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.


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

Dragoon wrote:

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

Yet, whether you choose not to accept your own bigotry, there is still christian support for exactly what you are decrying. You are choosing to be a bigot to gays and lesbians. You have options and you choose to be a douchebag. That can't be hard to comprehend, right?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


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

Dragoon wrote:
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.

A Poe, Dragoon, if you had done a google search, is a person who pretends to be a fanatic of something (particularly of a religious belief) but is in fact not.  It is based on the informal law, Poe's Law, which states that, "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, to this particular person you appear to be so much a religious fundamentalist that you may well be a parody because there is no discernible distinction between such religious fundamentalism and the parody thereof.

I don't think you're a Poe, I think you're a genuinely bigoted Christian.

Dragoon wrote:
Yet, whether you call it bigotry or whatever else, there still is Christian opposition to GL Pastors based on the Biblical text.
Yeah, and as you fail to acknowledge there's Christian support for them and they're just as justified in their belief as you.

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."


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

I'll disagree with Thomathy here. Dragoon has to be trolling. There isn't any way someone can be this dense.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
Hello Thomathy, I started

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.


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

Dragoon wrote:
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.
LOL, indeed, Dragoon, it is a joke.  You're not trying to clarify what "Biblical' Christians''(sic) beliefs are at all.

You have yet to justify this:

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

Where's your justification?  What do you mean by 'Biblical'?  Biblical literalist?  What makes your take on Christianity more 'Biblical' than any other Christian sect?  You can end this charade whenever you like by being honest, Dragoon.

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
Dragoon wrote:Hello

Dragoon wrote:

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.

But be careful, Thom, or he might decide you're a big old meanie poo-head who says things he doesn't like and just ignore you, like he did with me after page three.


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

Dragoon wrote:

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.

So you're ignoring me because you don't think I've been polite?  How arbitrary of you.  This isn't a game for me, Dragoon.  You're the one playing the games.  You have completely ignored everything I've written, while I've taken the time to reply to you in full.  I can't even find where it is that I've been impolite to you, unless questioning you and calling you out on what you write is impolite!  You're incredible!


 

BigUniverse wrote,

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


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

smartypants wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.

But be careful, Thom, or he might decide you're a big old meanie poo-head who says things he doesn't like and just ignore you, like he did with me after page three.

He's done it before and he just did it again, as arbitrarily too.  This person came here, spewed nonsensical shit in the form of this thread and is ignoring us for taking him to task with what he's written and what he continues to write?

Did he think we were going to ask him anything other than what his justification was for believing that gays shouldn't be in clergy?

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:Yet, whether

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

So there are two groups of christians bickering about something. How is this an argument for anything ?

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

We read the threads so we know what people write. We would be obliged if you would return the favor, instead of just making stuff up. Learn to read. Seriously, it will save time.

Dragoon wrote:
Anony... it may help if you define when you use obscure terms. The only 'poe' I know is Edgar Allen.

My bro suspects you might be an atheist in disguise, trying to make christians look bad. That's his response to 95% of the christians who turn up here.

Btw, I only mentioned other christians because you accused me (in post 155) of "having had difficulty in discussions with christians before". I don't need their opinions to notice your arguments aren't rational. If you had read my posts, you would know this.

Dragoon wrote:
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.

Now you're gonna hide behind Shakespeare as well ? You leave poor Bill alone !

If you have anything, besides your personal, current interpretation of an ancient religious text to support your opinion, then let's hear it !

Or you could just answer my question.

 


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

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.

But be careful, Thom, or he might decide you're a big old meanie poo-head who says things he doesn't like and just ignore you, like he did with me after page three.

He's done it before and he just did it again, as arbitrarily too.  This person came here, spewed nonsensical shit in the form of this thread and is ignoring us for taking him to task with what he's written and what he continues to write?

Did he think we were going to ask him anything other than what his justification was for believing that gays shouldn't be in clergy?

Evidently he thought our response would go something like "oh, yeah, you're right, the bible does say that. No gay clergy then!"


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

smartypants wrote:

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

There's more fun stuff in that post. Like this :

(If you have an irony meter around, don't stand too close)

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


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

Anonymouse wrote:

smartypants wrote:

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

There's more fun stuff in that post. Like this :

(If you have an irony meter around, don't stand too close)

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

LOL! Thank you SO much, Mouse, my Ironometer just exploded.

 

 

 

Now could you please just answer the question?


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

Dragoon wrote:

Hello Thomathy,

 

I started replying to you because you wrote a valid question in a polite manner. In doing so, there was always the risk that you were doing it merely as an opening to launch into other random attacks as you did earlier. I'm sad that this was indeed the case. Enjoy your game, but playing games like this does not move understanding or dialogue forward.

You may feel hurt by the Christian perspective, but in your behaviour how are you any better than those you condemn?

 

I'll always be happy to give you another chance. That's part of what the God means when he talks of 'love'.

 

You tried the same trick with me, mate. What makes you think it's gonna work with him ?

You want to move dialogue forward ? Then read his posts and respond to his arguments. Yes, it really is that simple.


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

Dragoon wrote:

What exactly does "a. that not all christians agree with that assertion" have to do with whether something is valid or not?

I didn't say that it did have anything to do with whether your assertion is valid, I only asked you how you found fit to describe it as "not discussing" your assertion at all.

Dragoon wrote:

I think you have rational discussion confused with a popularity contest.

Nonsense, Dragoon, and will you please cease dancing around the subject and address it. You are claiming the authority of a christian to speak on the biblical accuracy of a point of view, you say your christianity carries weight in this discussion, then accept that you have extended the same to the anglicans who disagree with you.

The point and heart of the matter is your claim that reading or having read the bible will remedy all doubt on this issue is false. Atheists and controversial Anglicans all read the bible too, and they don't conclude, as you assert that they must, that homosexuality is condemnable according to christ nor that it is uniquely so (among alleged sins) such that it should preclude the person from seeking a position of church leadership.

 

Dragoon wrote:

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...

So let me clarify for you that to say you have the authority on what "biblical" christian beliefs are is and will ever be only a bald assertion. As Thomathy has repeatedly pointed out in what I have read of this thread, you cannot verify your claim, the book is too ambiguous, of itself, to support anyone making that claim.

 

Dragoon wrote:

whether you choose to agree or not is moot. This does seem to confuse a lot of people here though lol.

It seems to me that you are the one advancing the idea that we can simply 'agree' with the claims of a certain sect of christians to make them valid but a logical agreement is only reached when all the steps to the conclusion are all demonstrated to be valid.

Whether you like that the logical steps, you try to take, to your conclusion can be shown to be invalid is not material in rational discussion. You appear to be confused about that.

 

Dragoon wrote:

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

What is dishonest is attributing to Christ only what it suits the church to attribute in support of its prejudices and material ambitions and leaving out the rest. 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

What exactly does "a. that not all christians agree with that assertion" have to do with whether something is valid or not?

I didn't say that it did have anything to do with whether your assertion is valid, I only asked you how you found fit to describe it as "not discussing" your assertion at all.

 

Fair enough.

My starting point for these posts is simply to clarify the Christian position. Is this the 'only' position held by people professing Christianity? Certainly not. I would say however that if one looks at the text of the Bible, then this is really the only tenable one.

 

If people choose to disagree with that assertion, then that's entirely their prerogative.

My comment would be though, that if a person is going to honestly discuss the validity of the position, then they need to look at the text. Saying that ' not all christians agree with that assertion', does not address the validity of anything at all.

 

 

Eloise wrote:
Dragoon wrote:

I think you have rational discussion confused with a popularity contest.

Nonsense, Dragoon, and will you please cease dancing around the subject and address it. You are claiming the authority of a christian to speak on the biblical accuracy of a point of view, you say your christianity carries weight in this discussion, then accept that you have extended the same to the anglicans who disagree with you.

The point and heart of the matter is your claim that reading or having read the bible will remedy all doubt on this issue is false. Atheists and controversial Anglicans all read the bible too, and they don't conclude, as you assert that they must, that homosexuality is condemnable according to christ nor that it is uniquely so (among alleged sins) such that it should preclude the person from seeking a position of church leadership.

 

 

Merely because 'a Christian' holds a point of view does not make their viewpoint 'Christian'.

The popularity contest is directed towards your own comments on 'bright, honest people' in contrast to, 'I would question why you made the distinction in your writing, but I already know why.' Is it nonsense to point you towards your own bias based upon preconceptions? Merely because you have spoken to other people in the past, does not mean that you 'already know' my motives or reasoning. If you want to discuss an issue, then it would be my pleasure.

If you'd like to slander and defame those you disagree with or hold prejudicial views towards, then absolutely I will call you on it. Looking at a viewpoint based upon who you 'like' merely builds the walls of hatred. I'd say the same regardless of who or what position you are slandering.

"The point and heart of the matter is your claim that reading or having read the bible will remedy all doubt on this issue is false." Since you haven't necessarily read the texts I'm referring to, or considered the specific issues I'm referring to, then any assertion you're making that a view is 'false' is without proof. The assumption seems to be that the traditional Biblical interpretation ignores or misreads texts related to homosexuality. Why do you apply that standard to the view you oppose, and not consider it in those you agree with?

Quite simply, there are valid and less valid interpretations of any text. Simply saying 'some' people hold to my view does not make it 'correct'. It does mean that that view probably needs to be considered carefully, as tarring 'enemies' as stupid reflects our own prejudice and not the intelligence of our opponents.

Eloise wrote:
Dragoon wrote:

 

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...

So let me clarify for you that to say you have the authority on what "biblical" christian beliefs are is and will ever be only a bald assertion. As Thomathy has repeatedly pointed out in what I have read of this thread, you cannot verify your claim, the book is too ambiguous, of itself, to support anyone making that claim.

 

Dragoon wrote:

whether you choose to agree or not is moot. This does seem to confuse a lot of people here though lol.

It seems to me that you are the one advancing the idea that we can simply 'agree' with the claims of a certain sect of christians to make them valid but a logical agreement is only reached when all the steps to the conclusion are all demonstrated to be valid.

 

Whether you like that the logical steps, you try to take, to your conclusion can be shown to be invalid is not material in rational discussion. You appear to be confused about that.

At no point have I said that 'I' have the authority on biblical views. I have repeatedly said that the Bible text has that authority, and so any discussion of what is 'Biblical' needs to actually LOOK at the Bible text. Talking ABOUT something is not a substitute for actually READING it. 

I suggest you read the forum threads over again, as you are mistaken in your assumptions on what I've said. I have repeatedly said that if people disagree on my assertion of what the Biblical view is, then they can look at the textual evidence and decide for themselves. These are the logical steps to looking at an argument... to actually look at it and consider it. How can you say that a claim cannot be verified, if you haven't actually LOOKED at it?

Your (and Thomathy's?) assertion that the Bible is 'too ambitious' to understand seems strange. Once again, where is real evidence of this? You claim something without actually even TRYING to consider the evidence? How can you say that the pro-gay pastoral position is in any sense 'Christian' then? What you're essentially saying is that Christianity itself must be without basis (because your view is that ANYTHING, including gay pastors can be justified by it)... and you truly think that this is the position that a Christian would hold???

Strange you should mention confusion...

 

It may also help if instead of reading what other's are misrepresenting or misunderstanding me as saying, please actually read what I have said.

 

Eloise wrote:

 

Dragoon wrote:

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

What is dishonest is attributing to Christ only what it suits the church to attribute in support of its prejudices and material ambitions and leaving out the rest. 

 

 

 

Absolutely. So who is doing that? Why do you assume the side that agrees with your own views is 'good and honest', while not applying the same standard to the opposing view?

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Can some one tell me

 

Why gays can't be ministers or hold positions in the church? Is the reason because it says in the bible that men can't lie down with men because god hates that? Or is it because they are actually in some way morally flawed? Dragoon, could you explain to me the various delineations of sexual dysfunction as it relates to morality? Do they operate together on a sliding scale - the gayer, the nastier? And at what point does man-attraction start to impact on our finer qualities? Sometimes I watch myself wanking in the mirror and when I was 15 the school captain of my boarding school kissed me. Does god hate me?

 

 

 

 

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


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

Dragoon wrote:

My starting point for these posts is simply to clarify the Christian position. Is this the 'only' position held by people professing Christianity? Certainly not. I would say however that if one looks at the text of the Bible, then this is really the only tenable one.

Dragoon, the tradition bible compilation is several hundred pages long. If you want to reflect on it in detail and debate whether it fails or succeeds in presenting an identifiably coherent message I suggest you take yourself to this forum and read some of the arguments presented there.

Otherwise, note this: your statement "if one looks at the text of the bible then it is really the only tenable one." is no less general and thus no more essentially valid than my saying "if you'll read the damn book through and through you'll find it is so ambiguous and self contradictory on matters of morality that just about any position can be made to look tenable using it"

We are both generalising about a book we both claim to have read, so get down off your ridiculous horse and stop making yourself out to be such a hypocrite.

 

Dragoon wrote:

 Saying that ' not all christians agree with that assertion', does not address the validity of anything at all.

 

Likewise saying "if you looked at the text you would agree with me" does not address the validity anything at all. Why don't you start citing the text if you think it so hangdarn important, make your case with it and make it clearly.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

The popularity contest is directed towards your own comments on 'bright, honest people' in contrast to, 'I would question why you made the distinction in your writing, but I already know why.'

Really???

Well you might have made that more apparent by not adjoining the sentence to a paragraph about christians disagreeing with each other.

 

Dragoon wrote:

Is it nonsense to point you towards your own bias based upon preconceptions?

It's a stretch, at best, to call ad hom on those distantly and barely related phrases. The truth is- I compliment Thomathy because I believe the compliment to be true, and I find any whiff of apologetics beneath my contempt so I treat that accordingly.

You're crying foul on everybody Dragoon, and I would respect that just fine since you have been called an ignorant bigot for your views, but for the fact that you are only doing it to avoid addressing the arguments that are being put to you and that's just annoying.  You shouldn't be surprised when it's responded to with impatience.

 

Dragoon wrote:

"The point and heart of the matter is your claim that reading or having read the bible will remedy all doubt on this issue is false." Since you haven't necessarily read the texts I'm referring to, or considered the specific issues I'm referring to, then any assertion you're making that a view is 'false' is without proof.

No, Dragoon, I have cited evidence for my assertion in the fact that there are divisions among biblical scholars on this issue. Whether I have read the bible before, and I have, for the record, is immaterial. If you want to make it material and demand proof then I have every right to demand the same of you in return - prove to me that you have read the bible before making any assertions on the validity of my biblical views.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

The assumption seems to be that the traditional Biblical interpretation ignores or misreads texts related to homosexuality. Why do you apply that standard to the view you oppose, and not consider it in those you agree with?

If you think that then you haven't paid attention to a word that I have said here at all. Read again.


Dragoon wrote:

At no point have I said that 'I' have the authority on biblical views.

It seems to be your main premise, though, right? I mean, you're here to 'clear up misconceptions of the biblical view' then you must be implying that you have some authority on what the biblical view is.

If you get that authority on what is correctly biblical by the method that you mentioned before ( in post #186) which is basically a christian scholastic ritual, then anyone and everyone who undertakes the same ritual can claim the same degree of authority to speak on the biblical view. That would include those christian scholars who advocate in favour of G/L clergy. 

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

I have repeatedly said that the Bible text has that authority, and so any discussion of what is 'Biblical' needs to actually LOOK at the Bible text. Talking ABOUT something is not a substitute for actually READING it. 

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record. The same goes for you then. Stop making assertions about what is and isn't biblically sound without referring directly to the text. Give us you entire exegesis if you must, to demonstrate directly that yours is the biblical view, but don't pull double standards on me just because I'm not letting you preach terms to me.

 

Dragoon wrote:

I suggest you read the forum threads over again, as you are mistaken in your assumptions on what I've said. I have repeatedly said that if people disagree on my assertion of what the Biblical view is, then they can look at the textual evidence and decide for themselves.

What is wrong with looking at the textual evidence and voicing objections to you in response?  You see, this quote demonstrates that your purpose here is to preach, not to discuss.

Dragoon wrote:

These are the logical steps to looking at an argument... to actually look at it and consider it. How can you say that a claim cannot be verified, if you haven't actually LOOKED at it?

That's a nice little straw man you've built there Dragoon but that's all it is. I told you exactly how I can say the claim cannot be verified but you seem to have missed it so here it is again. The bible is ambiguous on morality. It switches from ritual barbarism to selfless tolerance on the head of a pin and it does not clear up the discrepancy between them, certainly not in any such way as that a person can say they know which of the ritual barbarisms is still good to do or believe "in gods eyes" and it's absolute nonsense to say that you do.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

 

Your (and Thomathy's?) assertion that the Bible is 'too ambitious' to understand seems strange.

Yes, well that would seem strange, seeing as though the word I intended was ambiguous, not ambitious.

 

Dragoon wrote:

How can you say that the pro-gay pastoral position is in any sense 'Christian' then?

I can say that because I don't insist on the same criteria for affirming that a person is christian that you do.

For me, if they learn and practice their religion at/with a christian institute and claim to be following Jesus, then who am I to doubt that they are indeed christian?

Dragoon wrote:

What you're essentially saying is that Christianity itself must be without basis

Indeed, I believe it is without basis. You have my number right there.

Dragoon wrote:

(because your view is that ANYTHING, including gay pastors can be justified by it)...

Correct. As I have said repeatedly the bible is a brick of a book and it is filled with ambiguity and contradiction. If you're in the game of telling people what to believe you can just write a bible study guide that leads the reader to your conclusion. It's done all the time and you can do it with any book that is complex enough.

Dragoon wrote:

and you truly think that this is the position that a Christian would hold???

Not necessarily. But as I said, it's done all the time, the human mind is inspired by literature to bring it to life, if the book is sufficiently complex and interesting a person can manifest that inspired thought in virtually any way possible. So I'm not saying that religious people deliberately set out to deceive but rather that inspirations about the bible aren't as extraordinary or as important, as they might seem to christians, one can see worlds in a grain of sand, heaven in a wild flower, infinity in the palm of your hand, eternity in an hour - so to speak.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Dragoon wrote:

Since you haven't necessarily read the texts I'm referring to, or considered the specific issues I'm referring to, then any assertion you're making that a view is 'false' is without proof. 

This is one of the more ridiculous things you've said. The bible only mentions the subject about five times--and far less if you want to talk about historical, narrative context and the problems of translation--as compared, I'd like to repeat, with the hundreds of times it condemns adultery, btw, which you don't seem to have the slightest problem with, likely because straight committed people cheating on each other doesn't set off your pathetic homophobic bigot alarm. I can promise you I have read every single verse you're using to justify yourself here.

If you're really confident enough in your holier-than-thou very special interpretation of biblical texts, you should have no problem going through them one by one, since five verses really won't take all that long.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:Helo BB,You

Dragoon wrote:
Helo BB,

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

Well, okay. I suppose I'd still like to hear what you have to say. You should know your beliefs better than anyone else, after all.

So, is the Bible infallible? 

 

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


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

butterbattle wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
Helo BB,

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

Well, okay. I suppose I'd still like to hear what you have to say. You should know your beliefs better than anyone else, after all.

So, is the Bible infallible? 

 

No.

I believe it is God's word, breathed through men. When read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is not a science textbook though, nor is it history (in the way we understand it today). It is a book about God's relationship with mankind.

The Holy Spirit works in fallible man though, and man does not become infallible when he/she becomes Christian. This is why the Bible tells us to test everything, and to be in fellowship with one another, so that we do not easily fall into error.

 

I'm a bit tired, so if anything I wrote wasn't clear, please let me know.

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
To Eloise,eloise

To Eloise,

eloise wrote:

 

Dragoon wrote:

 

I have repeatedly said that the Bible text has that authority, and so any discussion of what is 'Biblical' needs to actually LOOK at the Bible text. Talking ABOUT something is not a substitute for actually READING it. 

 

 

 

At risk of sounding like a broken record. The same goes for you then. Stop making assertions about what is and isn't biblically sound without referring directly to the text. Give us you entire exegesis if you must, to demonstrate directly that yours is the biblical view, but don't pull double standards on me just because I'm not letting you preach terms to me.

 

 

Dragoon wrote:

 

 

I suggest you read the forum threads over again, as you are mistaken in your assumptions on what I've said. I have repeatedly said that if people disagree on my assertion of what the Biblical view is, then they can look at the textual evidence and decide for themselves.

 

 

What is wrong with looking at the textual evidence and voicing objections to you in response?  You see, this quote demonstrates that your purpose here is to preach, not to discuss.

I'm fine with posting the textual basis for my views. It's quite a bit of work to put it all together though, since I'm not simply copying someone else's views. If you are serious about considering it, I would be happy to however.

 

"Stop making assertions about what is and isn't biblically sound without referring directly to the text." I suggest you scroll up and see the furer every time I simply suggest this lol.

 

What exactly is your definition of 'preaching' anyway... be careful that you don't canvas yourself into your own definition.

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This is so subjective it's just....

Dragoon wrote:

No.

I believe it is God's word, breathed through men. When read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is not a science textbook though, nor is it history (in the way we understand it today). It is a book about God's relationship with mankind.

The Holy Spirit works in fallible man though, and man does not become infallible when he/she becomes Christian. This is why the Bible tells us to test everything, and to be in fellowship with one another, so that we do not easily fall into error.

 

I don't know. Feel free to deify your conscience all you like, Dragoon. My brain is not permitted to veer all over the road like yours is. At least when you spell it out the way you have my position and the buttresses that support it become clearer in my mind. Pretty much everything you say here sounds to me like a wild delusion in which you are a willing participant. If this is the core of your faith and the core of theist thought there's no point any of us wasting our time talking to each other. It's got nothing to do with good or evil. You guys are simply running a different operating system.

 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Dragoon wrote:No.I believe

Dragoon wrote:
No.

I believe it is God's word, breathed through men. When read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is not a science textbook though, nor is it history (in the way we understand it today). It is a book about God's relationship with mankind.

The Holy Spirit works in fallible man though, and man does not become infallible when he/she becomes Christian. This is why the Bible tells us to test everything, and to be in fellowship with one another, so that we do not easily fall into error. 

I'm a bit tired, so if anything I wrote wasn't clear, please let me know.

Okay, thanks.

I think at least two other posters were already using this argument, but I'll discuss it anyways.  

So, to clarify, there are parts of the Bible that could be incorrect because they are contaminated by the men who wrote them?  

If yes, how do you determine which parts are true and which parts are false? 

 

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


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

Dragoon wrote:

No.

I believe it is God's word, breathed through men. When read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is not a science textbook though, nor is it history (in the way we understand it today). It is a book about God's relationship with mankind.

The Holy Spirit works in fallible man though, and man does not become infallible when he/she becomes Christian. This is why the Bible tells us to test everything, and to be in fellowship with one another, so that we do not easily fall into error.

 

I don't know. Feel free to deify your conscience all you like, Dragoon. My brain is not permitted to veer all over the road like yours is. At least when you spell it out the way you have my position and the buttresses that support it become clearer in my mind. Pretty much everything you say here sounds to me like a wild delusion in which you are a willing participant. If this is the core of your faith and the core of theist thought there's no point any of us wasting our time talking to each other. It's got nothing to do with good or evil. You guys are simply running a different operating system.

 

I'd say you're absolutely correct AE. But merely because we are using different operating systems doesn't mean we can't talk. The opposite actually. We need to understand the other person's operating system so that problems do not occur, and so that we do not vilify the other side. There are bright, intelligent people on both sides. Our 'paradigms' are just different.

Some people refer to them as paradigm shifts... worldview changes if you will. Your comment on conscence for instance; for me it isn't a question of my desires or will, but in seeking to conform my will and desires to God's.... not because I must, but because He's proven himself to me as trustworthy and good.

 

Is it wild delusion? I came from an Atheist background, grew up around sex, drugs, rock'n'roll (later punk and Goth) and intellectual rigour. I would have agreed with you 100% that Christianity was mindless delusion, and that it should be countered with sound argument (and a lot of sarcasm). Problem was, I began to see that there may be something 'real' behind the delusion. I am now a willing participant because I believe there absolutely is a delusion... but on which side?

 

On a side note, which operating system is best? Sheer cost and numbers Windows, elegant Macs, or practical Linux?

 


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

butterbattle wrote:

Dragoon wrote:
No.

I believe it is God's word, breathed through men. When read under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. It is not a science textbook though, nor is it history (in the way we understand it today). It is a book about God's relationship with mankind.

The Holy Spirit works in fallible man though, and man does not become infallible when he/she becomes Christian. This is why the Bible tells us to test everything, and to be in fellowship with one another, so that we do not easily fall into error. 

I'm a bit tired, so if anything I wrote wasn't clear, please let me know.

Okay, thanks.

I think at least two other posters were already using this argument, but I'll discuss it anyways.  

So, to clarify, there are parts of the Bible that could be incorrect because they are contaminated by the men who wrote them?  

If yes, how do you determine which parts are true and which parts are false? 

 

I think 'contamination' is the wrong word. It is not man 'messing up' God's message. It is God giving a message to people who he knows are imperfect. If God is truly who Chistians believe Him (male merely for convenience... God is spirit, not male or female), then nothing can 'mess up' his message.

The means of God communicating is not a text book with all the answers in it, but rather a guide book and a guide (the Holy Spirit), so that man and God can walk together in an ongoing relationship. Christ is merely the means of re-establishing a relationship where one partner ran off, but the other waited patiently for their return. I don't 'know' my wife the day we get married, nor do I know everything about her on the day we pass away. I do however strive to know and love her more and more each day.

 

 

Testing the Bible; personlly I follow these rough steps, though not rigidly in this order;

1) Determination of what the Bible 'says' comes first through God. Notice how often Jesus tells a parable to his closest followers, but they need him to clarify the meaning because their minds and hearts were elsewere. Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit will fulfill that role when he (Jesus) is no longer physiclly here.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you in all truth. (John 16:12-13)

2) It comes secondly from sound reading. In any passage, we need to check the overall passage for context, audience, etc... avoid taking things out of context, etc.

3) Compare with similar texts on the same or related topics. One passage alone is easy to msread, but does reading support the totality of what scripture says... even the parts which you may find challenging or confusing? If it doesn't make sense, then do not 'force' it to fit into preconceptions, but continue reading and meditating, especially on the difficult sections. If the Bible is what it claims, then although the message comes from different pens, it has the same 'voice'

4) Test it against your own wishes/desires. If it fulflls your desires, then you'd best read it again more carefully, because self-interest and bias are easy traps to fall into.

5) Check your reading against other people who are mature. Be open to their criticism, and be cautious of their praise.

6) Test against contrary views as well, and weigh the evidence for both sides 

7) constantly test against reality, both how we 'see' things, and whether our viewpoints are skewed

 

Hope that clarifies. As AE hinted at, this may merely help solidify your views, but nothing wrong with that. You don't need to agree with me, but I would hope that any views are based upon what I (or Christians in general) 'really' believe.


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

 

We should be able to talk. Bear in mind I'm saying "it sounds to me like a mindless delusion". When i wrote that I was feeling inside the complete disparity of our positions - a disparity that felt insuperable by it's intrinsic nature. It's like 2 views of the world

through different facets of a prism. I can't say this is a new idea. I've reflected on it in the past and others have mentioned it on this forum. At times it's almost like supporting different football clubs.  Do invisible god things really exist out there? It's beyond me.

I see no proof. The cosmological argument can never decide the issue and using it to paper over the vagaries of the bible and the lack of supporting evidence is too much for me.

I'm old enough to live a fairly boring life. I barely lie except to myself about how hot I am. I never steal. I look after my mother. I'd have to be one of the 2 or 3 most generous people I know - being a middle child makes this instinctive. I see others make an

effort to do what to me is normal when it comes to sharing. My need for forgiveness for crimes deserving of death - crimes of belief - that's just flat out silly.

I would argue that you are conforming your desires towards your own ends. These ends are good but it's you doing the conforming to a shape you have formed in your own mind. This is what I think - you obviously think differently.

Computer-wise I use Vista at work on one machine and XP on the other. We plan to upgrade to 7 at work. I use 7 on my netbook and think it's not bad for what I need. I have another laptop running XP that I keep as a backup in case the machines rise. I also

have a workstation running 95 for playing some old games I like. I do like the robust Linux OS. I played with Linux on a few machines when buying a netbook and I ended up being swayed by mechanical specifications and price on a model that ran 7. I wouldn't

go Linux in the office, however.

I think I'm too old for Mac and my needs are moderately simple. Word processing, some web work and the usual games and online stuff. Apple annoys me with its proprietary bookends, anyway. Instead of feeling privileged, Apple makes me feel like I'm being

forced into accepting unecessary "otherness". It bugs me even when I'm trying to move music around. Bloody iTunes is always searching for lebensraum.  

Lol. There's a parallel in there for you somewhere.

 

 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, actually, I kind of like

Oh, actually, I kind of like your methods. It seems very logical and pragmatic (I'm guessing I disagree with your conclusions though). 

Okay, more questions.

So, do you support gay marriage?

If not, do you support granting gay couples all the same legal rights (when applicable), but not calling it marriage? 

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


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

butterbattle wrote:

Oh, actually, I kind of like your methods. It seems very logical and pragmatic (I'm guessing I disagree with your conclusions though). 

Okay, more questions.

So, do you support gay marriage?

If not, do you support granting gay couples all the same legal rights (when applicable), but not calling it marriage? 

I support gay 'unions'. I would not support gay 'marriage' in the sense of a Christian church wedding for the same reasons I would not support GL pastors... because it would be in violation of the teachings of the faith.

I'd be fine calling it 'marriage' or any other name, and I would definitely support their having the same legal rights as any other 'couple'.

 

I hope we have some nice conversations about where we disagree... its always good to test our thinking and conclusions Eye-wink

 


Dragoon
Dragoon's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-05-27
User is offlineOffline
If I'm deluded, I'm sure

If I'm deluded, I'm sure it'll sort itself out through time. I've never been much of a 'rah rah' follower of anything... until I met Christ.

If God is real though, I have full faith and trust that anyone who earnestly seeks truth will find Him. Might not be today or tomorrow, but relationships develop in their own time.

 

----

re:OS

I've been impressed by the most recent Mac OSs though. Snow Leopard (version X) is everything that Vista aspires to be... funny how that happens. I'm actually thinking of getting a Mac as my next laptop. My wife has already joined the Mac Undead, though I think our marriage may be able to survive it. I'm worried about our children though...