I think that on some level, I feel kind of like 'what goes around comes around' or something like that.
This is where the selfish millionaire comes into play:
If the millionaire is selfish, and doesn't give a crap about the suffering poor, if something bad happens and he loses all his money, he can expect no help from anyone else. He's made his bed, he has to lie in it.
Which is not to say that charity should be undertaken with the expectation that it will come back to you when you need it.
Same issue, but with a little more nuance:
The selfish millionaire cannot possibly be self-sufficient. Somebody has to work for him, to do all the things he does not have time or inclination to do. If he's not helpful and generous to the local poor, he can expect none of them to work for him or to do good work if he does manage to convince them to work for him.
Also, there's always the angry mob factor to consider.
Much as he might try, that selfish millionaire doesn't live in a bubble. And frankly, being religious wouldn't necessarily help him. I know of plenty of selfish rich people, most of whom are devoutly religious (at least outwardly). Now you can make the argument that they are not being properly observant of their religion, but they might disagree with you.
I always run into this problem when someone tells someone else that while they may say they are Christian (or whatever), they are not, because they are not following tenet "blah." Which of these people is right? And if they are both using the same holy text to back up their position, how do we determine who is right?
Reverend Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church people claim to be Christians, and use Biblical text to back up their positions. Most sensible Christians I know think the Westboro Baptists are vile, un-Christian people. Reverend Phelps would say they are not real Christians.
How do we determine who is right?
Well I wouldn't know because I've never read the bible. I've browsed it a little, but it isn't the most user friendly text on the planet, and I can have a short attention span at times. Furthermore, I'm not really interested in a book that was composed by a bunch of long dead guys with various political agendas behind their selections. Well it's not to say I'm not interested, I'm just not about to start living my life around it. If there is a god out there and he wants me to do something in a certain way he can let me know himself. I really need to hear it from the horse's mouth. Though I realize that the whole notion of faith is built around the idea of not being certain, and that if god were speaking to us on a daily basis telling us what to do faith might be meaningless. However, I don't need faith; I need clear instructions. If I became a christian I'd feel like I was playing that game you play in school where one person tells someone something and then that person whispers it in the ear of the next person and it keeps going around until you finally get the message and it is completely different than what the orginal person ever said.
Personally, I'm glad I don't believe in god because if I thought that there acutally was a god up there looking down on me and judging me based on the life of greed and consumption I live I would be very concerned for the future of my soul.As would I. I guess that it's a good thing that the Bible doesn't suggest this at all.
|
Reverend Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church people claim to be Christians...
Looks like I struck a nerve or two without meaning to. Sorry about that.
Ok -- Insanity is generally a pretty clear indication who isn't 'right'. I didn't really know anything about this and after the quick google search I did, I suddenly feel the need to take a shower.
There will always be people out there telling others what is 'right' and what isn't. Religion may or may not have anything to do with it.
How do we determine what/who is right? I'm not sure how else to say this -- use your brain. I'm not trying to be rude, but people need to think about it. Everyone (nearly) has some idea of what/who Jesus is -- and it is probably pretty accurate -- with or without the Bible. Does this guy fit that mold? Even remotely? Not as near as I can tell.
As far as which tenet is right -- I really think that there is a lot of gray with this. (Which is probably too bad.) Mevers and I don't always see eye to eye with a number of issues. Lady Aurora and I don't agree with a number of items. I don't really see a problem with this. And again it comes back down to thinking about it for yourself and determining what is most 'right' for you.
But for starters, I would be nervous about anyone who claimed to have all the answers.
Well if I were religious I would want my god to be pretty clear about what he wills for me to do in my life. I admit that I am ignorant when it comes to religion, but isn't the basic idea that you try to conduct your life in a way that best serves the will of god? If I were trying to accomplish this I would want clear instructions as to what his will for me is. To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).
However, I don't need faith; I need clear instructions.Why do you need clear instructions? (emphasis on 'instruction' rather than 'clear')
What do you need instruction to do?
Looks like I struck a nerve or two without meaning to. Sorry about that.
No, no! No nerves struck!
I really only meant to bring up the Phelps' as an example, but I suppose they are so extreme as to qualify for their own addendum to Godwin's Law.
|
|
To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).
Forget about all the intermediaries and so on for a moment.
When Jesus was asked what the most important law was he responded with two. He said "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Most everything else falls somewhere under that. (And it still feels fairly applicable today.)
Well god is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful (omniscient and omnipotent), so if he did give me a list of dos and donts I'd probably take a pretty close look at it, but this isn't really what I meant. I would just want a god that I could converse with, a god that I could asks questions to and gets answers from. I guess I'm just lazy. Well heck I don't even need answers, I would just want a god that actually acknowledges I exist- you a know a little "good morning" from time to time or a "hey how was your day?". The silent treatment just doesn't cut it for me.
Well if I were religious I would want my god to be pretty clear about what he wills for me to do in my life.So you would want a god that basically gave you a long list of explicit 'dos' and 'don'ts'? Kind of dictator-like. And a clear understanding of how many 'dos' to do to please them?
So do all the people starving in third world countries because of us count as our neighbours or are they too far away?
To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).Forget about all the intermediaries and so on for a moment.
When Jesus was asked what the most important law was he responded with two. He said "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Most everything else falls somewhere under that. (And it still feels fairly applicable today.)
|
|
So do all the people starving in third world countries because of us count as our neighbours or are they too far away?
When Jesus was asked (nearly) this same question he responded with the story of the good Samaritan. So, I would say 'yes'. But not only that, but also our enemies -- including those overseas (assuming I have any).
|
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical. And really there is no justification behind it. Yes I know there is scriptural thou shalt nots such as in Leviticus and one of the pauline epistles and I think in Jude, not too mention the dubious sin of Sodom and Gomorrha. But there was no justification as to why it is a sin just that it is.
In my own study the only person who really had much to say why is one St. Augustine who said that all relations that aren't toward the goal of reproduction is a sin but, I find that a hard pill to swallow.
No offense toward anyone but do you have an explanation as to why?
Why should I love god? What the heck has he ever done? The only thing I've ever heard about god in my life is through intermediaries (ie people like you or maybe something I've read in a book, which were all written by intermediaries). God has never spoken to me personally. Of course you may say I'm just deaf and not listening properly and that evidence of his existence and love is all around if I could just open my mind or heart or whatever, to which I would answer if god is so great he certainly should be capable of accomodating my little deafness/blindness disabililty.
To me it seems like being christian is like trying to a do a job and wanting to do what the boss asks, but having to get your orders through a whole bunch of intermidiaries or a rather vague and confusing employee manual (that also happens to be a couple thousand years old).Forget about all the intermediaries and so on for a moment.
When Jesus was asked what the most important law was he responded with two. He said "Love your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Most everything else falls somewhere under that. (And it still feels fairly applicable today.)
As far as which tenet is right -- I really think that there is a lot of gray with this. (Which is probably too bad.) Mevers and I don't always see eye to eye with a number of issues. Lady Aurora and I don't agree with a number of items. I don't really see a problem with this.
And I would say that I only disagree with you on a small handful of things too. But that small handful of things are all doozies, like whether God even exists in any fashion even remotely resembling what Christianity or any other religion paints him.
Why does that one point of disagreement have to be so contentious?
If you're willing to concede that you might be wrong about certain parts of your beliefs, why not others? Why not all of them?
And again it comes back down to thinking about it for yourself and determining what is most 'right' for you.
I don't think this is what you meant by this sentence, but: Does this mean you are actually arguing then that your selfish millionaire doing what's most 'right' for him is being moral?
Also, if you're thinking for yourself (a good thing to do, in my book), why then do you even need the Bible?
But for starters, I would be nervous about anyone who claimed to have all the answers.
You and I definitely agree on this.
Well not all christian churches condemn homosexuality. I know in Canada the united church doesn't have a problem with it. There are several openly gay united church ministers. If I were going to join a church that would be the one for me (though I'm straight, but it's by far the most accepting and liberal). However, I figure i should actually believe in god if I'm going to go to church.
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now
personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical. And really there is no justification behind it. Yes I know there is scriptural thou shalt nots such as in Leviticus and one of the pauline epistles and I think in Jude, not too mention the dubious sin of Sodom and Gomorrha. But there was no justification as to why it is a sin just that it is.
In my own study the only person who really had much to say why is one St. Augustine who said that all relations that aren't toward the goal of reproduction is a sin but, I find that a hard pill to swallow.
No offense toward anyone but do you have an explanation as to why?
P.H. Dungeon brings up a question I was about to ask myself:
Why does God care if I love Him or believe in Him?
I'm willing to do the "love your neighbor as much as yourself" including to my enemies, or those who would wish me dead. It's where my anti-war stance comes from: I would never want to be in a war of any kind, and thus do not wish anyone anywhere to commit a war on anybody else.
Who brought up evolution?
And why are you flamebaiting our CIVIL religious discussion?
What the heck are you talking about? No offense, but if you don't see any evidence to evolution you must be blind. Do you look the same as your father- probably not. If you breed two types of dogs together do you get a new dog that is a little different than the old dog "yes". You obviously have no experience with animals. Have you ever watched the Kentuky derby? Have you happened to notice that the horses now are faster than the horses one hundred years ago? I'm usually polite on these boards, but when I hear crap like that, I have serious doubts regarding the intellect of some our posters.
I had to join in on this, Evolution is no fact, it is theory. And whats more, there has never been any observable evidence to back it.
No one has seen a nonliving thing become living, and no "missing links" have ever been found. Evolution requires faith to believe, and it requires more of that than the Christian counter part of Creation.
|
|
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical. And really there is no justification behind it. Yes I know there is scriptural thou shalt nots such as in Leviticus and one of the pauline epistles and I think in Jude, not too mention the dubious sin of Sodom and Gomorrha. But there was no justification as to why it is a sin just that it is.
In my own study the only person who really had much to say why is one St. Augustine who said that all relations that aren't toward the goal of reproduction is a sin but, I find that a hard pill to swallow.
No offense toward anyone but do you have an explanation as to why?
I've talked about this earlier but I'll do my best here as well.
I don't know.
I will say more, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that no one really knows. They can guess, but it just really brings up more questions.
It's the 'condemning' that I have a problem with. Jesus didn't go through the streets saying "Sinner!" and then proceed to list off every sin the person did/does and then move on to the next guy.
Here is what I know (from the little bit of research that I have done on the subject). Homosexuality is (almost?) always combined with other much more obviously 'bad' things (like rape and so on). I'm not sure what that implies, but it seems to point to something that was more violent than what you are describing. Also, I have seen a number of places that talk about the original greek meanings of the word(s) translated and the different meanings can tend to vary fairly dramatically -- from having sex with boys (children) and prostitution to other things.
Regardless of what you believe the Bible says about it, the absolute worst case would be that homosexuality is a sin. At which point it falls under "he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "why are you trying to pull out the splinter in your brother's eye when you have a log in your own". It certainly doesn't make you better or worse than me. And I certainly have no business condemning you for it either.
Hope that helps. Kind of a long way to say that I probably don't have the answer that you are looking for.
no "missing links" have ever been found.
Impassioned, but incorrect. If you actually understand the theory, EVERY fossil is a "missing link."
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical.
I'm a man married to a woman; it makes me happy. It seems clear to me that, given your preferences are wired the other way, being married to a man would make you happy. Allowing you to do so provides, by my standards, a net decrease in suffering--it hurts no one, and helps you. Preventing it would increase your suffering but wouldn't make a dent on the zealots'. So, in my view, it's immoral to prevent it. Then again, I'm not a Christian, and I base my morals on different things than they do. Why would many self-proclaimed "Christians" condemn it as immoral? My guess is that they care less about you as a person than as a "soul," and that they put their idea of a (possibly imaginary) God in front of the reality of actual people. This explanation may annoy some people, but I can't think of a better one.
I also find it interesting that those who are most outspoken against homesexuality seem to get caught cladestinely engaging it rather often (Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and especially Ted Haggard).
Quite informative, thank you. And again this raises my point that Christianity feels much like the message game where the message sent by the orginal person gets lost in translation after it is passed around enough, which is again why I would want to hear the details regarding such things directly from the big silent guy in the sky.
Now I am going to remain civil but maybe a bit controversial. Now personally the main reason I have had a problem with christianity is that I am a man who is married to another man. I think some of the christian ideals are all fine in good but condemning a person for loving another person well that seems hypocritical. And really there is no justification behind it. Yes I know there is scriptural thou shalt nots such as in Leviticus and one of the pauline epistles and I think in Jude, not too mention the dubious sin of Sodom and Gomorrha. But there was no justification as to why it is a sin just that it is.
In my own study the only person who really had much to say why is one St. Augustine who said that all relations that aren't toward the goal of reproduction is a sin but, I find that a hard pill to swallow.
No offense toward anyone but do you have an explanation as to why?I've talked about this earlier but I'll do my best here as well.
I don't know.
I will say more, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that no one really knows. They can guess, but it just really brings up more questions.
It's the 'condemning' that I have a problem with. Jesus didn't go through the streets saying "Sinner!" and then proceed to list off every sin the person did/does and then move on to the next guy.
Here is what I know (from the little bit of research that I have done on the subject). Homosexuality is (almost?) always combined with other much more obviously 'bad' things (like rape and so on). I'm not sure what that implies, but it seems to point to something that was more violent than what you are describing. Also, I have seen a number of places that talk about the original greek meanings of the word(s) translated and the different meanings can tend to vary fairly dramatically -- from having sex with boys (children) and prostitution to other things.
Regardless of what you believe the Bible says about it, the absolute worst case would be that homosexuality...
|
|
Thanks for the answer. And this I have posed this same question to lots of other religious individuals and the same answer always seems to surface. Basically we don't have an answer to it and some things should just be taken on faith. (Though I am glad you were objective and didn't add the last part.)
|
I had to join in on this, Evolution is no fact, it is theory. And whats more, there has never been any observable evidence to back it.
No one has seen a nonliving thing become living, and no "missing links" have ever been found. Evolution requires faith to believe, and it requires more of that than the Christian counter part of Creation.
I promised myself I'd avoid another religious discussion on here like the pox, but wow, is that misguided. I mean no offense in saying that. Evolution is a fact, and you need to read up a bit more on when and if things move from being theory into law. I'm not going to go into that here, but take a look at this for some clarification.
That being said, I can show you observable evidence of evolution right now. It's simple- humanity. Barring identical twins (or, even in well know case, identical cousins) people don't look alike. The human form is still evolving, trying to find a perfect model. It's why over time the average height for humans has changed. Why people from different regions tend to have a signature skin or hair color. It's why we have vestigial wisdom teeth, tiny baby toes, and some people are born with stubby, useless tails. The phenomena is called atavism. We see it in other organisms, too (did you know some whales are born with back legs?). On the other hand, species that have found an ideal form for their habitat (sharks and roaches spring to mind) all exist without notable variation. They are, essentially, perfect (a claim that I don't think anyone is willing to make for humans).
I'm not sure where the "nonliving thing become living" comes from, outside of the Bible and some really bad science thanks to Aristotle. The correct term for "missing link" you're looking for, though, is "transitional fossil", and you really sort of don't get those (not the way you're intending it to mean, anyway). Not because things don't evolve, but because we recognize now that things are always evolving. You don't get a fossil that has parts of one thing from before and parts of one thing from now. Instead, transitional fossils are just an remains of an organism that shows the "B" between points "A" and "C".
Evolution doesn't require faith to believe in. It takes observation, and a willingness to accept the awful truth that not everything in the Bible is a fact, no matter what the men in black want you to believe.
|
|
P.H. Dungeon brings up a question I was about to ask myself:
Why does God care if I love Him or believe in Him?
This is the last post for now, then I'm going home. I'll see if I can get on and post more later...
This is a very good question. I don't know if I know the answer to this. But after reading your other post, it may be related...
You mentioned why isn't the millionare 'right'.
Probably the biggest reason is simply -- focus. If you are loving him or are focused on him, then you are more likely to stay on track. The selfish millionare isn't really 'right' because he isn't keeping God in focus. I'm not saying that he is 'wrong', but how would his actions be different if he was loving God and keeping him focused?
Why does God care? He doesn't really want to see anyone go to hell. But he still wants each individual to make their own choice about it.
Well let's just assume that Quicksilver was just joking and trying to get us riled up.
I had to join in on this, Evolution is no fact, it is theory. And whats more, there has never been any observable evidence to back it.
No one has seen a nonliving thing become living, and no "missing links" have ever been found. Evolution requires faith to believe, and it requires more of that than the Christian counter part of Creation.
I promised myself I'd avoid another religious discussion on here like the pox, but wow, is that misguided. I mean no offense in saying that. Evolution is a fact, and you need to read up a bit more on when and if things move from being theory into law. I'm not going to go into that here, but take a look at this for some clarification.
That being said, I can show you observable evidence of evolution right now. It's simple- humanity. Barring identical twins (or, even in well know case, identical cousins) people don't look alike. The human form is still evolving, trying to find a perfect model. It's why over time the average height for humans has changed. Why people from different regions tend to have a signature skin or hair color. It's why we have vestigial wisdom teeth, tiny baby toes, and some people are born with stubby, useless tails. The phenomena is called atavism. We see it in other organisms, too (did you know some whales are born with back legs?). On the other hand, species that have found an ideal form for their habitat (sharks and roaches spring to mind) all exist without notable variation. They are, essentially, perfect (a claim that I don't think anyone is willing to make for humans).
I'm not sure where the "nonliving thing become living" comes from, outside of the Bible and some really bad science thanks to Aristotle. The correct term for "missing link" you're looking for, though, is "transitional fossil", and you really sort of don't get those (not the way you're intending it to mean, anyway). Not because things don't evolve, but because we recognize now that things are...
Everybody, please ignore the evolution flamebaiter.
Quick Silver has made all of TWO posts, both of them in this thread. This person is clearly on the wrong board, and came in here just to stir up trouble.
|
|
Thanks for the answer. And this I have posed this same question to lots of other religious individuals and the same answer always seems to surface.
Ultimately, I feel that it comes down to the ultimate recent cliche...
WWJD. (I can't believe I posted that.)
Anyway -- Jesus actually did very little condemning. If people were genuinely curious/concerned, he would answer them -- but even then he wouldn't condemn them.
The throwing of the stones I mentioned earlier --
People brought out a woman "caught in the act" with another married man. (Why they didn't bring out the man, I will never know.) After he did his big "he who is without sin" speech, the crowd went away. After they left, he asked her "Who condemns you?" She replied "they all went away". Jesus then said "Neither do I condemn you -- go and sin no more". He didn't tell her exactly what sins not to commit. I feel like it is strongly implied that she knew exactly what to do/not do.
If you feel that what you are doing is a 'sin' then you should probably stop if you are searching for God. If you feel that what you are doing is not a 'sin' then don't stop. In either case, you should be looking toward God.
If god doesn't want people to go to hell then wouldn't he make an effort to let people know that hell exist? Surely god couldn't expect Jesus to be able to spread word of god to all the people in the world? If he did, well then Jesus didn't do a very good job. What about all those poor aboriginals all around the world the were never exposed to chrisitianity and never had a chance to decide for themselves? If god really cared or existed you'd think he'd let people know- it's just plain old good manners. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.
P.H. Dungeon brings up a question I was about to ask myself:
Why does God care if I love Him or believe in Him?This is the last post for now, then I'm going home. I'll see if I can get on and post more later...
This is a very good question. I don't know if I know the answer to this. But after reading your other post, it may be related...
You mentioned why isn't the millionare 'right'.
Probably the biggest reason is simply -- focus. If you are loving him or are focused on him, then you are more likely to stay on track. The selfish millionare isn't really 'right' because he isn't keeping God in focus. I'm not saying that he is 'wrong', but how would his actions be different if he was loving God and keeping him focused?
Why does God care? He doesn't really want to see anyone go to hell. But he still wants each individual to make their own choice about it.
|
|
Well let's just assume that Quicksilver was just joking and trying to get us riled up.
I don't get to take on the Bible-tooting, drunk-on-their-on-righteousness fruitcakes anymore like I used to have on Bourbon Street waiting for me any time I wanted. I miss giving verbal ass-whippings to people who don't understand how someone can have faith and science in their hearts with equal measure. These days I have to take my thrills cheap and wherever I can find them. :(
|
|
Sorry, wrong post, but the relationship between the manand the woman represents the relationship between Jesus and his people. The husband is the head, even as Christ is the head of the Church, and gave himself for it.
I'm sorry I don't get religious symbolism and by that standard people come in male and female roles and god and or Jesus loves both genders equally does that mean we should do the same?
Ultimately, I feel that it comes down to the ultimate recent cliche...
WWJD. (I can't believe I posted that.)
Anyway -- Jesus actually did very little condemning. If people were genuinely curious/concerned, he would answer them -- but even then he wouldn't condemn them.
The throwing of the stones I mentioned earlier --
People brought out a woman "caught in the act" with another married man. (Why they didn't bring out the man, I will never know.) After he did his big "he who is without sin" speech, the crowd went away. After they left, he asked her "Who condemns you?" She replied "they all went away". Jesus then said "Neither do I condemn you -- go and sin no more". He didn't tell her exactly what sins not to commit. I feel like it is strongly implied that she knew exactly what to do/not do.
If you feel that what you are doing is a 'sin' then you should probably stop if you are searching for God. If you feel that what you are doing is not a 'sin' then don't stop. In either case, you should be looking toward God.
Have you heard Jay Bakker speak? I checked him out because of the Sundance Channel's miniseries documentary on him, called One Punk Under God. I doubt he'd have any more luck getting me to change my mind about God than would anybody else, but if I was living in New York, I think I'd be going to his sermons on a regular basis. The idea of not condemning people is a BIG part of his ministry.
Check out RevolutionNYC.com. They even have many of his sermons freely available online.
By no means am I trying to be sexist, please take no offense, but in the Christian faith, marriage is a symbol. When God first made marriage, He intended it to help us understand the relationship that we are to have with him. The church is refered to as the bride of Christ, and Israel was refered to in the Old Testement as the wife of God(i.e. Song of Solomon) This is why(and please take no offense) the Bible has a stand against homosexuality. It destroys the picture. It places us on the same level as God, in that both are the same.
But if you're not a Christian, or don't believe in God, then none of that really applies.
Also, the Bible's stance against homosexuality is taken mostly in Leviticus, isn't it? Do you keep all the other laws of Leviticus? Somehow I doubt it.
What was Jesus crucified for, by the way? Wasn't it breaking the laws of Leviticus?
There are reasons Christians these days no longer follow the laws of Leviticus, mostly because Jesus came along and changed the subject. Picking and chosing from those laws to say the Bible is against homosexuality is not about Jesus and the Bible and What God Wants Us To Do With Our Naughty Bits, as much as it is about your agenda, I think.
By no means am I trying to be sexist, please take no offense, but in the Christian faith, marriage is a symbol. When God first made marriage, He intended it to help us understand the relationship that we are to have with him. The church is refered to as the bride of Christ, and Israel was refered to in the Old Testement as the wife of God(i.e. Song of Solomon) This is why(and please take no offense) the Bible has a stand against homosexuality. It destroys the picture. It places us on the same level as God, in that both are the same.
Likewise, no offense, but that was my earlier point. In my mind, it is immoral to hurt real, living, breathing people based on a symbolic idea that is several stages removed from any physical reality.
If god doesn't want people to go to hell then wouldn't he make an effort to let people know that hell exist? Surely god couldn't expect Jesus to be able to spread word of god to all the people in the world? If he did, well then Jesus didn't do a very good job. What about all those poor aboriginals all around the world the were never exposed to chrisitianity and never had a chance to decide for themselves? If god really cared or existed you'd think he'd let people know- it's just plain old good manners. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.
Dungeon--I enjoy your contributions, and I respect your opinions, but I'd like your questions a lot more if they didn't duplicate ones that were answered over several full pages earlier in the thread. Moff has been here all along; I hate to see him have to explain the same things repeatedly when he could easily be spared the effort. That said, please keep on posting, and feel welcome--but maybe skim over the past stuff when you get a chance.
The Bible does however speak of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, Romans 1:26-27. It is not just a Leviticus issue.
The way I read it, Romans says it's an error to act against nature, that men should not have unnatural passion for other men, etc. However, homosexuals by nature are attracted to people of the same sex (having a minority population that is interested only in same-sex partners is not limited to people, by the way; clear preferences are seen in animals as well). Therefore, per Romans, it would be an abomination for homosexuals to force themselves to a hetero lifestyle--that would be a "usage against nature." We see in real life that this latter situation causes nothing but misery for all involved. I suppose a true Christian could see this as proof that of the truth contained in the New Testament. The question is all in what is meant by "natural."
The Bible does however speak of homosexuality in the New Testament as well, Romans 1:26-27. It is not just a Leviticus issue.
Yeah, Paul had a lot of hangups about sex and gender. Paul's nasty comments about the Pagans does not automatically equate to God Doesn't Want You To Do THAT With Your Naughty Bits. In fact, there is no part of that passage that can be read to be explicitly saying God Says "Don't Be Gay."
And I know many people of faith who feel that way.
Which brings us subtlely back on topic -- Why is your interpretation of the Bible right, and theirs wrong?
To answer that question based on the Biblical understanding, I would then suggest that we look at the Biblical begining, Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So God is an hermaphrodite? Or is he/she a transgender?
Gender issues aside, you think God is like the D&D gods? Just a really big dude with smite powers?
Tell me you do not take this passage in the Bible that literally.
Again please do not be offended, I am only speaking as to the Biblical stand.
This whole thread is about the fact that we can't all agree on "The Biblical Stand," so you'll have to defend yourself in the Arena of Ideas better than that. Also, I think you can let the "please do not be offended" stuff drop. As long as you're civil, we're all civil, and it's all good. If you do not wish to offend, don't be offensive.
Stating your beliefs is not, by itself, offensive. Flat assertions that you, out of all humans, understand the mind of God better than anyone else, are.
Again, why is your interpretation of the Bible superior to anyone else's?
|
|
You do know the origins of the KJV. King James wanted to divorce his wife but all versions of the bible were written in Latin at the time and the church at large wouldn't grant him a divorce so he got some scholars together translated it into english so he could study it himself divorced his wife formed the church of England and became the head of his own religion. So he didn't have to listen to someone elses authority.