Antimony,
This bias against Christians, where exactly does it manifest?It's not in politics where almost all politicians at least pretend to be Chritians even if many do a poor job actng like it.
It's not n the law, where, as was discussed earlier, giant monments to the Ten Commandments are erected at many courtouses.
It's not in sports where prayers are said before each match and players regularly attribute their success to God.
It's not in eduction where students have to sue, and ten get death threats, to get a pryer banner removed.
It's not.in the mlitary where atheist has only recently been accepted as a legitimate thing to put on your records.So, where, exactly, is this bloody bias?
As I mentioned, like all biases, it exists in some areas, and not others. The specific example I mentioned was at my university, but I also pointed out that this is a small universe, and it is likely not as pronounced in other areas.
I was also trying to point out that it may not be as pronounced a bias as certain others, nor perhaps as inherently harmful/dangerous as others (or, more specifically, as the combination of bias and volume or bias and will to act badly) may be. And, most certainly, that I would not call it "persecution."
Anyway, in addition to the class I already mentioned, I have heard similar comments (or had them said to me directly, by both students and professors) in political science, sociology, and assorted other natural science classes (primarily biology and geology; it never seems to come up in chemistry). So, I would respectfully disagree that it is not in education, at least based on my own experiences. For every school that has been sued to have a prayer banner removed, you might well be able to find one that has had a student "sneeze" during commencement activities so that his classmates could cry out "God bless you!" because he was told not to reference God in any way.
It is probably accurate to say that some segments of the Internet, even this corner, are decidedly anti-Christian, but by the same token, you can probably find a segment (again, even here) are anti-anything. Still, that's a second area where I have encountered it.
I was not aware of the issue you mentioned with regard to atheism in the military. I actually find that surprising, as I knew people who had, say, "Satanic" listed as their religion on their dog tags, and this was a good, long time ago. Also, I know that some Courthouses have had to remove their monuments/pictures related to the Ten Commandments because it was seen as espousing a Judeo-Christian belief that could have been an affront to, say, Muslims or Atheists. With regard to sports, I would again respectfully argue that the actions of individual players do not reflect the entire sporting world, or the practices of any league that I can think of. (That said, I would never claim that there was a bias against religion in general or Christianity in particular in sports. Seems like more of a "neutral" place to me.)
My point was not to claim that there was a bias against Christianity and nothing else. Simply that there are biases against EVERYTHING, including Christianity, and even if it is less pronounced than some others, it does not change the fact that ALL biases should be offensive to everyone.
I may not have been as clear as I would have liked; if that's the case, again, I apologize.
When an African-American commits a crime, it does not mean "All African-Americans are criminals." When a Christian says "Homosexuals should be taken out and stoned," it does not mean all Christians are murderous homophobes.No, but when the bible says "Take the homosexuals out and stone them" and then you have an obviously anti gay segment of Christianity what are we supposed to conclude... that its just a coincidence?????
I can't speak for anyone buy myself, but I would conclude that we had another in a long line of subsets of Christians who are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting the Bible in its entirety, focusing on the elements that happen to rev their engines and ignoring the parts about loving and forgiveness and so on.
I'm not disputing that there are segments of Christianity that are actively, vocally, violently against homosexuality. I am disputing that they are representative of all Christians. For myself, I hate sin. All sin. Yes, that includes homosexuality. It also includes the many, many sins I commit. I also believe (without delving too far into my church's dogma) that there is salvation sufficient to cover all sins--including homosexuality, and the many, many sins I commit. Neither I nor my church believe that homosexuality should be called out as the one sin that needs a-fixin'. All sins need a-fixin', and we, on Earth, are none of us the ones who can do it.
Now, you're making an appeal to authority.
No, I'm simply pointing out yours.
Once more, let's discuss the actual scripture.
Your only "evidence" of homosexuality being against Christianity is the same set of verses that are against Hamburger Helper. Once more, I've never known a Christian who thought that eating Hamburger Helper was a sin.
Ok, Paradigm shift time for the masked mallard.
You view Christianity as rational and consistent.
I do not.
I agree that which old testament laws are still in effect and which ones are not have been chosen by christian in a manner that is neither rational nor consistent.
That does not mean that I have to conclude that they were chosen wrongly, because I don't see either Christianity or the Bible as rational or consistent in the first place. We both see many Christians picking and choosing the verses they want to support their already held ideas. You say ACK! Thats not how Christianity is supposed to work! It can't be real Christianity" and i shrug my shoulders and say "Well that's religion for you..."
Now, onto the verses.
Romans 1:26
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
Now... I'm looking at at least 10 different translations. They all say that homosexuality is so bad that god used it as a CURSE on people for forgetting him. Its not out of context, its not a translation issue: they flat out unequivocally say that homosexuality is bad.
If you have an argument that every other translation is wrong and your language scholar is right you need to show something other than a black box: that is you need something other than Verse says Homosexuality is bad----> I have an expert!----> politically correct lollipops and cupcakes for everyone.
Now, In one of the oddest bits of number editing in history, Paul stops right there mid speech. The REST of his speech in Romans 2 can be summed up as "even though these people are morally depraved you're no better in gods eyes and you need to love them anyway".
1 Corinthians Homosexuality is on a list of immoral acts that people shouldn't be doing, like prostitution.
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Sexual Immorality
12“Everything is permissible for me”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible for me”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13“Food for the stomach and the stomach for food”—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”b 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.
1 Timothy 1, homosexuality again listed as an immoral thing. Aramaic Bible in Plain English
9While he knows that The Written Law was not appointed for the righteous, but for the evil, the rebellious, the wicked, for sinners, for the vicious, for those who are impure, for those who strike their fathers, those who strike their mothers, for murderers, 10For fornicators, for males who lie down with males, for kidnappers of free men, for liars, for oath breakers and for all things opposed to the sound teaching 11Of The Good News of the glory of the Blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
BNW claimed that it was me, alone, vs 8000 Greek Scholars (though, I'm not sure where he got the "8000").
In fact, the following denominations approve of homosexuality
...
Lutherans
...
Respectfully, not all Lutherans. I do know that some Synods permit openly gay ministers, so long as they are in committed relationships or celibate, which is the same restriction they placed on heterosexual ministers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for anyone buy myself, but I would conclude that we had another in a long line of subsets of Christians who are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting the Bible in its entirety, focusing on the elements that happen to rev their engines and ignoring the parts about loving and forgiveness and so on.
You can conclude that because your overriding opinion as a believer is that God is good. Looking at the bible i do not come to that conclusion. That means that, to various degrees, people reading the bible and saying "the bible says homosexuality is bad" is a perfectly valid conclusion given the text.
I'm not disputing that there are segments of Christianity that are actively, vocally, violently against homosexuality. I am disputing that they are representative of all Christians.
But are they representative of christianITY? I think that there are too many of them to deny that they aren't.
For myself, I hate sin. All sin. Yes, that includes homosexuality. It also includes the many, many sins I commit. I also believe (without delving too far into my church's dogma) that there is salvation sufficient to cover all sins
Whoo hoo! A challenge! :)
--including homosexuality, and the many, many sins I commit. Neither I nor my church believe that homosexuality should be called out as the one sin that needs a-fixin'. All sins need a-fixin', and we, on Earth, are none of us the ones who can do it.
Even that, which i would think is the correct interpretation of Paul, is kind of insulting to homosexuals.
Here's another example, this one from my own life, which occurred just a few days ago. In Botany class: "This is how the world evolved--not how it was created. Creationism has been dismissed as a plausible explanation for the existence of life." Not "some scientists" or even "most scientists" have dismissed Creationism. Not "this theory dismisses Creationism," but "Creationism has been dismissed." You may argue that the "most scientists" or "this theory" elements were implied, and maybe you would be right.This isn't prejudice against Christianity. Botany is a science. Creationism is not science. Saying it's been dismissed isn't any more of attack on Christianity than saying geocentrism has been dismissed or Flat Earth has been dismissed would be attack on believers in that. Of for that matter even disproven scientific theories like Lysenkoism.
You can't do science if you have to cater to everyone who's scientific ideas have failed.
I respectfully disagree, on two grounds.
First, and least compellingly: I have studied advanced mathematics. I have worked as a statistician, I engage in experiments both in an academic environment and on my own, for "fun" and further enlightenment. Given the opportunity, I would happily do it for a living, but I do not yet have the academic credentials to do so (which is why I am back at school). I consider myself a scientist. I also believe in Divine Creation; hence, the statement is wrong on its face. In the event that others do not consider me a "scientist," when I graduate, and I am teaching, and conducting research, I will still believe in Divine Creation.
The earth is not flat. This has been empirically proven. You do not have to believe that the earth is round to examine the evidence and say "Huh. There you have it."
Creationism has been empirically disproven if and only if you hold that the laws of science disprove the idea. In fact, I do not. I may be wrong, but the point I am trying (poorly) to make is that you have to make a fundamental assumption which can neither be proven nor disproven before you can assert the point.
Regardless, my intention is not to debate Creationism. Nothing either of us can say will ever dissuade the other, so let's do the civil thing and agree that we have divergent and mutually exclusive opinions. The point I was trying to make is that an overt statement of fact regarding the nature of the universe which dismisses, in all ways, and without room for compromise a matter of faith is, I believe, a subtle bias.
Consider the difference between two sentences:
1) Humanity evolved according to natural processes, and our most distant common ancestor is a sponge.
2) The theory of evolution believes that humanity evolved according to natural processes, and our most distant common ancestor is a sponge.
Does adding a few words at the beginning of a sentence diminish the idea? Does it make it more challenging to ask, on an exam, what mankind's most distant ancestor is?
More to the point, was it even necessary to mention Creationism at all? Couldn't the point have been made without the quote I provided? Did it add anything to the discussion of which came first, ferns or mosses? Did it make eukaryotic cells more eukaryotic?
I may be giving the impression that I am hostile over this--I don't mean to. I'm not hostile, but I do think this sort of thing occurs more often than non-Christians think. By the same token, I'll bet that bias against women occurs more often than men think, or that bias against homosexuals occurs more often than straight people think.
Just my thoughts on the topic--you may disagree, and honestly, you may be right. In the end, I can only speak for myself and my own perceptions and feelings on the subject.
You can conclude that because your overriding opinion as a believer is that God is good. Looking at the bible i do not come to that conclusion. That means that, to various degrees, people reading the bible and saying "the bible says homosexuality is bad" is a perfectly valid conclusion given the text.
I can't speak for anyone buy myself, but I would conclude that we had another in a long line of subsets of Christians who are either intentionally or ignorantly misrepresenting the Bible in its entirety, focusing on the elements that happen to rev their engines and ignoring the parts about loving and forgiveness and so on.
As a believer, I am firmly convinced that God is good. As it happens, I also agree with your assertion here. Someone could read the Bible and conclude that it condemns homosexuality. I think one could argue it condemns that alongside a host of other things, but either way. By implication, or by deliberate omission by the reader, you can absolutely draw that conclusion.
(After re-reading the paragraph above prior to posting, I am afraid it comes across as belligerent or confrontational. I am not changing the language, because I don't know how else to say it, but please, please accept that I am genuinely trying to agree with you, and not trying to pick a fight.)
I'm not disputing that there are segments of Christianity that are actively, vocally, violently against homosexuality. I am disputing that they are representative of all Christians.But are they representative of christianITY? I think that there are too many of them to deny that they aren't.
I don't know. Like, genuinely, I don't know. I can only say with certainty that they do not represent me, or my Church, or any members of my denomination that I can think of.
If I am willing to concede that you may well be right, would you be willing to concede that maybe this is a case where a vocal minority gets too much air time, and the unspoken majority (which I will grant you is a problem in and of itself) is misrepresented as a result? Kinda like airplane crashes? Because honestly, I don't know the answer to your question. Sorry.
For myself, I hate sin. All sin. Yes, that includes homosexuality. It also includes the many, many sins I commit. I also believe (without delving too far into my church's dogma) that there is salvation sufficient to cover all sinsWhoo hoo! A challenge! :)
Mm. Call it a difference of perspective, instead. :-)
--including homosexuality, and the many, many sins I commit. Neither I nor my church believe that homosexuality should be called out as the one sin that needs a-fixin'. All sins need a-fixin', and we, on Earth, are none of us the ones who can do it.Even that, which i would think is the correct interpretation of Paul, is kind of insulting to homosexuals.
May I ask why? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I genuinely don't get that. If Paul is saying "you were all sinful--here are some of your sins--but now, through grace, you are forgiven," I don't see that as insulting to homosexuals. Or are you saying that it is insulting because homosexuality is lumped in alongside adultery and the like? I am hard pressed to argue that point with you, other than to point out that this may be an artifact of the language from so long ago. Drunkards are also called out as sinners in need of repentance, but that's not exactly a "sin" you see thrown around the Interwebs.
the word translated as 'natural' actually means 'inborn' or 'governed by the instincts of nature' (the link I posted is an interlinear Bible, so you can see this yourself). This verse is referring to men whose inborn instincts are to have sex with women - heterosexuals.
Or it means flat out what it says: men have an innate desire to breed with women and these people are not going along with it.
The relevant Greek word is _arsenokoitai_ which has been translated as "homosexual". However, _arsenokoitai_ was not Greek for homosexual. We actually don't know what it is. It appears to be a word Paul made up
It translates directly man lying with man. Its possible Paul didn't know the word for it, or paul was trying to be polite.
You're trying to derive an incredibly specific meaning out of something that says man lying with man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the word translated as 'natural' actually means 'inborn' or 'governed by the instincts of nature' (the link I posted is an interlinear Bible, so you can see this yourself). This verse is referring to men whose inborn instincts are to have sex with women - heterosexuals.Or it means flat out what it says: men have an innate desire to breed with women and these people are not going along with it.
The relevant Greek word is _arsenokoitai_ which has been translated as "homosexual". However, _arsenokoitai_ was not Greek for homosexual. We actually don't know what it is. It appears to be a word Paul made upIt translates directly man lying with man. Its possible Paul didn't know the word for it, or paul was trying to be polite.
You're trying to derive an incredibly specific meaning out of something that says man lying with man.
Google is letting me down at the moment, but a few months ago I read something to the effect that most translators are probably being more fair than Paul intended. A proper translation might be something closer to "butt f#&$ers". I'm sure the profanity filter is going to hit that one, but you get the idea.
Antimony, isn't anything that can't be empirically disproven by definition not science? (Gods, that's a horrible sentence. Three negatives. . . I should probably be shot.)
Again, I feel unqualified to answer you. I suppose I can try like this.
Suppose I have a hypothesis that...I don't know. That you could transform fish with GFP so that they glow under ultraviolet light. I design my experiment, and let's say that after five years of testing, I have developed a species of fish that does, indeed glow, and produces offspring that glow. So I have proven my hypothesis, but up until that point, for five years, it was neither proven nor disproven. Does that mean it wasn't science until then?
My understanding of science is that it is all an evolving (sorry) body of thought. Everything we hold as true today comes with the disclaimer "to the best of our knowledge" or "given what we know currently." I may be wrong about that. I'm wrong about lots of things.
I guess that's my concern about the statements which specifically call out Creationism as false. Why not just say "this is what modern science believes" and let Creationism fall under the "as far as we know" exception?
(After re-reading the paragraph above prior to posting, I am afraid it comes across as belligerent or confrontational. I am not changing the language, because I don't know how else to say it, but please, please accept that I am genuinely trying to agree with you, and not trying to pick a fight.)
Don't worry, I'll assume you're trying to pick a fight no matter what you say :)
Seriously though, when you're trying to convince an unbeliever that something is not Biblical saying that the thing is wrong or hateful... Doesn't work. To you, "x is hateful" or "x is wrong" means it is automatically not christian. That line of logic doesn't work with the darwin fish set.
I don't know. Like, genuinely, I don't know. I can only say with certainty that they do not represent me, or my Church, or any members of my denomination that I can think of.
Its a start at least... just remember that if you're upset at the folks protesting you, the way to get rid of them is to clean house.
If I am willing to concede that you may well be right, would you be willing to concede that maybe this is a case where a vocal...
I will admit to exageration of an existing trend but i've seen it too often to conclude that its being made out of whole cloth.
May I ask why? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I genuinely don't get that. If Paul is saying "you were all sinful--here are some of your sins--but now, through grace, you are forgiven,"
Hmmmm... I'm speaking for someone elses mindset here but I'll see what i can do.
Try to imagine that someone is telling you that the love you feel for the light of your life, your soulmate, the one you are destined to be with, the other half of your very being... that acting on that feeling is no different from having sex with a whore, taking someone into slavery, hitting your mother, and even committing murder.
Quickly, because I need to leave shortly.
You're a statistician. You may consider yourself a scientist. You are not a biologist.
Also, it's quite possible to believe in Divine Creation and still accept evolution.
All true. In point of fact, I believe in both Divine Creation and evolution. I believe that there were dinosaurs, which were eventually rendered extinct. I believe that species change over time, that natural selection ensures the most well-suited for a particular environment tend to thrive, and others die out. I also believe that all of these are agencies of God.
It's a college biology class. Do we need to add "The theory of evolution believes that" to every statement that involves a relationship between two species? It's going to come up a lot. All of modern biology is based around evolution.
Sure he could have not brought it up at all. It was never raised in any of my science classes. But that was years ago, when creationists weren't so entrenched as they are now.
It's still not an attack on Christianity. If anything it's an attack on a small subset of Christians who pretend that their faith trumps science in a science class.
I suppose we don't need to add "the theory of evolution states..." to sentences. But by the same token, do we need to add "Creationism has been disproven?" Honestly, would you say it added anything to the discussion?
Again, I respectfully disagree that creationists are firmly entrenched, particularly in the science community. But my sphere of knowledge is limited, so I may be completely wrong.
And finally, I did not mean to imply this amounted to an "attack." If I did, I misspoke. I was trying to say it is just one of the little things I've encountered that make me say, "Hm."
I'd be happy to discuss the Greek and Hebrew Bible in order to make the case if you want. I have studied it.
You go first.
I don't know Greek or Hebrew -- and haven't claimed to. Happily, your appeal to authority was in English. :)
If you're seriously trying to make the argument that only those who can read Greek and Hebrew have any business reading the bible...well, good luck with that. You'd fit right in in 16th century England.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Antimony,
But that's not Creationism. Creationism, very specifically, is that God (or the Designer if you're being dishonest nd using 'Intelligent Design') created everything ex nihilo 6000 yeard ago in the forms they are in today. No evolution. As you accept evolution, you don't mean Ceationism. I believe the term is theistic evoltuion. That is not a scientific proposition but it does not claim to be and therefore hasn't been disproved. I'm fairly sure it can't be disproved without disproving God, which is impossible.
(After re-reading the paragraph above prior to posting, I am afraid it comes across as belligerent or confrontational. I am not changing the language, because I don't know how else to say it, but please, please accept that I am genuinely trying to agree with you, and not trying to pick a fight.)
Don't worry, I'll assume you're trying to pick a fight no matter what you say :)
Seriously though, when you're trying to convince an unbeliever that something is not Biblical saying that the thing is wrong or hateful... Doesn't work. To you, "x is hateful" or "x is wrong" means it is automatically not christian. That line of logic doesn't work with the darwin fish set.
I may be wrong, but I sort of get the impression we agree more than disagree, but we are inadvertently speaking in circles around each other.
I think the main point I have is that what we as Christians perceive as "Christian" will always be flawed. We will never be able to understand the magnitude of God's will as mere humans--our minds are not equipped to handle it. But regardless of belief, if I think something is hateful, and you think something is hateful, surely we can at least agree that it is hateful, right?
I don't know. Like, genuinely, I don't know. I can only say with certainty that they do not represent me, or my Church, or any members of my denomination that I can think of.Its a start at least... just remember that if you're upset at the folks protesting you, the way to get rid of them is to clean house.
If I am willing to concede that you may well be right, would you be willing to concede that maybe this is a case where a vocal...I will admit to exageration of an existing trend but i've seen it too often to conclude that its being made out of whole cloth.
Fair enough. Like I said, I genuinely don't know the truth, here. You may be right.
May I ask why? I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but I genuinely don't get that. If Paul is saying "you were all sinful--here are some of your sins--but now, through grace, you are forgiven,"Hmmmm... I'm speaking for someone elses mindset here but I'll see what i can do.
Try to imagine that someone is telling you that the love you feel for the light of your life, your soulmate, the one you are destined to be with, the other half of your very being... that acting on that feeling is no different from having sex with a whore, taking someone into slavery, hitting your mother, and even committing murder.
Okay, fair enough. In that respect, I totally see what you are saying, and can't really disagree. I will just say this: the Bible is a complex document, and (as many have pointed out) written 2,000 years ago. I don't know how much a particular issue or word is an artifact of that. I mean, things like "Hey, don't kill each other" are clear. But by the same token, there is a section in Genesis or Exodus (I forget which) that says the "sons of God" had decided human women were attractive and begun to be intimate with them. What does that mean? I have no idea.
This may be one of those cases, or it may not. As much as I would like to be, I am not a Biblical scholar. Every argument I make, I make solely based on my own faith.
Such as it is.
Antimony,
But that's not Creationism. Creationism, very specifically, is that God (or the Designer if you're being dishonest nd using 'Intelligent Design') created everything ex nihilo 6000 yeard ago in the forms they are in today. No evolution. As you accept evolution, you don't mean XCeationism. I believe the tyerm is theistic evoltuion. That is not a scientific proposition but it also, therwefor, hadsn't been disprioved. I'm fairly sure it can't be disproved without disproving God, which is impossible.
In that context, then, you are right. I confess, that I probably do not use the terms correctly, so if that creates any confusion, it's on me. Apologies.
When I speak of "Creationism" I mean the term as we use it in Bible Study, which is a more general term than you have defined above. I've never heard the term theistic evolution (but I rather like it). In that context, I may be over thinking the Botany quote, and some others. On the other hand, some (e.g., "Religious beliefs have no place in a discussion of political behavior.") are pretty clear.
Again, sorry for the mix-up, and thanks for clarifying things.
I mean, things like "Hey, don't kill each other"To the contrary, a lot of verses in the bible are ok with murder, even enforce it.
Nah, not murder. The Bible makes a distinction between capital punishment and general killing.
(Tongue in cheek, here--I get what you are saying; I'm just trying to fit in with the cool crowd.)
Cristian or not, believer or unbeliever you should admit that there are evidence that evolution theory is right. If is the will of god or just the way nature is, is does not matter teaching that theory in the cassroom is the right thing to do, let the student decide for themselves if god do it or not.
So, teaching evolution theory is not inherently antichristian, so there is no bias.
I already said that I do believe that evolution happened and is happening, as an agency of God. I do not mean to imply that teaching Evolutionary theory is anti Christian. I was saying that teaching Evolutionary theory and IN THE PROCESS saying that it supersedes any thought of Divine intent is mildly biased. Please note: mildly biased.
However, as Paul Watson pointed out, the term "Creationism" may have been referring to a specific set of beliefs, and not the general idea of Divine Creation, which I admit, renders that particular point moot.
So, in essence, I get it, and I agree.
Cristian or not, believer or unbeliever you should admit that there are evidence that evolution theory is right. If is the will of god or just the way nature is, is does not matter teaching that theory in the cassroom is the right thing to do, let the student decide for themselves if god do it or not.
So, teaching evolution theory is not inherently antichristian, so there is no bias.
I already said that I do believe that evolution happened and is happening, as an agency of God. I do not mean to imply that teaching Evolutionary theory is anti Christian. I was saying that teaching Evolutionary theory and IN THE PROCESS saying that it supersedes any thought of Divine intent is mildly biased. Please note: mildly biased.
However, as Paul Watson pointed out, the term "Creationism" may have been referring to a specific set of beliefs, and not the general idea of Divine Creation, which I admit, renders that particular point moot.
So, in essence, I get it, and I agree.
Antimony, I'd suggest you look into the differences between Creationism and Theistic Evolution; Creationism is the unsupported hypothesis that the Bible is literally true, the universe was created in 7 days some few thousand years ago. Theistic Evolution is the philosophy which argues that evolution is the means which God used to create and shape life.
It's important to remember that neither of these exactly belong in science class. Creationism because it's bunk, Theistic Evolution because it's philosophy, not science. (Well, I suppose you could use Creationism as a negative example.)
My point about Theistic Evolution is that teaching it in science class is as if I said, "Well, the local school doesn't have funding for art classes, but history is very similar to science, and most visual arts rely on color, which is light wavelengths, so let's teach art history in science class." That is, it's a perfectly valid thing to think about, but it belongs in the humanities section. Science class should teach verified science, and evolution has been verified at this point, if only by tadpoles.
BNW claimed that it was me, alone, vs 8000 Greek Scholars (though, I'm not sure where he got the "8000").
In fact, the following denominations approve of homosexuality
Anglicanism,
The Associaton of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists
German Lutheran
EKD
Swiss Reformed Church
Protestant Churches of the Netherlands
United Pentecostal Church in Belgium
Danish National Church
Church of Sweden
Church of Iceland
Church of Norway
...
Just want to point out that there are vocal factions within the Danish church who are very much against homosexuality.
Luckily, it's still a NATIONAL church, so come June homosexual weddings can take place in churches over here (we were the first country to legalize same-sex unions (with basically the same benefits as marriage) and there has been a "church blessing" ceremony available, but it has taken us way too long to actually get to this point).Individual priests are, of course, able to opt out of performing the wedding, but luckily there are lots of other priests willing to do it.
I think most other so-called Free Churches here are opposed to it (but then again, some of them perform exorcism and similar wacked out (and, in some cases, harmful) ceremonies).
Then you still have the Jehovas Witnesses, the Mormons, the Jewish society, the Muslims etc. All of which are against homosexuality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of Christians trying to "Pray the Gay Away." I tried to do this for a friend back when I was a rather uneducated Christian. God responded by making me realize I liked boys too. Oh God you warm hearted joker, you were supposed to cure the "Evil Gayness" not make it contagious!
GentleGiant, part of the value of religion stems from the fact that there are differences of opinion as well as debates.
Some of the people on these boards seem to want to paint all of a religion as being uniform in belief. I think religion would lose its value if such uniformity were to ever happen.The point I was making is that I'm NOT the only Christian supporting homosexuality. There is a large number of Christians who approve of it and anyone who claims otherwise (for example, with that 'Darkwing, alone, against 8000 Greek scholars' kind of comment) just doesn't know anything about Christianity.
Oh enough of that you mendacious mallard. I didn't say you were the only christian supporting homosexuality as being ok.... or at least as not being any more screwed up as anything else is.
Get a new schtick. Misrepresent other persons point of view, accuse them of ignorance, use said accusations of ignorance to ignore the main point is getting old.
The fact is that your twisting and writhing over the old AND new testament calling it a sin is a severe minority position and your arguments are spurious at best. You argued for a very specific translation and instead presented arguments for a more general position. Double date with conflict diamond if you're going to do that.
Its pretty obvious what paul is repeatedly putting on a list of what he thinks is morally reprehensible behavior. You want to be christian and gay? Have at it. There are worse things to contradict the bible on. But don't start insulting people for not changing their minds to a rather absurd position that you can't honestly or effectively argue for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GentleGiant, part of the value of religion stems from the fact that there are differences of opinion as well as debates.
Some of the people on these boards seem to want to paint all of a religion as being uniform in belief. I think religion would lose its value if such uniformity were to ever happen.
Couldn't one argue that the very fact that there ISN'T uniformity within a single religion is evidence that the theology is very weak. Or that "the message" isn't a clear as some claim that it is?
In other words, it's a quite fallible document, obviously written by men and not the divine inspired document it's claimed to be?The point I was making is that I'm NOT the only Christian supporting homosexuality. There is a large number of Christians who approve of it and anyone who claims otherwise (for example, with that 'Darkwing, alone, against 8000 Greek scholars' kind of comment) just doesn't know anything about Christianity.
You also have to make the distinction, that some of those Christians still consider homosexuality a sin, but they hold the proposed message of love in higher regard and thus purport to love/forgive their sinning homosexual fellow brethren.
Which, in practicality, is probably the best outcome, but it's still denigrating to the homosexual part of the population.Sure, there are some who "approve" of it (I'd say "don't consider it worthy of derision" rather than actually "approve" of it (as I see "approve" as "encouraging")). One of the questions from "us on the other side" earlier in the thread, has then been. Why aren't they leading the "battle" against their homophobic fellow Christians? Why aren't they a more visible minority on the barricades?
You also have to make the distinction, that some of those Christians still consider homosexuality a sin, but they hold the proposed message of love in higher regard and thus purport to love/forgive their sinning homosexual fellow brethren.
This.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GentleGiant, part of the value of religion stems from the fact that there are differences of opinion as well as debates.
I'd hazard a guess that that has nothing to do with the value of religion and everything to do with the value of differences of opinion and debates.
Its a nice assertion until you realize that there's no actual way to prove these Christians' good intentions. You all will always cling to your conspiracies.You also have to make the distinction, that some of those Christians still consider homosexuality a sin, but they hold the proposed message of love in higher regard and thus purport to love/forgive their sinning homosexual fellow brethren.This.
Its your translation that I'm questioning here. If a word translates literally as man next to man when discussing sex I think you have the burden of proof in trying to shift the meaning to something else. Saying that there are christian friendly churches out there doesn't make your point for two reasons, 1) what hill giant said far better than i could 2) as we've already discussed, I don't expect Christianity to make sense or consistently follow an inconsistent book.
To put it bluntly, I'm an asexual atheist. What possible reason could I have for needing this particular passage to translate to the obvious meaning? If i need a list of biblical atrocities my fingers will fall off typing before I get to "paul said mean things about homosexuals but also said you should love them anyway"
Its a nice assertion until you realize that there's no actual way to prove these Christians' good intentions. You all will always cling to your conspiracies.You also have to make the distinction, that some of those Christians still consider homosexuality a sin, but they hold the proposed message of love in higher regard and thus purport to love/forgive their sinning homosexual fellow brethren.This.
How can it be a conspiracy when actual Christians have proclaimed it?
Or is it just another way to dismiss a stance with which you don't agree?