you won't respond to this either since you're clearly frightened.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Just to remind you what this is about, this little gem deserves to be reposted :

 

 

Dragoon wrote:
I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions.

Your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions.

 

 

Mouse you tried your best, and I applaud you. But really I think it boils down to this: "A lot of other christian homophobes have decided that a homophobic interpretation of the bible is correct, so therefore my homophobic interpretation must be correct, also, and I can pretend that I'm not a homophobe, rather that I'm simple devout." 

He's not going to answer your question honestly, because to do so would mean admitting that he's a complete hypocrite and a bigoted asshole on top of it. Not to mention the admission that he's in complete ignorance of the fundamental tenets of Jesus' teachings: love, accept, forgive.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Hey Anony,

This is going nowhere Eye-wink

I see your side... I just don't agree with you.

I've answered your question numerous times, you just don't agree with it or understand it.

If you want to put a last word in, please go ahead, as I wouldn't want you to feel like I'm trying to silence you.

 

If you'd like to discuss another topic, please post it and I'd be happy to talk it over with you, but the music is fading on this dance.

I've been insisting you answer this question because I've encountered this blind spot many times before with other christians. And at the point where denying their obvious mistake becomes undeniably ridiculous even to themselves, they always decide to run.

I'll give you one more chance. Let's boil down my problem with your reasoning to one single question again.

Do you understand that when you back up an opinion with another opinion, all you have is an opinion, and nothing more ?

Since this entire thread is riddled with examples of you doing just that, I'd think carefully before answering if I were you.

This is a simple question. You have absolutely no excuse for not answering it. And if you don't, then what use is discussing anything else with you ?

 

Ahhhh... so your questions were not really to seek answers, but to direct things towards a dead end where you could claim some type of victory.

I'm rather dissappointed in you Anony. You are choosing to blind yourself so that you can 'win' debates.

 

I say this in part because your critique is not Bible specific. If you actually believed your line of reasoning, then ALL interpretation is merely opinion. No matter how sound any evidence or fact is, no matter how sound any science is, there is always interpretation involved... and your premise labels all interpretation as by nature merely 'opinion'.

Like I said Anony, I believe your reasoning is false.... oops that's an opinion. But wait... so's yours Eye-wink

 

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Hey Anony,

This is going nowhere Eye-wink

I see your side... I just don't agree with you.

I've answered your question numerous times, you just don't agree with it or understand it.

If you want to put a last word in, please go ahead, as I wouldn't want you to feel like I'm trying to silence you.

 

If you'd like to discuss another topic, please post it and I'd be happy to talk it over with you, but the music is fading on this dance.

I've been insisting you answer this question because I've encountered this blind spot many times before with other christians. And at the point where denying their obvious mistake becomes undeniably ridiculous even to themselves, they always decide to run.

I'll give you one more chance. Let's boil down my problem with your reasoning to one single question again.

Do you understand that when you back up an opinion with another opinion, all you have is an opinion, and nothing more ?

Since this entire thread is riddled with examples of you doing just that, I'd think carefully before answering if I were you.

This is a simple question. You have absolutely no excuse for not answering it. And if you don't, then what use is discussing anything else with you ?

 

Ahhhh... so your questions were not really to seek answers, but to direct things towards a dead end where you could claim some type of victory.

I'm rather dissappointed in you Anony. You are choosing to blind yourself so that you can 'win' debates.

 

I say this in part because your critique is not Bible specific. If you actually believed your line of reasoning, then ALL interpretation is merely opinion. No matter how sound any evidence or fact is, no matter how sound any science is, there is always interpretation involved... and your premise labels all interpretation as by nature merely 'opinion'.

Like I said Anony, I believe your reasoning is false.... oops that's an opinion. But wait... so's yours Eye-wink

 

 

 

Face it, everyone sees you for the homophobe you are. You can't hide it behind anything else as an excuse. 

 

You are isolating one group because you want to. Your bigotry is your own. There is no excuse for it, no matter what claim you try to make, or how contemporary you try to make your irrational fear seem.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Ahhhh... so

Dragoon wrote:

Ahhhh... so your questions were not really to seek answers, but to direct things towards a dead end where you could claim some type of victory.

I'm rather dissappointed in you Anony. You are choosing to blind yourself so that you can 'win' debates.

 

I say this in part because your critique is not Bible specific. If you actually believed your line of reasoning, then ALL interpretation is merely opinion. No matter how sound any evidence or fact is, no matter how sound any science is, there is always interpretation involved... and your premise labels all interpretation as by nature merely 'opinion'.

Like I said Anony, I believe your reasoning is false.... oops that's an opinion. But wait... so's yours Eye-wink

Huh ?

You STILL didn't answer the question ???? I ask you a the same bloody question time and time again, and instead of answering you tell me I'm not really seeking answers ????

What the heck is wrong with you ?

And you're AGAIN not seeing the difference between an ancient religious text and modern scientific data ? You're actually trying that again ?

YES ! Of course all interpretations of ancient religious texts are nothing but opinions ! The ancient religious text ITSELF is nothing but an opinion !

For the last time, if you really don't understand that, THEN TELL ME !!!!!!

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Ahhhh... so your questions were not really to seek answers, but to direct things towards a dead end where you could claim some type of victory.

I'm rather dissappointed in you Anony. You are choosing to blind yourself so that you can 'win' debates.

 

I say this in part because your critique is not Bible specific. If you actually believed your line of reasoning, then ALL interpretation is merely opinion. No matter how sound any evidence or fact is, no matter how sound any science is, there is always interpretation involved... and your premise labels all interpretation as by nature merely 'opinion'.

Like I said Anony, I believe your reasoning is false.... oops that's an opinion. But wait... so's yours Eye-wink

Huh ?

You STILL didn't answer the question ???? I ask you a the same bloody question time and time again, and instead of answering you tell me I'm not really seeking answers ????

What the heck is wrong with you ?

And you're AGAIN not seeing the difference between an ancient religious text and modern scientific data ? You're actually trying that again ?

YES ! Of course all interpretations of ancient religious texts are nothing but opinions ! The ancient religious text ITSELF is nothing but an opinion !

For the last time, if you really don't understand that, THEN TELL ME !!!!!!

 

*Yawn*

Go play your troll game somewhre else Anony lol.

You may also want to read up on the philosophical tool you're using. It applies to scientific texts as well as any other. Bad logic and poor morals. Shame on you mate.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Limiting God

Dragoon wrote:
Limiting God or Christianity to a few issues to the exclusion of others is not Biblical, though it is very 'political'.

Your implication confuses me, Dragoon. Why are you posting this here? Are you suggesting that members of this forum have conceived it that christians are republican and republicans are raving christians? What do you mean by saying that you're 'addressing misconceptions'. What misconceptions? and made by whom?

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

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.

Teachings of Christ? What did "Christ" ever say about Gays, Dragoon? The foundation of your argument is dishonest, you should retract it.

 

Dragoon wrote:

The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings.

Ooh I see what you did there, nice switch.

 

Dragoon wrote:

 It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action.

No, Dragoon, the theory of evolution assumes that no extra element (eg God intellect) is required for the process of life evolving, and then tests that assumption against the empirical universe.

The result has been so far so good for the assumptions of evolution, not so good for the 'gods' of popular worship.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:*Yawn*Go play

Dragoon wrote:

*Yawn*

Go play your troll game somewhre else Anony lol.

You may also want to read up on the philosophical tool you're using. It applies to scientific texts as well as any other. Bad logic and poor morals. Shame on you mate.

Yet again, no answer.

Philosophical tool ? I am asking you a question about your personal opinion ! You have flat out refused to give me an answer !

And now you're accusing me of bad morals ????

If you truly don't understand that your personal, current interpretation of an ancient religious text, does not equal factual truth, then TELL ME !

ANSWER THE QUESTION !

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I base it on

Dragoon wrote:
I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions.

Your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions.

 

If you really, truly, honestly don't understand that, then tell me !

 

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hi Eloise,I'll address your

Hi Eloise,

I'll address your questions/comments in sequence. If there's anything I fail to address, clearly, please let me know Eye-wink

 

Eloise wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Limiting God or Christianity to a few issues to the exclusion of others is not Biblical, though it is very 'political'.

Your implication confuses me, Dragoon. Why are you posting this here? Are you suggesting that members of this forum have conceived it that christians are republican and republicans are raving christians? What do you mean by saying that you're 'addressing misconceptions'. What misconceptions? and made by whom?

 

Thanks for the question, as I see I'm guilty about an assumption about the national make-up of this forum. I'm not referring to the forum, so much as general American public opinion (as found in newspaper editorials, blogs, opinion surveys, and online forums).

 

Eloise wrote:
Dragoon wrote:

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.

Teachings of Christ? What did "Christ" ever say about Gays, Dragoon? The foundation of your argument is dishonest, you should retract it.

Two points here:

1) Teachings can be prohibitive/negative or positive. Most people discussing the issue on the pro-gay side tend to address lack of specific prohibition. This is rather problematic because Jesus did not spend huge amounts of time detailing every 'wrong' done by man. There are 'positive' teachings by Christ on what we 'should' do which are clear though, and it is in this light that I mean it.

2) Within Biblical Christian belief, Christ and God are considered One. People may differ on exactly 'how' they are one, but definitely the words/thoughts of Christ are considered synonomous with the words/thoughts of God. Most non-Christians would probably have questions about this assertion, so if you'd like to discuss/question it I would certainly understand. 

 

I hope that clarifies the issue. If you still think it is dishonest, please let me know how. My apologies for not making this explicit in the statement, as I can understand how you could read it as saying something different.

 

Eloise wrote:
Dragoon wrote:

The issue is that if they are openly and proudly GLBT, then their life choice is directly in disobedience to God's teachings.

Ooh I see what you did there, nice switch.

See point #2 above Eye-wink

 

Eloise wrote:
Dragoon wrote:

 It also fails completely to address whether there was 'intelligence'/God behind the action.

No, Dragoon, the theory of evolution assumes that no extra element (eg God intellect) is required for the process of life evolving, and then tests that assumption against the empirical universe.

The result has been so far so good for the assumptions of evolution, not so good for the 'gods' of popular worship.

I'd absolutely agree with your statement that "no extra element (eg God intellect) is required for the process of life evolving". This is very different than saying that the existance of God has been disproven though. Many people I've spoken to have made that assertion based on Darwinian Evolution though.

 

You know... let truth stand on it's own. If God is true, then He does not need 'defending'. If he is no, then it would be foolish to worship or follow 'him'. My whole intent here is not to 'prove' God, but rather to remove some possible misconceptions so that people can weigh facts more clearly.

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I base it on the text of the Bible, along with analysis of their arguments (which are flawed). Quite simply, that takes precedence over my own views and opinions.

Your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions.

 

If you really, truly, honestly don't understand that, then tell me !

 

I've answered you numerous times, you've just been unwilling/unable to understand. Even when I've offered to post texts without any interpretation, you don't want to see them lol. Almost as if you were merely trying to be a troll.... hmmmmmm

I understand fully, as you're more than aware... I just disagree, which you seem to have difficulty accepting.

 

You seem like an otherwise intelligent person. Why do you try to hijack real discussion with such silliness?


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I've answered

Dragoon wrote:

I've answered you numerous times, you've just been unwilling/unable to understand. Even when I've offered to post texts without any interpretation, you don't want to see them lol. Almost as if you were merely trying to be a troll.... hmmmmmm

I understand fully, as you're more than aware... I just disagree, which you seem to have difficulty accepting.

So you DO understand that your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions ? Actually, this is the first time you answered that question.

FINALLY !

Then will you please now answer my original, so far unanswered question : Since you now admitted that all you have are your own views and opinions, will you please please please tell me your reasons for choosing those opinions ? Since there are no facts to support your opinion, why do you have it anyway ?

And just to stop you from running around in circles again : You do realise that there's a difference between facts and opinions, right ? Because if you don't, then you really should have mentioned that in the OP, and saved us all a lot of time.


Dragoon wrote:
You seem like an otherwise intelligent person. Why do you try to hijack real discussion with such silliness?

I'm not sure why you qualify your question-dodging as a discussion. Do I really need to remind you of all the other questions you left unanswered ?

As for silliness, well, I'm not the one who takes his interpretation of an ancient religious text as an undeniable fact. That would be you, wouldn't it ?


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

I've answered you numerous times, you've just been unwilling/unable to understand. Even when I've offered to post texts without any interpretation, you don't want to see them lol. Almost as if you were merely trying to be a troll.... hmmmmmm

I understand fully, as you're more than aware... I just disagree, which you seem to have difficulty accepting.

So you DO understand that your opinions about bible texts and your analysis of their arguments ARE your own views and opinions ? Actually, this is the first time you answered that question.

FINALLY !

Then will you please now answer my original, so far unanswered question : Since you now admitted that all you have are your own views and opinions, will you please please please tell me your reasons for choosing those opinions ? Since there are no facts to support your opinion, why do you have it anyway ?

And just to stop you from running around in circles again : You do realise that there's a difference between facts and opinions, right ? Because if you don't, then you really should have mentioned that in the OP, and saved us all a lot of time.


 

Dragoon wrote:
You seem like an otherwise intelligent person. Why do you try to hijack real discussion with such silliness?

I'm not sure why you qualify your question-dodging as a discussion. Do I really need to remind you of all the other questions you left unanswered ?

As for silliness, well, I'm not the one who takes his interpretation of an ancient religious text as an undeniable fact. That would be you, wouldn't it ?

You ignore the context Grasshopper,

I've always understood your argument. I've always understood that from the concept of both 'interpretation' and 'opinion' you are using, that ANY statement of Biblical basis is merely an opinion and personal interpretation. I just disagree with your concept of 'interpretation' Eye-wink

Seriously... what planet are you from where the person you are talking to must agree to how you see the world?

 

I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it. You are just either unwilling or unable (at this time) to accept an answer that doesn't agree with your preconception of how and what 'interpretation' are. Until you're able to see another viewpoint, this conversation is rather pointless.

You're also limiting this application to the Bible, when it also applies to ANY interpretation done by man... including scientific and historical writing. If you're actually seriously going to hold to your position, then saying 'you're incorrectly applying this to scientific fact' doesn't work, because your argument is not about whether a 'fact' is scientific, but rather about how man creates meaning from any evidence or fact.

Stop trying to 'win' a debate point, and start dealing with the issues please.


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

Dragoon wrote:
I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it.
So, how does that make your viewpoint the correct one; what method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?  How does that make the viewpoint of gay clergy incorrect; what method are you using to judge that their viewpoint is incorrect?  It is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to clearly stating, so, please, explain what your viewpoint that you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is.

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:You ignore the

Dragoon wrote:

You ignore the context Grasshopper,

I've always understood your argument. I've always understood that from the concept of both 'interpretation' and 'opinion' you are using, that ANY statement of Biblical basis is merely an opinion and personal interpretation. I just disagree with your concept of 'interpretation' Eye-wink

Well duh ! That's why I asked you if you understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. You didn't answer the question, Kemo Sabe.

Dragoon wrote:
Seriously... what planet are you from where the person you are talking to must agree to how you see the world?

I'm from the planet where facts and opinions are two different things. That's Science Fiction to you, I guess.

Dragoon wrote:
I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it.

You've already admitted that your viewpoint of the bible is nothing but an opinion.

Dragoon wrote:
You are just either unwilling or unable (at this time) to accept an answer that doesn't agree with your preconception of how and what 'interpretation' are. Until you're able to see another viewpoint, this conversation is rather pointless.

It's pointless as long as you keep avoiding my questions, that's for darn sure.

So let's try again : Do you consider your "interpretation" of the bible, and you can define it however you please, to be a fact or an opinion ?

(Naturally, before you answer this one, I'd need to know if you know the difference between the two)

Dragoon wrote:
You're also limiting this application to the Bible, when it also applies to ANY interpretation done by man... including scientific and historical writing. If you're actually seriously going to hold to your position, then saying 'you're incorrectly applying this to scientific fact' doesn't work, because your argument is not about whether a 'fact' is scientific, but rather about how man creates meaning from any evidence or fact.

Er, yeah...Sorry, but it remains to be proven if your "application" makes any kind of sense to begin with. That's why I asked you if you accept that there's a difference between fact and opinion.

Dragoon wrote:
Stop trying to 'win' a debate point, and start dealing with the issues please.

I'm not trying to "win" anything. I'm asking you a question. The scariest question in christendom, it seems.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
You're also limiting this application to the Bible, when it also applies to ANY interpretation done by man... including scientific and historical writing. If you're actually seriously going to hold to your position, then saying 'you're incorrectly applying this to scientific fact' doesn't work, because your argument is not about whether a 'fact' is scientific, but rather about how man creates meaning from any evidence or fact.

Er, yeah...Sorry, but it remains to be proven if your "application" makes any kind of sense to begin with. That's why I asked you if you accept that there's a difference between fact and opinion.

 

Where does it say anything about my application? I'm talking about yours lol.

I find it strange that you keep asking if I understand what you're talking about, when it seems that you aren't even sure what you're talking about. As I said earlier, I'm happy to discuss things where there's actually a purpose to it, but this conversation with you is pointless at this time.

If you want to keep hammering your head on the same question because you're unwilling/able to understand it, I'm afraid that's your choice.


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

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it.
So, how does that make your viewpoint the correct one; what method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?  How does that make the viewpoint of gay clergy incorrect; what method are you using to judge that their viewpoint is incorrect?  It is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to clearly stating, so, please, explain what your viewpoint that you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is.

Thank you for asking so politely Thomathy.

 

I'm in a bit of a time crunch with work at the moment, so please excuse me for not answering immediately. As soon as I have some time, I'll do my best to address your question. 

There are also many different pro-gay arguments that are being used though. Is there one that you'd like me to address in particular? A link to a description you would consider 'authoritative' would be great, though I could just address common arguments. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Okay, try and pay attention

Okay, try and pay attention to the question marks this time.

Dragoon wrote:

 Where does it say anything about my application? I'm talking about yours lol.

Your called it that, mate. Not me.

Dragoon wrote:
I find it strange that you keep asking if I understand what you're talking about, when it seems that you aren't even sure what you're talking about.

I'm also starting to wonder why I keep asking, since you yet again managed to not answer me.

Your reasons for this are becoming increasingly insane. First you said I didn't really want an answer, and now you're saying "it seems" I'm not even sure what I'm talking about .

If you consider yourself to be above questioning, then just say so, and I'll gladly leave you alone.

Again, for the third time, do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion ?

 

Dragoon wrote:
As I said earlier, I'm happy to discuss things where there's actually a purpose to it, but this conversation with you is pointless at this time.

And as I said in reply to this the first time, if you keep not answering me, then of course this is pointless.

So let's make this even easier for you than before.

Are you, at any point in time, planning to answer the question I have now repeated three times ? Yes or no ?

If the answer is no, then I might as well give up on my original, unanswered question too.

Dragoon wrote:
If you want to keep hammering your head on the same question because you're unwilling/able to understand it, I'm afraid that's your choice.

You didn't answer the question. You expect that fact to just go away because you want it to ?

What I want is to understand your motivations, which is why I'm asking you questions.

You don't want to answer them. Saying that you do, in the same post where you don't answer the question, is just silly.

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Okay, try and pay attention to the question marks this time.

Dragoon wrote:

 Where does it say anything about my application? I'm talking about yours lol.

Your called it that, mate. Not me. 

Here's the original quote;

Dragoon wrote:
You're also limiting this application to the Bible.

You're mistaken.

 

I've answered you multiple times, but you seem to have difficulty accepting viewpoints that differ from your own.

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Here's the original quote;

Dragoon wrote:
You're also limiting this application to the Bible.

You're mistaken.

 

I said, "you called it that", and you respond with a quote that has you calling it an application, and finish by saying "you're mistaken".

That's just bizarre.

Do we have to add the word "you", to the long list of words you apparantly don't understand the meaning of ?

 

You seem rather desperate to bury a simple question under irrelevant babbling. Why not just answer it ? What are you so scared of ?

 

Dragoon wrote:
I've answered you multiple times,

 

I'm not sure why you think you can get away with such an obvious lie.

This is the fourth time I'm going to ask you this question : Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion ?

Seriously, what's the use of continuing to claim you already answered the question ? I mean, what's the plan here ? Are you eventually going to edit your answer into one of your last three/four posts ?

Fine, just tell me when you're done and in which post you put it.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:
but you seem to have difficulty accepting viewpoints that differ from your own.

I'm having a difficult time being lied to. As for your viewpoint concering gay clergy, I heard that the first time. And since you finally admitted that it's nothing but an opinion, I think it would help if you made clear that you understood the difference between such and opinion and a fact.

Which is why I asked the question.

As for why you didn't answer it yet, I really wouldn't know.

 


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

Anonymouse wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Here's the original quote;

Dragoon wrote:
You're also limiting this application to the Bible.

You're mistaken.

 

I said, "you called it that", and you respond with a quote that has you calling it an application, and finish by saying "you're mistaken".

That's just bizarre.

Do we have to add the word "you", to the long list of words you apparantly don't understand the meaning of ?

 

You seem rather desperate to bury a simple question under irrelevant babbling. Why not just answer it ? What are you so scared of ?

 

Dragoon wrote:
I've answered you multiple times,

 

I'm not sure why you think you can get away with such an obvious lie.

This is the fourth time I'm going to ask you this question : Do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion ?

Seriously, what's the use of continuing to claim you already answered the question ? I mean, what's the plan here ? Are you eventually going to edit your answer into one of your last three/four posts ?

Fine, just tell me when you're done and in which post you put it.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:
but you seem to have difficulty accepting viewpoints that differ from your own.

I'm having a difficult time being lied to. As for your viewpoint concering gay clergy, I heard that the first time. And since you finally admitted that it's nothing but an opinion, I think it would help if you made clear that you understood the difference between such and opinion and a fact.

Which is why I asked the question.

As for why you didn't answer it yet, I really wouldn't know.

 

Hello Anonytroll lol.

 

I suggest you take this forum thread to a local philosophy prof, or even just a decent high school social studies teacher. They can go through and unpack for you how you are confusing concepts.

Examples:

-confusing presupposition in interpretation to mean that all interpretation is equally valid

-misunderstanding fact and opinion in speaking of people's viewpoints

-total misunderstanding of the term interpretation as not being applicable to scientific texts, etc

-not understanding validity in arguments/interpretation

-confusing uncommented text from a document with interpretation

-problems understanding the difference between worldview differences and 'logic'

 

I don't think you really care though, otherwise you'd never have made this many silly errors in the first place, but I'm willing to be proven wrong Eye-wink

I'm not here to do your thinking for you though.

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it.
So, how does that make your viewpoint the correct one; what method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?  How does that make the viewpoint of gay clergy incorrect; what method are you using to judge that their viewpoint is incorrect?  It is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to clearly stating, so, please, explain what your viewpoint that you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is.

Thank you for asking so politely Thomathy.

 

I'm in a bit of a time crunch with work at the moment, so please excuse me for not answering immediately. As soon as I have some time, I'll do my best to address your question. 

There are also many different pro-gay arguments that are being used though. Is there one that you'd like me to address in particular? A link to a description you would consider 'authoritative' would be great, though I could just address common arguments. 

You are welcomed, however, none of the questions ask you to address arguments used by clergy who think they should be clergy.  The questions are all about you, regarding your beliefs about the correctness of your viewpoint, the method you use to arrive at your viewpoint being correct and the reasons for which your viewpoint is correct where those in support of gay clergy are not and the methodology by which you arrive at that conclusion.  Please, just answer the questions.

1) How does your viewpoint, being based on what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, make your viewpoint the correct one?

2)What method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?

3)How does your viewpoint, being based on what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, make the viewpoint of those in support of gay clergy incorrect?

4)What method are you using to judge that those in support of gay clergy are incorrect in their viewpoint?

5)As it is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, please explain what about your viewpoint it is that makes you correct in what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating?

Thank you, in advance, for answering the questions.  I hope having restated them in this form will make it easier to answer them.

BigUniverse wrote,

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


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

Thomathy wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
I've always said that my viewpoint is based on what I see the text of the Bible clearly stating. That's it.
So, how does that make your viewpoint the correct one; what method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?  How does that make the viewpoint of gay clergy incorrect; what method are you using to judge that their viewpoint is incorrect?  It is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to clearly stating, so, please, explain what your viewpoint that you see the text of the Bible clearly stating is.

Waiting on a response to the last message before I post... hopefully it will shorten my writing Eye-wink

Wait... see it now. I'm on it!


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
1) How does your viewpoint,

1) How does your viewpoint, being based on what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, make your viewpoint the correct one?

Whether it is 'correct' is something each person must decide. It is obviously 'correct' for me, in that based upon every resource at my disposal, it is the only one that is plausible.

2)What method are you using to judge that you have the correct viewpoint?

A) Internal testing within scripture- we're looking at something that must fit into the Bible's overall and specific textual statements

B) Testing from applicable historic sources- checking context, meanings, etc

C) Testing through prayer- hey, we're talking about Christianity here. If God is real, prayer is the most important thing I can do

D) Testing through checking my views against what others (both pro and con) say... talking to you is part of it. I'd be entirely fine if someone could show me how scripture honestly supports gay clergy.

3)How does your viewpoint, being based on what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, make the viewpoint of those in support of gay clergy incorrect?

If the two things are mutually exclusive, then they can't both be true. See next question for more.

4)What method are you using to judge that those in support of gay clergy are incorrect in their viewpoint?

The same as I'd apply to my own views. In essence, the pro-side ignores and side-steps a lot of territory. Their main criteria is largely not biblical accuracy, but rather to reflect/serve the people who are around their churches, and to bring inclusivity to GLBT individuals. Those things in themselves are good... but it is not necessary to distort biblical teachings to do so. When it comes down to it, you simply need to see the evidence.

5)As it is obvious that what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating is not what others see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating, please explain what about your viewpoint it is that makes you correct in what you see the text of the Bible to be clearly stating?

If you look at the groups which are for and against GL pastors, you'll generally see one great dividing line. That line sometimes looks like homophobia, because a lot of the people (and most of the loud ones) on the ani-gay pastor side ARE homophobic. If we take them out of the picture though, the main difference is  view of the Bible.

I'm not aware of any person who takes the Bible as the word of God, and who treats it as something that should be seriously followed, who is on the pro-GL pastor side. I'm not saying this to 'prove' my point, but rather to say that there really is no way I'm aware of to make the Bible say that GL pastorship is ok. Its not so much what the Bible says about homosexuals... its about what the Bible says about holiness, following God, and the criteria for persons who want to lead a group of believers.

GLBT should certainly be welcomed and loved by Christians, and this needs to said loud and clear because there is homophobia out there. But if GLBT individuals wish to be pastors, the criteria needs to be the same as for any Christian.

Thank you, in advance, for answering the questions.  I hope having restated them in this form will make it easier to answer them.

No problem. It was never your question which was the issue. As you must know from your own life, if someone can't even ask you a question with respect, then they're not really going to treat anything you say seriously.

 

Let me turn it around for you as well. What makes you think your viewpoint is right? Feel free to ask yourself the same questions you asked me. Are you a Christian?


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

Dragoon wrote:
Are you a Christian?
No.  Has that not been obvious?  I'm atheist ...

Dragoon wrote:
Let me turn it around for you as well. What makes you think your viewpoint is right?
You wouldn't be asking this question if you even knew my viewpoint and, since I thought I had made it fairly clear, I'll simply restate it:

From my perspective the Bible is a work of fiction and, as you have largely admitted, it is your own interpretation of the Bible which leads you to believe that your viewpoint is correct.  It is the interpretation of the Bible by those who support gay clergy which leads them to see their interpretation as correct.  It is obvious that you merely follow a different version of Christianity and a different reading of the Bible (seeing as how you admit that you believe it to be the word of God) and it is obvious that there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any particular version of Christianity (of which there are literally thousands).  My viewpoint on the issue is that since there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any particular version of Christianity, then it doesn't matter how anyone decides to practice Christianity or apply the Bible to that practice.  It is also my position that, in light of the very obvious fact that there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any particular version of Christianity that you have only your interpretation of the Bible based on your own motivations to explain your viewpoint on gay clergy, as you freely admit. 

The whole point of my questioning and of the questions I have asked before and of the questions others have asked you has been to determine what your motivations behind your chosen reading of the Bible are.  It is now clear that your motivations consist of your belief that the Bible is the word of God, your belief that you have at your disposal a way to interpret the Bible which you believe is accurate or more accurate than others' and that others' interpretation of the Bible is inaccurate and, finally, revelation through prayer, as admitted by you.  You believe that there is a dichotomous situation here wherein either you or those in support of gay clergy must be correct in their interpretation.  This is a false dichotomy; it can readily be demonstrated that there are many, many interpretations of the Bible that lead many Christians to practice differently from you and it can readily be demonstrated that there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any of those particular interpretations that then lead to the many different version of Christianity practiced.

Dragoon wrote:
I'm not aware of any person who takes the Bible as the word of God, and who treats it as something that should be seriously followed, who is on the pro-GL pastor side.
This is an argument from ignorance and a lie.  The Anglican church interprets the Bible in such a way that there can be gay clergy.  Many other versions of Christianity do the same and you are fully aware of this.  These people take the Bible and their Christianity seriously, and they say that they do.  Are you saying that these people do not take the Bible as the word of God and that they do not treat it as something that should be seriously followed?  How do you know that?  By what authority do you contradict their beliefs which are, like yours, their own?

Dragoon wrote:
]I'm not saying this to 'prove' my point, but rather to say that there really is no way I'm aware of to make the Bible say that GL pastorship is ok.
But you are trying to prove you point by writing that and it doesn't illustrate that there is no way you're aware of to interpret the Bible as saying that gay clergy are okay.  That's wholly dishonest.  Look at what you wrote!  You claim that you are 'not aware of any person who takes the Bible as the word of God and who treats it as something that should be seriously followed', but that is an outright lie.  You are fully aware of the positions of the Anglican church and of all those other versions of Christianity, and you must be in order to have contention with the issue of gay clergy.  But further to that, how can you know all of those millions and millions of people in order the say that they do not take the Bible as seriously as you except to base that only on your belief that the correct interpretation of the Bible is the one you have and that only true Christians follow your interpretation?

Dragoon wrote:
]Its not so much what the Bible says about homosexuals... its about what the Bible says about holiness, following God, and the criteria for persons who want to lead a group of believers.
No, this is about your beliefs about what the Bible says.  You may claim to be correct in your beliefs all you like, but you have no way to objectively show it and neither does anyone else regarding their interpretation of the Bible.  Some read it literally, some read it semi-literally, some read it as metaphor and some read it as fables, etc. ad nauseam.  You appear to read the Bible semi-literally and without any justification.  You claim that it's not necessary for Christians to believe in a literal six day creation myth as written in Genesis, but you also claim that people in support of gays as clergy don't believe the Bible is the word of God and that they don't take it as something that should be seriously followed.  What justification do you have?  Those appear to be arbitrary when put next to each other.  How do you conclude that the creation myth as written in Genesis doesn't need to be believed literally and that those parts of the Bible that speak about 'holiness, following God, and the criteria for persons who want to lead a group of believers' should be taken literally?  What you are is worse than an ignorant bigot.  You're a liar and a hypocrite and you've continuously claimed that you have the correct interpretation of the Bible without ever illustrating how your interpretation is correct.  What you have is only your beliefs, just as that is what anyone who reads the Bible religiously has.

I'm quite done with this conversation now.  I doubt that you're actually going to attempt to justify you reasoning regarding Genesis and regarding what the Bible says about 'holiness, following God, and the criteria for person who want to leads a group of believers' and I doubt that you can do it independently of the Bible; I doubt that you're going to respond to criticism of your interpretation; I doubt that you'll explain how it is that you know that people who support gays as clergy do not take the Bible as the word of God and don't take it as something that should be seriously followed; I doubt that you'll admit that you lied; I doubt that you'll respond to any pertinent points in my post, including those key points summarized here; I doubt your intellectual honesty.

BigUniverse wrote,

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


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

Thomathy wrote:

I'm quite done with this conversation now.  I doubt that you're actually going to attempt to justify you reasoning regarding Genesis and regarding what the Bible says about 'holiness, following God, and the criteria for person who want to leads a group of believers' and I doubt that you can do it independently of the Bible; I doubt that you're going to respond to criticism of your interpretation; I doubt that you'll explain how it is that you know that people who support gays as clergy do not take the Bible as the word of God and don't take it as something that should be seriously followed; I doubt that you'll admit that you lied; I doubt that you'll respond to any pertinent points in my post, including those key points summarized here; I doubt your intellectual honesty.

Seriously? PWNED.


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

Dragoon wrote:
Hello Anonytroll lol.

Oh dear. I've been talking to a 4 year old.

 

Dragoon wrote:
I suggest you take this forum thread to a local philosophy prof, or even just a decent high school social studies teacher. They can go through and unpack for you how you are confusing concepts.

 

Well, my brother's a philosphy major and a christian. He read the last two pages of this and figures you're a poe. Wouldn't be the first time I fell for one of those.

 

Dragoon wrote:
Examples:

-confusing presupposition in interpretation to mean that all interpretation is equally valid

-misunderstanding fact and opinion in speaking of people's viewpoints

-total misunderstanding of the term interpretation as not being applicable to scientific texts, etc

-not understanding validity in arguments/interpretation

-confusing uncommented text from a document with interpretation

-problems understanding the difference between worldview differences and 'logic'

 

Gosh, a list of unfounded accusations.

 

Dragoon wrote:
I don't think you really care though, otherwise you'd never have made this many silly errors in the first place, but I'm willing to be proven wrong Eye-wink

I'm not here to do your thinking for you though.

 

If you would just do enough thinking to answer the question, or to even read what's written.

Apparently, that's too much to ask.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh jeez, I don't want to

Oh jeez, I don't want to read this entire thread.

Welcome to the forum, Dragoon. Is the Bible infallible?

Edit:

Thomathy wrote:
Some read it literally, some read it semi-literally, some read it as metaphor and some read it as fables, etc. ad nauseam.  You appear to read the Bible semi-literally and without any justification.  You claim that it's not necessary for Christians to believe in a literal six day creation myth as written in Genesis, but you also claim that people in support of gays as clergy don't believe the Bible is the word of God and that they don't take it as something that should be seriously followed.

Ah, okay. There's my answer.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Thanks for the

Dragoon wrote:

Thanks for the question, as I see I'm guilty about an assumption about the national make-up of this forum. I'm not referring to the forum, so much as general American public opinion (as found in newspaper editorials, blogs, opinion surveys, and online forums).

Well there is a wide arm of radical political movement in the US which identifies itself as both right of centre and Christian, so unsurprisingly it gets attention in both political and theological debate. Do you affiliate with any particular part of christian politicking, yourself, Dragoon?

 

Dragoon wrote:

Two points here:

1) Teachings can be prohibitive/negative or positive. Most people discussing the issue on the pro-gay side tend to address lack of specific prohibition. This is rather problematic because Jesus did not spend huge amounts of time detailing every 'wrong' done by man. There are 'positive' teachings by Christ on what we 'should' do which are clear though, and it is in this light that I mean it.

What a cop out. You could make an argument for picking your nose to be immoral on those grounds, doesn't make it sensible. Gay is against christs teachings cause it's not in the list of sanctioned behaviours? How long is this list, Dragoon, what else did Christ leave out? Moreover, what did he put in that you and many other christians aren't doing, like relinquishing all possessions, turning the other cheek.. seriously, you have just made what is probably the single worst argument I have ever read.

Dragoon wrote:

2) Within Biblical Christian belief, Christ and God are considered One. People may differ on exactly 'how' they are one, but definitely the words/thoughts of Christ are considered synonomous with the words/thoughts of God. Most non-Christians would probably have questions about this assertion, so if you'd like to discuss/question it I would certainly understand. 

 

I hope that clarifies the issue. If you still think it is dishonest, please let me know how. My apologies for not making this explicit in the statement, as I can understand how you could read it as saying something different.

I would question why you made the distinction in your writing, but I already know why. You distinguished "Christs" words from "Gods" words because the "gods words" you were referring to are Old testament laws spoken "for god" by people who were around long before your "christ" teaching religious rites that "christ" mostly repudiated anyway.

You have to keep the distinction because later, when someone points out that christ didn't necessarily agree with these earlier "words of god", you will need to acknowledge it as a distinction in your 'first covenant vs new covenant' apologetics. In those apologetics there are exceptions to what you can take in the old testament as synonymous with having been spoken by Jesus, and your church gets to dictate what they are to suit it's own prejudices and sensibilities.

 

Dragoon wrote:

You know... let truth stand on it's own. If God is true, then He does not need 'defending'. If he is no, then it would be foolish to worship or follow 'him'. My whole intent here is not to 'prove' God, but rather to remove some possible misconceptions so that people can weigh facts more clearly.

That's a noble intent, Dragoon but, I promise you, in my experience apologetics never clear up anything, they convolute everything by their very nature. Hopefully you'll see that for yourself after a few rounds of talking on this forum with bright, honest people like Thomathy.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Oh jeez,

butterbattle wrote:

Oh jeez, I don't want to read this entire thread.

Welcome to the forum, Dragoon. Is the Bible infallible?

Edit:

Thomathy wrote:
Some read it literally, some read it semi-literally, some read it as metaphor and some read it as fables, etc. ad nauseam.  You appear to read the Bible semi-literally and without any justification.  You claim that it's not necessary for Christians to believe in a literal six day creation myth as written in Genesis, but you also claim that people in support of gays as clergy don't believe the Bible is the word of God and that they don't take it as something that should be seriously followed.

Ah, okay. There's my answer.

 

Helo BB,

You ask me a question, and get your answer from someone else's opinion? Ummmm ok....


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Ok... so let's do a quick

Ok... so let's do a quick summation.

I started this thread just to clarify some things that I see as misconceptions about the Christian viewpoint.

 

You're saying my view is wrong because I'm biased in my interpretation and not looking at evidence fairly.

You say this because, as non-Christians you 'know' the the Bible can be made to say anything. Thus you don't even care about actual text, because that's just interpretation... but one would think that basic

But, you are certain that the people that say GL Pastors are OK are correct! Because even though you say the Bible is open to any interpretation, you agree with this interpretation, so it IS right!!!! ... as opposed to my view, which is ummmm biased.

In fact, you buttress this view by having 'christian' friends (who would seem to agree with your view that the Bible is largely meaningless... but that must be right, because you agree with that view....).

In fact, 'the Anglicans' said its ok, so it must be the 'Christian' viewpoint (according to Tomathy). I guess the fact that the world Anglican fellowship is in danger of splitting because of this, that congregations are chosing to lose land, money and long-standing association over this... those things don't affect your selected 'fact'. As opposed to my view which ummmm ignores evidence...

Anony has been trying to teach me about the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion' in interpretation... he KNOWS I'm biased because my viewpoint doesn't agree with his. His brother agreed with him, and you can't argue with THAT because his brother is a Philosophy Major. There is no bias there obviously. That's a fact! I'm withholding my judgement until I hear what his mom says though...

I find it interesting that so many avowed Atheists seem to 'know' which Christian viewpoint is 'correct' merely because it agrees with their own ideas. Wouldn't you think that this would be a sign that perhaps that viewpoint is actually not the 'Christian' one?

 

 

Look. Feel free to hold to your own thoughts. If there was no textual reason preventing GLBT pastors, then there would be no conflict with Christianity over it, but there obviously is. Trying to make Christian Biblical interpretation go away because you disagree with its implications, is like sticking your heads in the sand. Saying that 'your' Christians are correct merely because you agree with them is hardly compelling.

There is strong Biblical reason to disallow GL pastoral leadership. If you want to discuss it, that's fine. Trying to make it go away because you don't like it is hardly a 'rational response'.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:I started this

Dragoon wrote:
I started this thread just to clarify some things that I see as misconceptions about the Christian viewpoint.

So far you've confirmed some and added a few. My personal favorite so far is you wishful reading problem.

Dragoon wrote:
You're saying my view is wrong because I'm biased in my interpretation and not looking at evidence fairly.

You say this because, as non-Christians you 'know' the the Bible can be made to say anything. Thus you don't even care about actual text, because that's just interpretation... but one would think that basic

"Basic" what ? Train of thought got derailed ? I'll wait for the edit.

Dragoon wrote:
But, you are certain that the people that say GL Pastors are OK are correct! Because even though you say the Bible is open to any interpretation, you agree with this interpretation, so it IS right!!!! ... as opposed to my view, which is ummmm biased.

Not sure who you're talking to here, but I already dealt with this. I'm an atheist. Bible based arguments, no matter who uses them, don't impress me much. Gay pastors are ok because there's no rational reason to claim that they aren't. I already told you this. You didn't take a blind bit of notice.

 

Dragoon wrote:
Anony has been trying to teach me about the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion' in interpretation...

No, I've been asking you if you know the difference between a fact and an opinion, that's it. You have yet to answer me.

Oh, and btw, answering a question I only asked you in post 174 with "I already answered you numerous times", is just absurd.

 

Dragoon wrote:
he KNOWS I'm biased because my viewpoint doesn't agree with his.

Wrong again, I know you're a bigot because all that supports your viewpoint is your personal, current interpretation of an ancient religious text, and nothing else.

 

Dragoon wrote:
His brother agreed with him, and you can't argue with THAT because his brother is a Philosophy Major. There is no bias there obviously. That's a fact!

Read what I wrote. Please try to read what I wrote. Pretty please with sugar on top ?

My brother thinks you're a poe, so he doesn't agree with me. I mean, you can read, can't you ? 

 

Dragoon wrote:
I'm withholding my judgement until I hear what his mom says though...

You want to know what my mom thinks ? You sure are a weird one. Okay, I'll ask her...

She says one more page of this and you'll run like K-mart mascara.

 

Dragoon wrote:
I find it interesting that so many avowed Atheists seem to 'know' which Christian viewpoint is 'correct' merely because it agrees with their own ideas. Wouldn't you think that this would be a sign that perhaps that viewpoint is actually not the 'Christian' one?

Look. Feel free to hold to your own thoughts. If there was no textual reason preventing GLBT pastors, then there would be no conflict with Christianity over it, but there obviously is. Trying to make Christian Biblical interpretation go away because you disagree with its implications, is like sticking your heads in the sand. Saying that 'your' Christians are correct merely because you agree with them is hardly compelling.

There is strong Biblical reason to disallow GL pastoral leadership. If you want to discuss it, that's fine. Trying to make it go away because you don't like it is hardly a 'rational response'.

This "strong biblical reason" of yours is nothing more or less than your own opinion, which is going on exclusively between your ears and nowhere else. I'm not "trying to make it go away". You're welcome to it.

Now, how about answering the question ?

And if you really don't like mine, how about answering Tomathy's questions and arguments ? Don't like those either ?

 


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

Dragoon wrote:

Ok... so let's do a quick summation.

I started this thread just to clarify some things that I see as misconceptions about the Christian viewpoint.

 

You're saying my view is wrong because I'm biased in my interpretation and not looking at evidence fairly.

You say this because, as non-Christians you 'know' the the Bible can be made to say anything. Thus you don't even care about actual text, because that's just interpretation... but one would think that basic

 

Do you know what a denomination is?

 

If your bible were not able to be interpreted in different ways...there wouldn't be 33000 different versions of christianity in less than 2000 years.

 

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

But, you are certain that the people that say GL Pastors are OK are correct! Because even though you say the Bible is open to any interpretation, you agree with this interpretation, so it IS right!!!! ... as opposed to my view, which is ummmm biased. big

I didn't see anyone say that. I've seen people say that other christians say that. I've also seen people call you a bigot, which with your viewpoints on what someone else does with their on personal life that in no way effects you, you are.

Dragoon wrote:

In fact, you buttress this view by having 'christian' friends (who would seem to agree with your view that the Bible is largely meaningless... but that must be right, because you agree with that view....).

doesn't everyone have christian friends? I think a lot of us were christians before we were atheists too. I don't recall seeing anyone stating their friendships as a support of their argument though. Would you care to cite the post?

Dragoon wrote:

In fact, 'the Anglicans' said its ok, so it must be the 'Christian' viewpoint (according to Tomathy). I guess the fact that the world Anglican fellowship is in danger of splitting because of this, that congregations are chosing to lose land, money and long-standing association over this... those things don't affect your selected 'fact'. As opposed to my view which ummmm ignores evidence...

Thomathy didn't say it was any more christian than your interpretation. He was pointing out that you are making a claim that you know True Christianity (tm) rather than the fake christianity apparently used by others, and then you are calling your own personal view the "correct christian view".

Dragoon wrote:

Anony has been trying to teach me about the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion' in interpretation... he KNOWS I'm biased because my viewpoint doesn't agree with his. His brother agreed with him, and you can't argue with THAT because his brother is a Philosophy Major. There is no bias there obviously. That's a fact! I'm withholding my judgement until I hear what his mom says though...

I find it interesting that so many avowed Atheists seem to 'know' which Christian viewpoint is 'correct' merely because it agrees with their own ideas. Wouldn't you think that this would be a sign that perhaps that viewpoint is actually not the 'Christian' one?

 

Did any atheist here make this claim you seem so intent to foist onto them? Can you cite the posts? I've seen arguments made, but the only one I've seen say they know what is the correct christian viewpoint, is you. Despite all evidence which shows you just are a homophobic bigot attempting to use a collection of insane desert scribblings as an excuse for their irrational fears.

 

Dragoon wrote:

Look. Feel free to hold to your own thoughts. If there was no textual reason preventing GLBT pastors, then there would be no conflict with Christianity over it, but there obviously is. Trying to make Christian Biblical interpretation go away because you disagree with its implications, is like sticking your heads in the sand. Saying that 'your' Christians are correct merely because you agree with them is hardly compelling.

There is strong Biblical reason to disallow GL pastoral leadership. If you want to discuss it, that's fine. Trying to make it go away because you don't like it is hardly a 'rational response'.

 

You are throwing a lot of opinions out here and attributing them to people that I know didn't make them. Because I can read. 

 

I am glad you admit you are just spewing your own personal interpretation though. It doesn't help your bigotry unfortunately, only you can work on your own problem. Maybe with time and growing up, you will reconcile your arbitrary dislike of homosexuality with the real world.

 

Religion is a pretty lame excuse in reality.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: doesn't

ClockCat wrote:
 doesn't everyone have christian friends? I think a lot of us were christians before we were atheists too. I don't recall seeing anyone stating their friendships as a support of their argument though. Would you care to cite the post?

Actually, someone did do that. He did: comments #109 and #118.

Evidently "having gay friends"/"going to a gay bar"/etc. PROVES that you can't be a homophobe, just like "having black friends" PROVES you can't hold to racist sentiments...even though it's been shown many black people hold them, also, in spite of themselves.

The other gem in 118 is how--oh WOE is him--straight-privileged bigots are oppressed just like every other minority group!


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:There is

Dragoon wrote:

There is strong Biblical reason to disallow GL pastoral leadership. If you want to discuss it, that's fine.

I thought we were discussing it. ?? :S

Which part of saying:

a. that not all christians agree with that assertion,

or

b. that the basis of it (as you have given) is dishonest,

or

c. that argument for it is demonstrably arbitrary and can be reproduced for virtually anything you wish to declare immoral,

is distinct from discussing it?

Dragoon wrote:

Trying to make it go away because you don't like it is hardly a 'rational response'.

You may be simply projecting your own feelings here Dragoon. Stiffen your upper lip and try again to convince us, if you have the courage of your convictions. Smiling

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Yet, whether you call it

Yet, whether you call it bigotry or whatever else, there still is Christian opposition to GL Pastors based on the Biblical text.

I'm fine with people reading the threads to find what is 'true'.

 

Anony... it may help if you define when you use obscure terms. The only 'poe' I know is Edgar Allen. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy... and there are places where people don't speak or think the same as you do too.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Clockcat, hits the nail on

Clockcat, hits the nail on the head brilliantly.  Thank you, ClockCat.  Also, Lolcat pic wins.

Anonymouse, he has reading comprehension problems, the same kind that people like him seem to develop at this point in their threads.

Anonymouse wrote:
Not sure who you're talking to here, but I already dealt with this. I'm an atheist. Bible based arguments, no matter who uses them, don't impress me much. Gay pastors are ok because there's no rational reason to claim that they aren't. I already told you this. You didn't take a blind bit of notice.
Exactly what I've said.

Thomathy wrote:
My viewpoint on the issue is that since there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any particular version of Christianity, then it doesn't matter how anyone decides to practice Christianity or apply the Bible to that practice.  It is also my position that, in light of the very obvious fact that there is no objective way to verify the 'correctness' of any particular version of Christianity that you have only your interpretation of the Bible based on your own motivations to explain your viewpoint on gay clergy, as you freely admit.
And, implicit in that (though it's pretty damned obvious), is the fact that those in support of gays as clergy only base their interpretation on their motivations as well.  What Dragoon doesn't seem to appreciate is that no one here thinks that either him or any other Christian is correct, they merely have different interpretations that all line up, conveniently, with their world views and which they claim is more correct.  He also fails to appreciate that that is not what we care about, but rather that we care about exposing his reasons for interpreting the Bible as he does, which he has finally done (without acknowledging it).

Dragoon wrote:
You ask me a question, and get your answer from someone else's opinion? Ummmm ok....
Look, this might be difficult to understand, but what I wrote wasn't an opinion, it's a collection of facts, quotes and observations about you.

Let's look at what I wrote piece by piece.

Thomathy wrote:
Some read it literally, some read it semi-literally, some read it as metaphor and some read it as fables, etc. ad nauseam.
Do some people read the bible literally?  Yes.  Do some read it semi-literally?  Yes.  Do some read it as metaphor and still others as fables?  Why, yes to both.  All of those things are true, independent of my having stated them.  They're all facts.

Thomathy wrote:
You appear to read the Bible semi-literally and without any justification.
This one is a bit trickier.  I conclude that you read the Bible semi-literally because you state things like,

Dragoon wrote:
A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
and things like,

Dragoon wrote:
Its not so much what the Bible says about homosexuals... its about what the Bible says about holiness, following God, and the criteria for persons who want to lead a group of believers.
Which are, respectively, a non-literal interpretation and a literal interpretation predicated on what the Bible says about homosexuals (which you also seem to take literally).  See, you appear to read the Bible semi-literally.  Perhaps you don't?  Do you take the whole thing literally?  Then how do you justify what you wrote about Genesis?  Do you take it as metaphor?  Then how do you decide to take what the Bible says about 'holiness, following God, and the criteria for persons who want to lead a group of believers' literally?  And how, in that case, would you justify your interpretations?  If I'm wrong, let me know and if you care to, answer those questions or, better yet, just tell me how you read the Bible.

As for the part about justification, well, you haven't given any justification as to why you interpret Genesis as not being literal or a requirement to be a 'follower of Jesus Christ' or why you interpret parts of the Bible that deal with homosexuality and preaching like you do.  So, these are not opinions, but observations.

Thomathy wrote:
You claim that it's not necessary for Christians to believe in a literal six day creation myth as written in Genesis, but you also claim that people in support of gays as clergy don't believe the Bible is the word of God and that they don't take it as something that should be seriously followed.
These are easier.  In the OP, you're first post, the post that begins the topic, you wrote,

Dragoon wrote:
A person does not have to believe in 'literal 6 day creation' to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
That's pretty clearly not an opinion of mine, since you wrote it!

And later on, in post #186, you wrote,

Dragoon wrote:
I'm not aware of any person who takes the Bible as the word of God, and who treats it as something that should be seriously followed, who is on the pro-GL pastor side.
And, since you wrote that, it's certainly not an opinion of mine.  What they are are actually opinions of yours, if you can appreciate the irony.  I've quoted what you wrote.

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
Eloise wrote:Dragoon

Eloise wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

There is strong Biblical reason to disallow GL pastoral leadership. If you want to discuss it, that's fine.

I thought we were discussing it. ?? :S

Which part of saying:

a. that not all christians agree with that assertion,

or

b. that the basis of it (as you have given) is dishonest,

or

c. that argument for it is demonstrably arbitrary and can be reproduced for virtually anything you wish to declare immoral,

is distinct from discussing it?

Dragoon wrote:

Trying to make it go away because you don't like it is hardly a 'rational response'.

You may be simply projecting your own feelings here Dragoon. Stiffen your upper lip and try again to convince us, if you have the courage of your convictions. Smiling

 

What exactly does "a. that not all christians agree with that assertion" have to do with whether something is valid or not? I think you have rational discussion confused with a popularity contest.

 

Where exactly are you getting the idea that I'm trying to convince anyone of my views? I'm merely trying to clarify what 'Biblical' Christian beliefs are on certain questions... whether you choose to agree or not is moot. This does seem to confuse a lot of people here though lol.

 

...and what exactly is dishonest about saying that a Christian view of Christian leadership should be based upon a Biblical basis?

 

 

Please note that comments such as "You could make an argument for picking your nose to be immoral on those grounds, doesn't make it sensible" are hardly part of 'rational discussion'. I could easily weigh in in that light with you, but other than trying to vilify people, it serves no purpose. 

If you want to actually discuss a real issue, great. If you want to discuss nose picking, then I'll be happy to leave you to your nostrils.