|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:22 pm
divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Two flaws in your logic- You say that if there is an afterlife, there is meaning, and if there is not, then there is no meaning. I agree with this, but that begs the question "why must the afterlife be attained only by the way you state?"- Just because there is a God, or an afterlife, doesn't mean it has to be the one you believe in, or that the one you believe in requires what you believe He requires. Secondly, on fascism. God is not fascist because he created the universe to control it? Then is a dictator not a dictator if he starts his country with the intent to rule it completely as a dictator? Yes, but I can't exactly argue for a different belief mostly because I don't have enough knowledge on other beliefs to do so. Well yes, but in that case it's an imperfect man trying to rule over people who weren't just created to follow Him. With God it's different because everything was made for His purposes. You're comparing God to man when He's far more powerful and perfect then us. It's still illogical to say "Since I don't know of anything else, my interpretation must be right." It would be like someone who has never taken geometry claiming it to be impossible to find the area of a triangle because he or she doesn't know how. The country was made for the dictator's purposes, by the dictator- If this dictator is powerful enough to make a country, why shouldn't he rule it and have it be for him? You're comparing something concrete like geometry with beliefs? O_o And what exactly are you asking me to do? Argue for a different view? Admit other views exist? The former would be foolish, and the latter I do recognize. Because everything was still made by God, and so is made for His purposes first. What He wants to do with it is more important. Plus the dictator's still human, and so is bound to mess up somehow. Again, God's perfect, so it's different with Him. But you're going all or nothing- You're essentially saying "If it's not my way, it's not any way" which isn't the case. The argument was "The afterlife is what is important" but then, who is to say your vision of it is the right one? Saying "I don't know about others" is no reason to say that they are not viable possibilities. Fair enough, but it would still be fascism, even if the fascist were perfect. It's a reason not to argue for those possibilities. No one knows all the religions well enough to be able to know for sure their arguing for the right religion. From the evidences I have, my God seems to be real and powerful. He also says other gods are false, and that His way is the only one. Unless it's proven He's not real, another religion puts up an argument that seems more logical then the ones I've read about for Christianity or I lose a lot of faith, I gotta go with that. Fine, but not in the worst sense of the word, which we get from the bad examples on this earth.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:19 pm
xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph xxEternallyBluexx divineseraph Two flaws in your logic- You say that if there is an afterlife, there is meaning, and if there is not, then there is no meaning. I agree with this, but that begs the question "why must the afterlife be attained only by the way you state?"- Just because there is a God, or an afterlife, doesn't mean it has to be the one you believe in, or that the one you believe in requires what you believe He requires. Secondly, on fascism. God is not fascist because he created the universe to control it? Then is a dictator not a dictator if he starts his country with the intent to rule it completely as a dictator? Yes, but I can't exactly argue for a different belief mostly because I don't have enough knowledge on other beliefs to do so. Well yes, but in that case it's an imperfect man trying to rule over people who weren't just created to follow Him. With God it's different because everything was made for His purposes. You're comparing God to man when He's far more powerful and perfect then us. It's still illogical to say "Since I don't know of anything else, my interpretation must be right." It would be like someone who has never taken geometry claiming it to be impossible to find the area of a triangle because he or she doesn't know how. The country was made for the dictator's purposes, by the dictator- If this dictator is powerful enough to make a country, why shouldn't he rule it and have it be for him? You're comparing something concrete like geometry with beliefs? O_o And what exactly are you asking me to do? Argue for a different view? Admit other views exist? The former would be foolish, and the latter I do recognize. Because everything was still made by God, and so is made for His purposes first. What He wants to do with it is more important. Plus the dictator's still human, and so is bound to mess up somehow. Again, God's perfect, so it's different with Him. But you're going all or nothing- You're essentially saying "If it's not my way, it's not any way" which isn't the case. The argument was "The afterlife is what is important" but then, who is to say your vision of it is the right one? Saying "I don't know about others" is no reason to say that they are not viable possibilities. Fair enough, but it would still be fascism, even if the fascist were perfect. It's a reason not to argue for those possibilities. No one knows all the religions well enough to be able to know for sure their arguing for the right religion. From the evidences I have, my God seems to be real and powerful. He also says other gods are false, and that His way is the only one. Unless it's proven He's not real, another religion puts up an argument that seems more logical then the ones I've read about for Christianity or I lose a lot of faith, I gotta go with that. Fine, but not in the worst sense of the word, which we get from the bad examples on this earth. But what you are arguing is "If it's not my way, it's no way", which is incorrect. I never said fascism was truly bad, although I agree- in a mortal world, it is. But one being literally controlling everything is still wrong. That's why we have free will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:47 am
okay this is a subject i can argue about for hours but first i have one question: Who thinks homosexuality is a sin? i get that the bible says it's a sin, and forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the bible also say that we shouldn't steal, or cheat, or kill. and yet i bet all that's happening in about a million places on earth right now. so why does everyone think just because sue likes sarah or tommy likes tim that it automatically need to lead to imorality. honestly it's stupid, we should be more open minded about this stuff, or we're not headed in the right evolutionary direction stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:30 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:35 am
gohst13 okay this is a subject i can argue about for hours but first i have one question: Who thinks homosexuality is a sin? i get that the bible says it's a sin, and forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the bible also say that we shouldn't steal, or cheat, or kill. and yet i bet all that's happening in about a million places on earth right now. so why does everyone think just because sue likes sarah or tommy likes tim that it automatically need to lead to imorality. honestly it's stupid, we should be more open minded about this stuff, or we're not headed in the right evolutionary direction stare There's actually a debate going on about whether the bible even considers it a sin. Not to mention the bible has been changed many times over the years, so it probably didn't even mention it in the original. Heres a good thread here on gaia about it. http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/extended-discussion/homosexuality-is-not-a-sin-what-christ-said-and-more/t.22055569/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 11:46 am
gohst13 okay this is a subject i can argue about for hours but first i have one question: Who thinks homosexuality is a sin? i get that the bible says it's a sin, and forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't the bible also say that we shouldn't steal, or cheat, or kill. and yet i bet all that's happening in about a million places on earth right now. so why does everyone think just because sue likes sarah or tommy likes tim that it automatically need to lead to imorality. honestly it's stupid, we should be more open minded about this stuff, or we're not headed in the right evolutionary direction stare The bible doesn't say it's a sin, what it does do is touch upon specific situations, ceremonial laws...never does it mention that love between two people of the same sex is sinful, it doesn't go into the type of homosexual relationship that we think of today. Jesus doesn't mention it at all. The heart of the argument against homosexuality being expressed in a relationship that includes sex lies in genesis where the basic familial unit is set up. God made man, God made woman...he made them to be together and it says that pretty clearly but it neither affirms nor dismisses the possibility of a Romantic homosexual relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 12:27 pm
LOOK under Judgment sin, reproduction. it says if a man 's to sleep with another man he is unclean in the eyes of the Lord. it may not say directly that it's a sin, but you can't deny it's claim of imorality :ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:28 pm
I had an argument once with someone about the topic of it being in the Bible.
I ask this, if homosexuality being wrong IS in the Bible, which somehow people keep saying it is EVEN THOUGH it isn't in the Bible, what makes you think today's Bible is reliable?
In a story Edgar Allen Poe made, he tries to explain that the person telling you the story is not reliable even if he tells you he is.
My point is, how can you trust a book that only has evidence of reliability saying "You can trust me."?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 21, 2010 1:35 pm
gohst13 LOOK under Judgment sin, reproduction. it says if a man 's to sleep with another man he is unclean in the eyes of the Lord. it may not say directly that it's a sin, but you can't deny it's claim of imorality :ninja
The mostly popular reason against it is
"Since it is not said to be wrong or a sin, it must mean that it is just not reproduction."
Reason why it says "unclean" and not "a sin".
Even so, the Bible does not say that marriage between two of the same genders should not be allowed.
EDIT: Not to mention today's Bible is probably not a reliable source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 4:55 am
i get your point about the unclean part. so let me rephrase what i said in my last post, The bible DOES say that being gay is wrong, that i know without a shadow of a doubt. just because it exact words may not be "it's a sin" doesn't mean that it's not the main part of it. some times you have to just read between the lines, especially when involving the bible. emo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:21 am
gohst13 i get your point about the unclean part. so let me rephrase what i said in my last post, The bible DOES say that being gay is wrong, that i know without a shadow of a doubt. just because it exact words may not be "it's a sin" doesn't mean that it's not the main part of it. some times you have to just read between the lines, especially when involving the bible. emo no it says having homosexual sex makes one unclean and that only applies to Judaism. It says nothing about being gay as wrong. Please provide verses to back you stance or retract your claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 10:33 am
rmcdra gohst13 i get your point about the unclean part. so let me rephrase what i said in my last post, The bible DOES say that being gay is wrong, that i know without a shadow of a doubt. just because it exact words may not be "it's a sin" doesn't mean that it's not the main part of it. some times you have to just read between the lines, especially when involving the bible. emo no it says having homosexual sex makes one unclean and that only applies to Judaism. It says nothing about being gay as wrong. Please provide verses to back you stance or retract your claim. Right, and by that logic, so is any sort of shell fish, pork, certain mixtures of foods- It's also alright to own and beat slaves, as long as you don't leave a permanent mark, and to kill anyone woman who practices sorcery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:08 am
gohst13 i get your point about the unclean part. so let me rephrase what i said in my last post, The bible DOES say that being gay is wrong, that i know without a shadow of a doubt. just because it exact words may not be "it's a sin" doesn't mean that it's not the main part of it. some times you have to just read between the lines, especially when involving the bible. emo You also need to understand the context: I'm not certain the Sin of Homosexuality goes as far back as it is told in the Old Testament .......... In a part of Hesekiel, not sure about his name in english, people search him out, asking for advice. Then, in the translation i've read, he, the Prophet, says, that God has helped them time and time again, for God's name's sake, including bringing them from Egypt, and Giving them the Good Rules, the Ten Commandments. But they still again ..... ignored God and the Commandments, still asking for more laws, so they got Laws that were bad for them, as the Ten were Good, they had also gotten Bad Laws. And after that, he said that God won't help them. As i see it, the Laws against Gay Sex is NOT in the Ten Commandments, so it has to be one of the Bad Laws, intended for a people that clearly couldn't differ between Good Laws and Bad Laws at that time ....... I say, i'm not a Jew, I'm not a Semite, i recognize the validity of the Ten Commandments, but not of the so-called "laws" that falsely says that God abhors or worse of gay sexuality, incuding the act, nor should i have to follow them, not because of Free Will, but because God think it's ok, really. Yes, i know that i now has done something i "shouldn't" do, like saying clearly that God Exist, and that God don't mind, but how to really define it otherwise? A lot of people has said "God thinks that and that", and i say: "God don't mind" instead, and i can say that i rely on those words, in that translation i¨'ve read ........ I really think that too much of the Bible is crap anyway ........ not everything, but too much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 12:33 pm
the OT prescriptions were directed against the practices of rival religions'' who got people to attend worship by offering them different kinds of sexual experiences http://history-world.org/canaanite_culture_and_religion.htm"The Hebrew prophets not only denounced Canaanite religion for its polytheism and idolatry but also for its sexual immorality.... That the Canaanites practiced the rite of hieros gamos, involving ritual sex between the king or priest, representing a god, and a woman or priestess, representing a goddess, seems well attested" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Canaanite_Religionso the biblical diatribes were more about political rivalry than anything else, buy our brand and not theirs. as for the NT, Paul was smart but emotionally messed up, why should this guy who was so conflicted i his own internal dynamics tell us how to live? "Paul views sexual intercourse as leading man away from God. Davies speaks of Paul giving his 'grudging approival of marriage' and of his perspective that 'sex is in itself an evil and undesireable thing'. Bornkamm argues that one cannot find anything positive in [Paul] converning love or marriage." http://www.scribd.com/doc/15674/Paul-AntiWoman-AntiSex-Ascetic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:50 pm
divineseraph Right, and by that logic, so is any sort of shell fish, pork, certain mixtures of foods- It's also alright to own and beat slaves, as long as you don't leave a permanent mark, and to kill anyone woman who practices sorcery. The witchcraft thing is kind of a misnomer since Judaism technically has it's own version of witchcraft which is endorsed by the religion. It's more speaking about witchcraft that is not endorsed by YHVH. Edit: Anyway I get your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
