One Christian's View on Homosexuality (2672 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: 0.43 on 112 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Jinky Williams (View user info) at 2004-08-20 17:58:28 EDT
In response to comments and posts past, present, and future, this is one man's understanding of a Biblical view on homosexuality. Now, without a common ethical/moral reference *and* adherance, there can really be no agreement regarding the validity of homosexuality as a lifestyle.
I will build my case from the Christian point of view, and will be working with the Bible as an inerrant moral reference and historical account. You likely don't agree with this, but at least we have common ground with which to work from.
I must impress that nothing I say should be understood to be canon, or even taken as representative of proper Biblical principle without first comparing and studying it. This is merely the understanding, and the expression of that understanding, by one person.
God is not human, or even of flesh, and therefore does not have any gender. However, because of His role, and the relationship He has with the church and the analogous role He decreed for humanity and the family unit, He refers to Himself as a paternal figure. This sets the basis for understanding His plan for marriage. While simultaneously being a good and functional social unit, with the intention of being beneficial to those who enter into it, the marriage between a man and a woman is also a corporeal analogy of His relationship with the Church (and by the Church, I mean the whole of those who are Christians, not any human-established corporation or group). (It is interesting to note that marriage is the oldest institution of God to humanity still in effect.)
God's love for us is directly likened to a husband's love for his new bride. "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her..." Ephesians 5:25.
Fr Roger Landry sums up my position fairly well here:
"Human heterosexual spousal love was created by God to reflect God's own love for his people. To change the meaning of marriage to encompass homosexual "unions" will not only do damage to individual men and women with same-sex attractions, to others and to society as a whole, but it will gradually incapacitate our ability to understand the meaning of all creation and God's love for us, of which traditional marriage is the highest reflection."
Now, I must stress that my belief regarding morality should not, and does not affect my view of a given person in any situation (not limited to homosexuality). I've no inherant issue with the person, and will give them the benefit of the doubt, and will continue in this fashion until they've given me reason to behave differently. I am completely aware that I am also fallen, and in no way superior to anyone (nor am I inferior).
Now, I firmly believe that Government does not have the right to decree a marriage standard. http://cre8thoughts.com/index.php?showtopic=1958&st=40&#entry21485 is my reasoning behind this. This may come as a shock to many, especially considering what I've just written, but I believe the two issues ("a Biblical view on homosexuality" and "a Biblical view on the purpose of government) to be completely separate arguments.
So, this, in a (large) nutshell, is why I don't believe homosexuality to be correct or right. There is simply no room for them in God's plan. I've not even hit on any Bibical references that state directly God's will against homosexuality. I will decline to do so as it is not the focus of my argument. What I wanted to show here is the complete lack of support for any homosexual lifestyle in the Bible anywhere. All aspects of God's design for humanity and the family unit directly oppose such a lifestyle. Of course, if you don't believe in the validity of the Bible and of Christian dogma, then this argument will be baseless. If this is the case, at least I hope that you can observe and consider one man's view on this hotly-debated topic, and understand why I firmly believe that Christians should not approve of or condone the practice or lifestyle of homosexuality.
Thanks for reading.
Stay orange.
--JW
User Reviews
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-09-16 13:14:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think NetProphet made some good points in his replies.
What I wanted to comment on was your closing statement: "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
You see, I submit that whether or not it is broke is precisely what we need to find out. Clearly, the thing that motivated the Crusades, the witch burnings, and countless other acts of war, murder, and savagery, cannot be as perfect as you suggest.
Even if we accept that all of the brutalities executed in the name of God were merely the result of overzealous Christians misinterpreting the scriptures, I contend that a proper ideology, whether it be religion, a form of government, or any other set of ideals that intends to guide people's lives, should define its intentions clearly enough that people cannot use it to justify their unwanted behaviour. What good is the Bible as an idea to base your life on, when it can and has been so easily misinterpreted in so many dangerous ways?
I hope you find the time to come back to this post and continue this discussion.
I myself don't have that much time right now, being busy with studying for my upcoming SAT, but I will try and find time to read and reply if need be.
Submitted by strider (user info) at 2004-09-10 18:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
JW, You made a very well stated argument. Your abilities displayed here should be desired by all those of the faith. I also respect how well you've handled those with opposing opinions (and how those opposing have acted as well. Well done Teephphah and NetProphet.)
You've inspired me to research more into why I believe what I believe. Keep up the good work. (gonna go look at what else you've posted....)
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2004-09-10 18:10:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Plap (user info) at 2004-09-10 17:56:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
The +1 is for the well written thought out argument. Clearly you are an intelligent person, who is quite aware of the dogmatic reasoning of organized religion. However, considering my own beliefs, I can not give you a +2. It is clear to me that it was man who created god and not vise versa, and frankly, I can't see how any sane person in this day and age can think otherwise.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-09-10 16:30:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The posting mechanism won't let me submit this response in a single review, so here is the first part of two.
Just came across this post again, JW. I'd like to address your last review.
"I think a good way of validating a lifestyle system is finding out how a society would function if everyone in that socety correctly adhered to its guidelines."
By that logic, both Marxist Communism and Hitler's Third Reich were valid "lifestyle systems", as you've termed them. Not so. The way of determining the validity of a lifestyle has many factors, but some of the largest include "Is it healthy for me?", "How does this affect those around me?", and theologically, "Is this accurate to what it purports?"
Christianity is not a "healthy" religion. It is one of the few religions that allows absolution with zero effort. A man can be evil his entire life and gain redemption on his deathbed. This religion does not motivate its followers to seek God, enlightenment, or spiritualism. That's not to say that people don't go through the motions of Christianity, but because it's an "all or nothing" thing, even the people who do go through the motions of reading their Bible and attending Sunday church are half-assed about it. I have observed the most inspired Christians speak in tongues and shout praises to the Lord on Sundays, and then been downright diabolical the rest of the week. That's at the extreme end of the spectrum, but on a practical level, the average follower is bored during sermons and never reads their Bible.
Christianity has produced a spiritually and ethically dead nation. Even the Christians who follow the path righteously are largely motivated by FEAR. Not a desire to be pure, wise, or pious, but because of the threat of fire and brimstone, and not knowing when they will die. Even if there's no chance of death at all, hey, the rapture could come any second, so you better not be caught napping on the job. That's a terribly unhealthy way to motivate people towards anything. A business that motivated its employees with fear would fail, and so has Christianity, producing a morally bankrupt populace.
And finally, as to the accuracy of Christianity, there are goodly parts of it that simply don't line up. The idea of being able to interpret the scriptures selectively to meet the needs of the present situation is also largely unhealthy, as it cultivates a mindset of rationalizing your deeds, be they good or evil, rather than questioning your own motives. All of these things started as concepts of Christianity but have snowballed to become a fundamental basis of American culture, affecting those who don't adhere to the faith just as much.
"So now the question must be asked: What are the fruits of one who follows a given system?"
As I've just said, followers of Christianity are not motivated to expand their minds, to develop their body (which is purportedly their temple for God), or to do good to all fellow men. While there are cases of this occurring, it is not the norm. The general ethics of Christianity are wonderful in theory, but there are aspects of the religion that cause it to fail in practice. This is no different than Marxist Communism. It's a great idea at a glance, but is lacking the requisites to be wholly functional.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-09-10 16:30:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The posting mechanism won't let me submit this response in a single review, so here is the second part.
"[Christ] is one who adheres to the fundamental guidelines and principles put forth in the Bible for us to live by."
Jesu ben Pantera was actually a rebel in his time, rejecting several orthodox beliefs and teaching his own methodology. It was this that catalyzed his death, which incidentally was not on a cross at all, but rather occurred by stoning after he was hung improperly. If you wish to be more like "Christ", you should seek God directly and reject the beliefs of any single church.
Remember that there are NO GODS before Jehovah. That is the FIRST commandment of the Christian Bible, and it includes the prophet Jesus. There are only a few, isolated, vague incidences of a Trinity as utilized in the Catholic Church in the Christian Bible- it's a concept that has been largely added into the mix along the years, and doesn't reflect anything found in a concrete nature in the Bible.
Christ was a prophet and a leader, and within three hundred years of his death, people mistakenly called him a God. But this is just another means of being deceived. The first commandment states that there is only one true God, and there shall be no Gods before Him. The Catholic church says prayers to both Christ and to St. Mary, his mother, and in doing so blasphemizes the very name of God.
Also remember that Christ never, NOT ONCE, called himself a God. Over the years, it still has not found its way into the Bible. Others have called him a God in the Bible, but Jesus never claimed to be. Yet Christ did say two things that mean something to me: "I am the way, the truth, and the light: for no man shall enter heaven but through me," and "Straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leads unto eternal life." Christ also said, twenty-six times in the Gospel, "Follow me." Not once did he call himself a God, but twenty-six times did he tell us to follow his teachings.
The way of Christ is the only path to heaven. Christ never worshipped himself. He worshipped the one true God, and doing as he did is the path to Heaven. That is the meaning of the first quote. The second shows the folly of modern Christianity. We claim to be able to get into Heaven simply by "accepting Christ into our hearts"; however, that is far too easy to exemplify Christ's teaching that the path to eternal life is long and hard. We must follow Christ to gain entrance to eternal life.
As a side note to all of this, I do not believe that simply because the Jews called God "Jehovah", that "Allah" isn't the same God. As I have said before, a just God presents Himself equally to all peoples, giving all peoples equal opportunity to access His truth. In addition, I do not believe God is a conscious, thinking being, nor do I believe Heaven and the "eternal life" Christ speaks of to be anything like a place on Earth. Heaven is not actually paved with gold streets, we don't spend an eternity in a mansion, and God is not a bearded man in sandals up on some cloud, for those things are simply metaphors.
Consider this: twenty primitive tribes taken from the year 1000 BC are given a television set, and three thousand years to take it apart, put it back together, and try to understand it (without having modern technology to analyze the thing). But if each tribe guards its knowledge of the television jealously, how would the explanations turn out? Each explanation builds upon itself, and refuses to utilize parts of the other tribes' explanations because they are certain that only their explanation can be the correct one. So while the explanations can be similar, they are only allowed to do so by making the assumption that the minor details of their explanation separate it from the other "wrong" ones.
So each tribe would have a partial understanding of the television set, but all of those explanations would be inadequate on their own. Yet each tribe would satisfy themselves with their inadequate explanation, and even try to build new sets off of their mediocre understanding. These new TV sets would certainly not work as well as the original, but the people of the tribes would pretend that it did because they don't want to admit (thanks to human ego) that a neighboring tribe may have built a better set.
As I've sure you've determined, that is a metaphor for modern religion.
Christian prophecy states that God keeps track of our endeavors, and builds a stockpile of treasure in Heaven for righteous deeds. Yet it states that righteous deeds won't get you in the door. Buddhist philosophy believes that we perform righteous deeds as a means of reuniting ourselves with the Source, or "Brahma". Yet righteous deeds won't give you enlightenment in Buddhism either. I believe both religions are explaining the same thing in different ways: good deeds give of yourself to others, thereby returning unto you more than what you gave out. Sharing your energy with others brings it back to you greater than you gave it. Good things come around to good people, and good people are generally happy people. Yet bad people are often miserable. They spend their days robbing energy from others, and in truth, it depletes them even more.
Therefore, good deeds bring you closer to Divinity; yet it is through a complete understanding of Divinity that one gains enlightenment. The more good one does, the more saturated they are in the energy. The more saturated one is in the energy, the more naturally will one receive Divine inspiration. It's quite like being at the beach. Many people spend their whole lives on the sand, looking at the water and speculating what it is like, but never gaining an understanding because they don't experience it for themselves. When you do good things, you start to wade into the water. Perhaps right now it is around your ankles. Being up to your ankles in water doesn't cause you to immediately know everything about what water is; however, you have a better understanding of it because you are experiencing it directly.
Heaven is not a place, but a goal. Eternal life is the incarnation of our soul (a soul merely being another state of energy) with the Source. This may take many lifetimes to achieve. Gaining eternal life, or enlightenment, happens when you are fully saturated in the "water", inside and out, and understand it completely. You know what it is from every possible angle, how to harness it and manipulate it, how to make it work for you, and how to work as a part of it; as a section of an immense whole. By that time, you are no longer swimming in the water... you have become it.
"If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
If we adhered to that mentality, a great many of us would be living in Europe right now. We would be too afraid to explore the rest of the world, because it is quite obviously flat. Just look out over the ocean. You can see the edge.
Submitted by AwesomeJohnson (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:54:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I don't know if it made me "smile" persay, but you have an opinion, I'll defend your right to have it, and you're not a douchebag, so +1.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:48:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh and by "I love you" I meant only that I consider you a very good poster and I have the utmost respect for you. Like "I love John Grisham" only maybe a tad more personal since I've interacted with you before.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, I've quickly learned that posts with titles like this are usually just hitwhoring machines. So I opened it fully expecting a bunch of bullshit that I would be forced to -2 for the stupidity of it. However, when I opened it and saw you as the author, I knew that it couldn't possibly be what I thought based only on the title, for you are awesome. And even though I disagree with your views, I don't think you're an idiot for them, or the way you express them, as I so often do of people on ubersite. Is that a little clearer?
Here's the +2 I forgot.
Submitted by gravernmisery (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:38:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I will give you compliments on your argument. I like the way the you structured it. Most Christian will just beat you to death with scripture, even if they don't understand the writings themselves. But, of course, as everyone else on this site does, I must interject my opinion.
First, I have serious issues with the Bible itself. You said "God", not being a human nor a material being, does not have a sex. Then, despite your "patriarchal" explanation, why must God be "He" or "Him". Could a woman not establish such guidelines and boundries? Even going back to the "olden" days when the events of the Bible were still happening, who was it that birthed the children, took care of the home, cooked the food, etc, etc? Was it the man? No. Women have been doing men's dirty work since time began. Go back to 3 B.C. and tell a man to take over his wife's duties. It wouldn't happen. He'd burn the food, drop the baby, and probably forget to do the dishes. Also, many cultures believe the woman is the foundation of a good family. In some cultures women even did the hunting. Another issue I have with the Bible is it contradicts itself. The classic point on this is "God's love for all people", but of course read on and the Bible basically says "if you like the same sex, you're going to Hell unless you change who you've been from birth, repent for your 'sins', and fall into the mold that you should've followed from the start". Nevermind the fact that individuality is what makes the world interesting, or people are different for a reason. On last count I think the Bible contradicts itself 147 times. I should probably read it again to double check that. But, i digress...
Second, you basically say that in order for a "family unit" to be functional there must be a man and a woman. There are many monogamous, child rearing homosexual couples that make a perfectly functioning family unit. Just because a child has 2 Moms, or 2 Dads as the case may be, does not mean that the child will not be raised correctly or be disfunctional. There are many heterosexual "family units" that don't function as well as some of the homosexual ones I have come across.
Third, why should it matter if a person prefers their own sex to the opposite? Your God encourages us to believe, feel, and share love. If a person loves another person and that other just happens to be of the same sex, does that mean its neccesarily wrong? Also, love is blind.. note the term "blind". Following this particular logic, love is unbiased and the sex of the person has no more weight in the decision to love someone as their eye color, or skin color.
And last, to go back to my first point for a moment, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine, take that for what it is. But there are other "sins" that the Bible seems to say nothing about, and possibly condone. Most people I know believe incest is wrong, very wrong, but reference back to the Bible and I don't seem (note: seem) to remember the Bible chastising incest in any way. If you take the Bible in a literal translation, it seems to even condone it. Take Adam and Eve. The first humans on Earth. After being booted from the Garden of Eden for simply being curious (I have my serious issues with this story, but that's for another time), Adam and Eve went on to procreate and make more humans. No where in the Bible does it say anything about God creating more humans for Adam and Eve's children to bear child with. Therefore, through logical deduction, Adam and Eve's children would either have had to 1) procreate with Adam and Eve themselves, or 2) procreate with each other. Two words to describe this: blatant incest. I do believe there was another scripture that spoke of incest, but I could be wrong.
To conclude this (lengthy) argument, why would you want to listen to a book that 1) constantly contradicts itself, 2) considers women to be objects, and 3) condones such a repulsive act as incest?
-McGee
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:26:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't quite know how to take that, QueenAshlee.
Thank you? It sounds a compliment.
I've no problem beliving that you are being forthcoming, but to what extent and how exactly you mean that, I've not the foggiest. I doubt that you'd say that flippantly. And for it to be sarcasm, I think I would have had to have done something to hurt you fairly deeply, which I'm not aware of doing.
Of course, I could be completely off the mark and could have totally misread you. In this case, all bets are off, and I'm a doof. I can't help it. I analyze.
So, some clarification, perhaps? Just for my own peace of mind.
Thanks for your comment, regardless.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2004-09-08 19:05:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was all set to -2 this based on the title.
Then I remembered that I love you.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-09-08 18:58:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I was reading through some of the later responses that I've not gotten to read and think about.
One was from NetProphet regarding the validity of the Christian faith. An extremely interesting and fascinating subject, and one that approaches the whole "religion" debate from a considerably different angle. I'm not trying to throw the current debate. Not by any means. But NetProphet's comment got me thinking. This reply is specifically regarding that comment.
How is something validated? In what ways can an ideal, thought, or way of life be validated?
Let's define "valid" first. I will use Dictionary.com's first two definitions:
1.) Well grounded; just: a valid objection.
2.) Producing the desired results; efficacious: valid methods.
This is a great way to accurately gauge any prescribed lifestyle, and not just a religious one. Is it well-grounded? At its core, are the principles espoused in that system laid out in a logical manner? Are they just? But then, how does one define "just"? I think Definition One requires an adhereance, or at least a temporary understanding of a moral/ethical system just to determine the justness of said system. It is largely, if not completely, metaphysical.
The interpetation of Definition Two and application to a given system is, by the same token, dependant on one's understanding of how things "should" be. Again, it is extremely unlikely that a completely-agreeable conclusion can be reached by any two parties unless an accordance is made regarding what exactly "desired results".
I think a good way of validating a lifestyle system is finding out how a society would function if everyone in that socety correctly adhered to its guidelines. Now, this is taken into consideration that because of the nature of humanity, no one will be able to completely and fully-adhere to any set of guidelines all the time. What this *is* dependant on, however, is that those who are counted as "correctly adhering" are continually and actively trying to discern how to correctly interpet and apply the ideals laid out in a given system to situations that they are confronted with in their lives. Those who say they do adhere to a given system but do not show by their fruits that they do should not be counted as such a one.
So now the question must be asked: What are the fruits of one who follows a given system? We need some given "ideal" that shows how one who adheres to its fundamental guidelines and principles should conduct themselves. The ideal in the Bible is the character of Jesus. It should be understood that those who would follow Jesus aren't supposed to retrace His steps exactly in their own lives, but rather follow the principles He espoused and understand how He applied them in His life so they can be accurately applied in their lives. I'm not well-learned in other lifestyle systems, but I'd assume an ideal character to pattern after would be included in those as well.
By this token, I would call Jesus a fundamentalist in the truest sense of the word. He is one who adheres to the fundamental guidelines and principles put forth in the Bible for us to live by. Any other definition of a Christian fundamentalist should be discarded. A person who torches a neighbor's house because they aren't going to church is not a fundamentalist. They are misinterpeting, either honestly or for their own gain, the Bible.
After a system's fundamentals have been understood, the next step is to see if it works in society. How does it affect those around them? Are they beneficial to society? Is the system able to provide the user with the tools to determine the best course of action in a given situation? Again, though these definitions are concrete, they are dependant on one's understanding of what is beneficial, how one defines "best", et cetera.
Despite likely disparate understandings of the particulars of "good" and "right", there are still "lowest common denominator " general social understandings of these concepts that are, for the most part, agreed upon. There's almost always an appeal to a transcendant moral system in day-to-day conversation--especially (and ironically) bickering ("I should get to play with this!" "nuh-uh, you had it longer" "well, I haven't gotten to play with it at all today" "who cares, you should share!"). There's general social etiquette that is applied (but depending on the society this etiquette may manifest itself differently), and people generally agree when someone is being a jerk, or when someone is being courteous. And, though it's often overlooked, much stock is placed in consistency, be it in physical manifestations (work quality), or in metaphysical (morals, character, etc).
In this way, to a large degree, one can assess the validity of a lifestyle system. If one can locate someone who understands and applies a given system to their lives, you can ask the above questions and start to get an idea of how that system operates.
So, what's the application here? My goal with this reply is this: I'd like us to take a step back for a moment, and observe what we follow, why we follow it, and more importantly, what fruits does our lifestyle bear? Any system will have detractors, and people who will stop at nothing to disprove or discredit it in some way or another. There will always be discussions about what applies today, what does not, how one should interpet and apply in discussions about guns, about drugs, about cheating, lying, stealing, about music, food, diet, how to spend money, everything under the sun. I'd like to get out of the mire of technicalities and focus instead on something that groups and individuals across the board ask and discuss:
How should we then live? How do we know how we should live? Are our actions and lifestyle one that we would be proud to have someone mimic? If everyone behaved how we did and acted according to the principles we did, would the world be a better place? Is what we believe valid? What fruits do our actions bear?
I'm not saying nothing else matters, that the particulars are not of import. But what I do say is that fingers and arms do little good without a body. There's no way to coordinate them in a consistant without a common base. There is no way to be consistant in the your applications and actions if you do not have a solid base to work from.
The system I choose to adhere to has certainly validated itself in my life countless times. I do not know all there is to know about Christianity or the Bible. But what I've learned thus far has afforded me the opportunity to continuously refer back to an unchanging and consistant guide when confronted with different situations.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by NoahsArk (user info) at 2004-09-08 01:27:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Fuck god's plan.
Submitted by smokymtcsw (user info) at 2004-09-08 01:12:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
great post! more from you please.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-09-08 01:01:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"I think we should burn all retarded christians like yourself in a huge furnace, what does everyone else think?"
--Quite a suggestion. How about you read the thread and find out what everyone else thinks?
Man, I wish I had the time to write back more than bit replies. I hate leaving discussions dormant for long periods of time. Maybe I'll take a vacation day to write back on all my "serious discussion" posts.
Avals, I will return... someday. I especially hate leaving it when there are intelligent people willing and waiting to reply. But this discussion can, and will, go on indefinitely. Some times there are things you need to pick up, and some times there are things you need to drop. This is one of those "drop" times, sadly.
I truly thank everyone who's been active in contributing to this discussion. And I thank you for not immediately assuming and posting that I've run way from the discussion.
I wish I were retired. Or rich. Or something. Sighh.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by AndyD (user info) at 2004-09-06 06:47:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I think we should burn all retarded christians like yourself in a huge furnace, what does everyone else think?
Submitted by Kent_Weirdo (user info) at 2004-09-06 06:47:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The +2 isn't for this post, just so you know.
Submitted by Walsareck (user info) at 2004-09-06 06:40:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yikes...
Submitted by Vanilla (user info) at 2004-09-06 06:30:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
the fact that you stated from the start that this was a bible based argument intrigued me and put me off all at once.
Firstly, I was raised a christian, but not the church goer, bible reading type. I HAVE read the bible, but with little enthusiasm. Purely because it's too far fetched to render any logic in me. And the fact that religious workings such as the bible cause so much controversy also leads me to believe that differnet opinions will always be drawn out and it is not in my place to force my opinion on others, which is what so many people do when it comes to using the bible as a referece.
On the other hand, I liked the way you structured your argument to be objective yet biased. You came from a particular angle but in such a way that doesnt impose your opinion or leave you close minded to other opinions. That is a very hard thing to do when arguing with a religious base.
+2 for the argument, not for the logic.
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-09-06 06:18:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You're not coming back, are you?
Oh well...
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-28 06:41:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
mikethescottish - And heterosexuality isn't? Let's face it, unless you're having sex in order to conceive, you're doing exactly the same thing as homosexuals.
Don't get me wrong, I don't find the thought of two men having sex very appealing, but it's their life and they have a right to live it the way they want.
JinkyWilliams - I will, indeed, stay orange.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-27 11:40:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sorry about the lack of replies. Work has been considerably busier this last week. I'll get back here when I am able.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by mikethescottish (user info) at 2004-08-23 18:12:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm not suprised that people generally oppose this point of view (what with the bible being disdained by most people able to form their own opinions), but I am suprised that a thoughtfully written and undramatic post isn't higher rated. Personally, ignoring religious and political doctrine, homosexuality is biological deviancy- self-gratification masked by sexual expression.
You can make me tolerate it, but you can't make me like it.
Submitted by UlfGabe (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"You're taking your philosophy out of a 2,000 year old book that was edited for political purposes and basing your whole way of life on it? Do you stop to think about how much the world has changed since then?"
I have looked at many religions and all writing which has come under my eye. To even the layman a book compounding and retelling statutes and doctrine would seem suspicious. I would point out the fact of two people whom I know, one is retarded, the other colour-blind.
The mentally damaged one from a young age was taught to write with his right hand all of his life, it was needed to be reinforced time and time again. Everyone couldn't understand why he would try and write with his left hand. His student helper would constantly berate and punish him for writing with his left hand. Simple observation, he IS LEFT HANDED. Through indoctrination and Carrot/Stick reinforcement he became RIGHT HANDED. Point is you have been indoctrinated.
Same for the colourblind person I know, he has brown/green purple/blue colour blind, he cannot tell the difference, and gets them mixed up. All through Kindergarded and the early grades he would draw brown trees and then call them green(the crayons had no labels). People told him the trees were green, and he related the colour of the trees to the crayon. He finally realized what was going on, and ripped up the pictures of the brown trees. Your bible preaches that the metaphorical BROWN TREES are WRONG. You took his brown trees(which are green to him) and turned them green(brown to him). Now when he looks at his pictures(which are very excellent) all he can see is brown ugly forests. The bible has taken away your perspective and turned you away from individuality. I personally preferred the brown tree pictures, for I knew that they were green to him.
"I choose to live according to the principles laid out in the Bible because I've studied them and conclude that they are worthy of my time and dedication. I find that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training, and understanding the world around me. It applies to my life and provides me with a steadfast rule to which I can line myself up to and remain consistant in my actions and words. It is a life of great benefit and freedom, joy and fulfillment. I'd not choose any other for any sum. I am secure in my decision. "
I wish you would have instead studied other religions also, but if you have, good for you.
I think not however, as you have not mentioned it.
Have you read any other religious texts in depth?
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:43:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
And this one.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:42:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
As is this one.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This review is solely in hopes that this thread might make Most Heated and more people will provide valid arguments on both sides of the issue.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:41:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jinky and Teephphah:
Thanks for your kind comments regarding my responses, despite our opposing sides on the issue. I look forward to hearing your rebuttals, and hope that you will incorporate the works I have linked to if you can. I would include those in my arguments here, but I am afraid it would make the post far too long; therefore, I have chosen only to post the responses from the top of my head, based off of the research I have done in my past, with those links included as a supplement.
There is no doubt I will utilize that material when I present an article on what I believe to be the errancies in the Christian faith. So you've got a head start on rebutting it if you're reading it right off... ;-)
I am intrigued to see how this discussion is, in part, also focusing on the validity of the Christian religion- and also intrigued to see that people are taking up both sides of the issue. Of course, I'd really only care to see valid arguments from those who have made an effort in their post, and many short comments simply won't contain that kind of substance; however, I think a lot of terrific points have been touched on by people who take the issues seriously.
I would like to see this make Most Heated. It's not far off from there now. Also, I'd like to hear more from yidele on the validity of the Christian faith, as he/she seems extremely well versed on some of the historical aspects.
Well, here's to hoping. +2
Submitted by UlfGabe (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:30:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So you're gay...... ?
God who is genderless, but referred to as male, is in a relationship with the church(headed up by the pope, a bunch of male bishops, and male clergymen)
Seems like this God GUY is one huge flamer. Heck even the nuns are married only to him. Poligamy is in!
Submitted by Trout (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:28:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:28:49 (#)
Ranking: -2
ITS AN OLD FUCKING BOOK!!!
AN OLD BOOK!!!
WRITTEN TO CONTROL ILLITERATES.
FOR FUCKS SAKE
________________
HA HA HA HA
It's funny 'cause it's true
Submitted by satchel (user info) at 2004-08-23 17:17:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Jinky, you said: "You are correct. I do have an issue with it. It does affect me. I wouldn't spend my time on it if it didn't."
Please explain what you mean by this, with examples, if possible. Specifically, how does the existence of homosexuals/homosexuality effect you on a day-to-day basis? How is the effect negative?
The reason I ask is that I cannot, for the life of me, understand why homosexuality is relevant to your life if, as you say, gays have no place in God's plan. Why not live your own life according to the tenets of your religion and leave the rest of us to ours?
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-23 16:55:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Teephphah - You're right, I did not write that letter, and I never claimed otherwise. I actually expected people to quickly recognize where it came from, but that shouldn't make any difference. I didn't make any changes whatsoever to the original message (it seems there are several versions, since mine wasn't addressed to George W. Bush), because I felt that it fit the topic perfectly the way it was, and that the fact that I could use an old message without making any changes at all would say something about the topic as a whole.
The page you linked to, I'm sorry to say, doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let me demonstrate:
" In ancient cultures slavery was a way of life. Life was cheap and slaves were property that could be treated and disposed of any which way. That was a fact of life. The very fact that Moses wrote laws to protect the servant with certain legal and moral safeguards put the Israelites light years ahead of the neighboring nations. Slaves with rights—unheard of! But also, the e-mailer should realize that the term slave here can be misleading in that it may very well refer to a bond servant or maid. In early America, many people were able to afford immigration by selling themselves as bondservants for a time. In any regard, over time the full revelation of God impressed men with a more comprehensive understanding and practice of justice and dignity for human life."
What this paragraph seems to imply is, that while the Bible did indeed sanction slavery, it was only so because that was the accepted norm in these times, and that over time man's understanding of God's ways grew and he realized that slavery did not conform to God's will. (Relevant sentences, for your reference: "In ancient cultures slavery was a way of life. Life was cheap and slaves were property that could be treated and disposed of any which way. That was a fact of life. ... In any regard, over time the full revelation of God impressed men with a more comprehensive understanding and practice of justice and dignity for human life.") However, that simply cannot be right, because it would then imply that the Bible does not contain the true and inerrant will of God. Moreso, its contents seem -- by the author's own admission -- to have been shaped and influenced by the prevailing cultural norms at the time. Oh horror of horrors!
Again, my question is quite simple, so perhaps you can answer it for me: how, if the Bible clearly states that slavery is permissible and morally acceptable, can you say that it is not so today? The way I see it, you can either claim that slavery is morally justifiable even today -- in which case I will have an excellent reason to simply ignore anything further you say --, or deny the fact that slavery is acceptable, but in the process say that the Bible does not contain God's true word. (Or that it does, but that God's laws have changed over time. But then, that's impossible, isn't it? Because God's laws are perfect and timeless.)
JinkyWilliams - No hurry, I'll be here when you're ready. And thanks again, for conducting an intelligent discussion, and for doing your best to answer my questions.
Submitted by yidele (user info) at 2004-08-23 16:52:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, jinky, it just May have something to do with the fact that the protestant bible as we know it differs significantly from the vulgate by just the passages which, for some unfathomable reason, were the very justifiaction of the practices that protestants found so repellent. Then there's the trifling matter we call the reformation, the great schizm, and a number of creeds which, if you read church history, were specifically formulated to delineate what Xtiabnity was and more importantly, what it was not according to the political need of the moment, i.e excluding the Arians, Karaites, albigensians, et cetera, et cetera.....
This of course has nothing whatever to do with sodomites and your attempt to sweep them under the rug. By comparison, here is a sliver of my take on the subject of homosexuality and rights ---> http://www.ubersite.com/m/41698#748656
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 16:32:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"There is nothing in the bible supporting computers, penicillin, radio, television, or how much American Football dominates over footie but yet these are all universally accepted."
--The Bible doesn't need to deal with specifics because of the guidelines it sets forth. Often the case is your heart in the matter. The object or action in question is usually colorless in and of itself. Why do you do a thing? What are your motives for doing so? Motives are much more important than actions to God. "I spent all day hanging out with friends." Good? Bad? Why did you do it?
"...why do you feel the need to study this [the topic of homosexuality] and make this pronouncement?"
--Because it's an oft-brought up issue both here at Ubersite and abroad in life, and becoming more prevalant in society daily. I study it so that I can understand where I stand and why I stand where I do. In a situation where homosexuality (or anything) is a hotly-contested topic, it behooves one to better understand the subject and be able to make grounded conclusions and not be swayed by every breeze that comes along.
I pronounce it as an answer to those who ask, but more importantly to those who assume. Assume reasons for why Christians believe as they do. And perhaps, for people who don't have a clear view on the subject that this will provide them with a different viewpoint and further them down the road to a grounded conclusion (I'm not as concerned as to their final conclusion as I am with how they arrived there).
"It couldn't be that you have your own issues with homosexuality is it? I mean there are a lot of things that I don't really approve of like oh say assault weapons, but I don't care enough about it to jump on a soap box about it or do any research into it for that matter. It just seems to me like maybe there is a reason that you care so much about an issue that can't possibly affect you in any way - unless it does."
--Maybe my above statement answered why I care about this issue. In addition I ask you: What things do you get up on a soapbox for? Not assult weapons; that subject doesn't merit your time, attention and passion enough for such an activity. Because you don't care enough about it to. But there are those who do feel it is worth investing time and energy into. And that's perfectly acceptable, no fault to be found either way. So what *do* you care about? What topic(s) are you passionate enough about that you will tenaciously debate your views?
One can look through your posts and easily observe that you do have passion for certain subjects and topics. What I am asking you is why do you have those passions? Why do you devote that time and effort?
You are correct. I do have an issue with it. It does affect me. I wouldn't spend my time on it if it didn't. It's a prominent issue, and one that Christians in particular need to be aware of and need to understand and make a decision on. I feel strongly that this is so. I am a teacher, and maybe feel the desire to
"I don't get it, what am I missing here."
What you are missing here is the understanding of why I feel this is worth taking my time for. I hope that the above has aided you in this understanding.
"You're taking your philosophy out of a 2,000 year old book that was edited for political purposes and basing your whole way of life on it? Do you stop to think about how much the world has changed since then?"
--I choose to live according to the principles laid out in the Bible because I've studied them and conclude that they are worthy of my time and dedication. I find that all Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training, and understanding the world around me. It applies to my life and provides me with a steadfast rule to which I can line myself up to and remain consistant in my actions and words. It is a life of great benefit and freedom, joy and fulfillment. I'd not choose any other for any sum. I am secure in my decision.
Why do you choose how you choose to live?
Incidentally, the Bible as a completed collection is considerably less than 2,000 years old. And I'm curious as to the grounds that you state it was altered for political purposes.
"+2 because I fear you have issues and need the little shot of acceptance."
--Everyone has issues, and everyone appreciates acceptance, even little shots of it. Thanks for the +2.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2004-08-23 15:39:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't get it, what am I missing here. You don't believe homosexuality is right - great, but what does that have to do with anyone other than yourself? You're taking your philosophy out of a 2,000 year old book that was edited for political purposes and basing your whole way of life on it? Do you stop to think about how much the world has changed since then?
There is nothing in the bible supporting computers, penicillin, radio, television, or how much American Football dominates over footie but yet these are all universally accepted. I'm all for people following their own path, but why do you feel the need to study this and make this pronouncement?
It couldn't be that you have your own issues with homosexuality is it? I mean there are a lot of things that I don't really approve of like oh say assault weapons, but I don't care enough about it to jump on a soap box about it or do any research into it for that matter. It just seems to me like maybe there is a reason that you care so much about an issue that can't possibly affect you in any way - unless it does.
+2 because I fear you have issues and need the little shot of acceptance
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-23 12:55:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh, just real quick . . . for Avals . . . like Jinky, I don't have the time to answer all the questions you copy/pasted from the letter to Dr. Laura (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp), but unlike him, I don't really intend to either. Since you've shown that you have no problem with using other people's work, I'll just point you here: http://www.catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=88&calDate=3%7C1%7C2004 for at least a beginning of an explanation. I'm sure if you had any interest in answers to the questions, you'd be able to find them yourself.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 12:28:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
NetProphet, Avals:
My sincere thanks for your level-headed and reasoned commentary. It's refreshing to have logical replies from different sides of an issue. It's been good having you involved in this discussion. As I am sure was understood, a full response to some of your replies take a deal of time longer than the average post. I've not forgotten about nor avoided your comments or questions. I am in the process of composing replies.
Teephphah:
Thanks to you for your comments as well. As above, it's great to hear from and converse with people who possess thought-out views and compose those into clear-headed responses. It's interesting to see how widely-variant views are on a given topic, and how well they can still be communicated.
I just wanted to give you guys some credit and appreciation for your involvement. Again, my thanks.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 12:22:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thaumaturge:
Thanks for your contribution.
"you are entitled to your faith, as is everyone else."
--My thanks for this observation.
"the government represents ALL people, not just christians."
--Agreed.
"some belief in nothing, but that doesn't make them any less."
--Also agreed. Have I stated something here that would lead you to conclude that I believe otherwise?
"as far as i am concerned, the bible is fiction and it cannot be proven otherwise."
--Understood.
"i think that it is unfair and dangerous to discriminate against anyone (that in the gov't's eyes are equal) based on a book that has been translated and interpreted many times over."
--I think it's unfair and dangerous to inappropriately-discriminate against anyone regardless of your reasoning (Some discriminations and prejudices are beneficial and completely warranted, however. For a more in-depth look at what I mean, gbusman had a great reply about the "Schema Theory" here http://www.ubersite.com/m/11844#138214).
However, and again, if you've arrived at the conclusion based upon my post and subsequent replies, I've unaware of such an instance. I've been extremely careful to state and re-state that I strive to not pre-judge on the basis of the lifestyle of beliefs of another.
"...we are talking about human lives."
--Agreed.
"listen to a priest? there is a separation of church and state for a reason."
--What is the connection between these two thoughts?
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by thaumaturge (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:44:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
you are entitled to your faith, as is everyone else. the government represents ALL people, not just christians. some belief in nothing, but that doesn't make them any less. as far as i am concerned, the bible is fiction and it cannot be proven otherwise. i think that it is unfair and dangerous to discriminate against anyone (that in the gov't's eyes are equal) based on a book that has been translated and interpreted many times over. what else can you go on? we are not talking about coupons at the drug store here, we are talking about human lives. listen to a priest? there is a separation of church and state for a reason.
however, you are more than entitled to your opinion and should speak it whenever you can. many people have died so you could do that. liberty...
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:42:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I expected better out of you than all-caps, irrelevant, unfounded remarks and a baseless -2, Apollo.
The Bible is old. So? Lots of respected texts and writings are centuries-old. If that's you're best argument against the use of the Bible, try again.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:31:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
WTF?:
Thanks for your words. I'm glad I've come across as such a one. For clarification, I still would like to address your previous post and go through it:
"To know the will of God is to say you are on the same plane as God and, therefore, you kill the concept of God in the process;"
--I disagree. You know my will to the extent that I have provided information to that end. Based on previous actions and words, you can also observe certain machinations and patterns that are consistant in my thought process and how I behave and therefore discern how and why I will act in a given situation. It is the same concept with God. We can know and discern His will because He has communicated to us rules by which He operates through various means (the Bible, speaking directly to individuals, etc). This requires neither Him stepping down from His position as God nor us stepping up.
"if you're on the same plane as God, then you are equal to him and he is therefore no longer a supreme being."
--I concur with your assessment.
"Ergo the bible is blasphemous as those who wrote it claimed to know the will of God, thereby nulling him."
--Those authors who took part in composing the books of the Bible claimed understanding of God's will the same way as I've stated above. They never claimed to understand His whole purpose, nor did they ever claim to understand God completely. What they claim to have written down are words directly communicated to them by God. Again, this in no way nullifies God nor does this constitute a blasphemous text.
Thanks again for your contribution and reasonable tone.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:28:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ITS AN OLD FUCKING BOOK!!!
AN OLD BOOK!!!
WRITTEN TO CONTROL ILLITERATES.
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:26:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Heh! Looks like we are both thinking the same (except for the fact that they are diametrically opposed) thing.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:25:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NP - That's a lot to read and digest, but it is also further motivation for me to attempt to put down on paper (or disk) how I got to where I am. I can appreciate the assumption that I am only regurgitating that which I have been fed from childhood. After all, that is the commonly accepted theory about Christians, right? They are the ones who are not brave or intelligent enough to think for themselves? If they were to examine the world around them honestly, they would see the light, right? Well, I've been there. I've done that. And THAT is precisely how I've come to where I am.
This reply of mine is not an official response to your last, only an aknowledgement that yours has been received, and that a proper reply is on the way. Whether that will be here or in a seperate post will be determined by the mind-numbing length of the product that comes.
I suppose I should both thank and curse you for this opportunity. Its going to hurt (damned ADD).
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:17:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Correction from my last entry:
"diagnosed as never walked again"
should have been
"diagnosed as never to walk again".
I'm sure you got the gist of it.
I intend to write a post on this whole issue sooner or later. It's a big one to be discussed, and I think it would gain better exposure in its own post. I would like to see what Uberers have to say on these points.
Of course, I intend to take all of these things and refine, edit, and revise them into a fully cohesive argument before doing so... so it may take a little while before I put it up.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-23 11:11:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-22 00:42:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
ToxicNarcotic:
I fail to see any relevance in your comment or your link to the topic at hand. I would assume, given the nature of said link, that you view me as someone given to gross and inappropriate prejudice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, I think he was just randomly linkwhoring to a post he wrote.
To Teephphah:
I am glad you've decided to take this into open debate, because I feel it merits further discussion. The observable universe has always followed a pattern of logic. There have been many things that humans have not understood in the past, that they have derived illogical myths to describe. It was only later, with additional knowledge gained from more advanced scientific practices, that we found such myths to be rather foolish in base- but they were requisite to the development of the race because they provided substance to the lives of oppressed people.
This goes for everything from the belief that the sun was pulled by a chariot across the sky to the belief that the earth was flat.
I do not have sufficient evidence to disprove the notion of a benevolent and conscious Creator, and so I have only theorized on the basis that one _may_ exist. However, if a Creator does exist, and has created a Universe of infinite logic in His image, it can only be assumed that he is a being of infinite wisdom and logic. God's logic would be infallible in this instance, and yet there is nothing even-handed or logical about damning the majority of the world that does not even have the opportunity of hearing the Christian gospel. I'm speaking of people who live and die without ever even hearing of your faith. It is not because I lack some divine understanding that I make such a claim- it is because the idea is simply ludicrous.
I see no "mystery" in the Christian faith. It follows the patterns found in all world religions- to believe against all evidence that which may be highly illogical. That is the survival mechanism of a meme complex. You have chosen to defend your religion with the claim that we mere mortals cannot understand the infallible wisdom of God, and that there are mysteries we are not meant to comprehend. This is precisely the argument by which Galileo was executed. At the time of the Bible's writing, the belief that the universe revolved around the sun was still the one held in practice.
... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)
... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)
Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12) [note that this reflects the belief that the sun revolves around the earth]
You are not wrong to believe so ardently that which you have been given, but you should ask yourself why the faith has grasped you so. Resist the urge to explain it away with it simply being God's will that you follow the Christian faith- that is just another piece of uninformed information you have been fed, and a cop out to avoid having to actually examine the issue. If you take the time to read the origins of the Christian faith, you will discover that we DO have enough evidence in the modern era to determine that large portions of it were at the very least exaggerated, if not fabricated. Though many of the historical events are real, that does not validate the mislead theology behind the text.
It is far too easy to choose the path of believing mythology against all logic. I implore you to at the very least retain an open mind, knowing that HUMANS are not infallible, and understanding that what you have learned was handed directly to you by a human being. You may believe that the original text was divinely inspired (and to that claim I do not disagree to the extent that it has great insight- yet that does not make all parts of it right), but it was humans that took the task of writing the text and carrying it on. You learned what you know of Christ from an imperfect human, and that means that both you and him may be entirely wrong.
That's not to say I don't believe in miracles. You may have witnessed something as miraculous as a faith healing in the name of Christ- I have seen things that defy all modern science myself, such as a girl who was crippled for several years and diagnosed as never walked again be healed in the name of Christ. I have seen a mute from birth begin to speak in the name of Christ. I have also seen miracles performed in the name of Buddha and Ganesh. I have performed miracles in the name of no God, using nothing more than the harnessing of divinity. This is the basis from which I developed my thesis on faith as a tool for the manifestation of will into reality.
There have always been scientific explanations for things we gave up on and created myths to explain. We simply haven't always understood them. I provided earlier my scientific explanation for the manifestation of will as being a result of the interaction of energies. I may not be right, but at least I'm making an effort to use logic as the basis of my claim, which is more than many can say.
If you fear educating yourself, you cannot be helped. Take the time to read these articles, thoroughly and in entirety, at the very least to strengthen your argument for the faith in the event that someone may present these questions to you down the line. If you have reasonable explanations for these things, it would provide you with a greater ability to win souls for God.
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/creation.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/bible.html
http://www.coppit.org/god/contradictions.html
http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/tview.htm
As a final note, I'd like to add that I first began researching the origins of the Christian faith with the intent of becoming a better missionary. Yet it was in my search for understanding that I gained far greater insight into the many "mysteries" of existance, by assessing all religions and claims as being potentially equally valid- including those that may seem rediculous such as claims of pyrokinesis, spoonbending, levitation, time travel, and manifestation of completely nonexistant objects into physical tangibility through acts of will alone (such as with the American government's "Project Montauk"). No one human mind has yet developed a thesis that unifies all religions with science harmoniously, but we all play a role in the development of wisdom by keeping an ever-open mind.
The truth shall set you free.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-23 10:52:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I have read Avals' reply. I didn't have any time to research and reply over the weekend. Hopefully work this week will be as slow as it was on Thurs and Fri.
Just wanted to let you know I really have read it and am not shirking the post.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by WTF? at 2004-08-23 10:26:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
cancelling out my -2 'cause you obviously have shown you can think for yourself.
Submitted by WTF? at 2004-08-23 10:24:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
To know the will of God is to say you are on the same plane as God and, therefore, you kill the concept of God in the process; if you're on the same plane as God, then you are equal to him and he is therefore no longer a supreme being.
Ergo the bible is blasphemous as those who wrote it claimed to know the will of God, thereby nulling him.
So stop quoting the fucking bible and start thinking for yourself.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2004-08-23 10:16:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Jesus wasn't some ultra-tolerant all-inclusive wishy-washy man."
Contrary to popular belief, I do beleve you are correct.
And yes... Jesus would have a beer with me...and wings.
All very, very thoughtful and insightful responses. Thank you for this post.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-23 08:53:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
NetProphet -
I would like to apologize for being unduly brief with my reply to your earlier comments. Based on the way I responded, you have every right to dismiss me and anything I have said, (and most likely any thing else I might say). Nevertheless, I feel the need to clarify a bit.
Clearly, for me to say that "that's about as far as I got" and then go on to declare shenanigans against your ministry are two inconsistant things (your account of your work coming after your other statements). What I should have said was, "That's about as far as I got before my mind was so overcome with what I perceive to be flawed logic before I could no longer credit what you were saying."
But from what you've written here, and what I've seen of yours elsewhere on Uber, I know that you are a well read and well reasoned individual. Probably moreso than I am. However, I want to revisit your position of an unjust God revealing Himself to only a few.
My take on that particular concept is probably very much like Jinky's point of beginning on this entire post. It can only make sense if you accept certain things as being true from the beginning. I am going, for argument's sake, to assume that you DID indeed once possess the "correct" ideas for this conversation to take place, namely a faith in a God as depicted in Christianity.
If then, you agree (even just for arguement's sake) that this God is the source of Creation and various other tennants like, "God is good," "God is Love," or "God is just" then you understand that as Creator of these concepts, none of those concepts (their being derivative of Him) can be greater than He is. Rather, they are words used to describe qualities in people that are remeniscent of Him. When we say that Solomon was wise, we are saying that Solomon was acting very much like God with regard to the idea we know as "wisdom."
But because God is the source of, and inspiration for these qualities, it is not logical (or possible) to use them against Him. One cannot say that God is unjust, because God Himself is the source of the concept of "Justice." Whatever God does IS just.
Actually, one CAN say that, because you have. But what I mean to say is that such a statement is more akin to a child rebelling against a parent because they perceive some parental action to be "unfair," when the parent's superior knowledge, wisdom, insight or what have you, knows that the correct action has been, taken regardless of the child's feelings in the matter.
Again, this is all clearly predicated on a "blind faith" in a Christian God, which you profess to have had at one time. You may now eschew such concepts as "blind faith" but ironically, that is what is required above all in Christianity. There's the paradox, or the "mystery" of faith, if you will.
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-23 06:03:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Still waiting for an answer...
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-22 13:07:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Creepy_guy - aside from some exceptions, like working in order to save lives (firefighters, paramedics, etc.), yes, yes it is. I mean, I suppose there is a certain logic in that; after all, everyone needs a day off. But yeah, the whole death thing there is kinda harsh I think.
RideJohnnyRide - I believe Jinky Williams will reply when he sees this. The question now is: when will he see this?
Incidentally, I forgot to say this before, but I do appreciate the way you're handling this. While I don't necessarily agree with neither your logic nor your conclusion, I'm glad you're trying to have some kind of reasonable discussion, rather than just throwing around verses from the bible.
Submitted by RideJohnnyRide (user info) at 2004-08-22 11:24:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Someone try to touch avals' points.
Submitted by Trout (user info) at 2004-08-22 10:38:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
whooosh
Submitted by Creepy_guy (user info) at 2004-08-22 10:13:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"2. Violating the Sabbath -- i.e.: working on that day -- is considered a sin to be punished by death. In other words, we are obligated to kill any person that violates the Sabbath.
(While this is only the tip of the iceberg, I feel that two points are enough to explain my point.)"
I've never understood that. Honestly, is the world supposed to shut down for an entire day? I mean, there are people that HAVE to work on the Sabbath. I don't know though; life has changed a lot and when you look at modern life, a lot of the ideas in the Bible seem a bit...outdated, for a better word.
As for the original post, I like the idea of approaching this topic without using a whole heap of quotes and scripture. Very well done.
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-22 08:37:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"'Therefore anyone mentioning other old Biblical laws that are not followed today is missing the point.'
--That, or being off-topic and/or inflammatory."
" ... and will be working with the Bible as an inerrant moral reference ... "
I'm sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here. You claim that the bible is an inerrant moral reference. Thus, what you're saying is that everything the bible teaches us is completely morally sound and fair, containing no errors whatsoever. With this in mind, I would like to reiterate several facts you chose not to comment on:
1. Slavery, and even selling your own family to slavery, is sanctioned by the bible.
2. Violating the Sabbath -- i.e.: working on that day -- is considered a sin to be punished by death. In other words, we are obligated to kill any person that violates the Sabbath.
(While this is only the tip of the iceberg, I feel that two points are enough to explain my point.)
Now, taking the bible as an inerrant moral reference as you suggest, we understand that both slavery and killing someone for violating the Sabbath are completely morally acceptable. Not only that, but in the latter case you are morally OBLIGATED to kill anyone violating the Sabbath.
Let me reiterate:
ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE, THE RIGHT AND MORALLY CORRECT THING TO DO TO SOMEONE VIOLATING THE SABBATH IS KILL THEM.
Do you agree with the sentence above?
There are no grays here, the answer is either yes or no. If you disagree with the above sentence, you are disagreeing with the bible. In that case, you cannot claim that the bible is an inerrant moral reference.
Also, whay are your views on slavery? Is it morally correct? Should I be allowed to sell my daughter to slavery?
P.S.: I'd love to hear your opinion on this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bmar.htm .
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-22 01:42:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And if that's not the case, I'm open to other possibilities. Please enlighten me.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-22 00:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ToxicNarcotic:
I fail to see any relevance in your comment or your link to the topic at hand. I would assume, given the nature of said link, that you view me as someone given to gross and inappropriate prejudice.
If this is the case, I'd like to direct you to this portion of my post:
"Now, I must stress that my belief regarding morality should not, and does not affect my view of a given person in any situation (not limited to homosexuality). I've no inherant issue with the person, and will give them the benefit of the doubt, and will continue in this fashion until they've given me reason to behave differently. I am completely aware that I am also fallen, and in no way superior to anyone (nor am I inferior)."
If my assessment is correct, I believe you are the one who has displayed gross and inappropriate prejudice in the form of assuming my heart and content of my message. I request you'd refrain from replying further here until you've read my post in its entirety and are able to make sound and reasonable replies.
Many thanks.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by ToxicNarcotic (user info) at 2004-08-21 23:32:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/42398 yeah suck a dick
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-21 23:24:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nator:
I do indeed believe in the Biblical account of creation.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-21 23:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Smithstudd:
"I personally dont beleive that God exsists,so you get a -2"
--Sound reasoning, I'm sure.
"Any God that stays put while little children are raped and murdered.....Any all powerful....All seeing.....All knowing god that stands Idle in the face of so many injustices...Is no god of mine"
--We come now to questions that I believe are crucial to the understanding of God's plan:
Why would He create anything in such a way that we would even have the possibility of choosing incorrectly, and why would He allow such incorrect actions to come to fruition?
Why did God create us so that we would even consider choosing "evil"?
Why were even we created in the first place?
Why, if God is perfect, did He choose to create anything--the angels, the universe, Earth, humanity?
I am going to start with the last couple of questions: Why we were made and so forth.
Firstly, no one can discern the will of God except by what He reveals to us through whatever means He deems best and most beneficial. So if we are to determine this, we must by researching the information provided through research of scripture.
I need to stress that the God of the Bible is totally perfect and self-sufficient. He lacks nothing. He wasn't lonely, He didn't need a friend, He wasn't tired of playing Chess with Himself.
The Bible uses many corporeal systems (marriage, family) as analogies to aid understanding of spiritual principles. Family is one system that helps to illustrate His feelings and desires for us and our lives. God is often referred to as "Father". So, let's look at human parents and view motives for them to have offspring. They want to have relationship with their children. Fellowship. They want to enjoy their presence. They want to love them. They want to cherish them. They want to give and create life, and provide that life the best life they possibly can. There is the pure joy of observing that which is you and yours. All these reasons and more are parts of why God created us. So, while God desired to create us, love us, and have relationship with us, as parents do with their children, God did not need to do so, just as parents don't need to create their children.
God is love (1 John 4:16). He is the embodiment of all that is love. What is love? For our purposes here, a concise reading of two verses will suffice. John 3:16 and John 15:13 shows that the basic quality and character of love is to give sacrificially ("For God so loved the world He gave His only begotten Son...,") even to the point of death ("Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."). So God desires to give and express love, and to receive love back.
However, to express love to something, that something must exist. Now, if God created us with no choice but to love Him, that love would not mean anything. If I were married, and my wife said to me that she loves me because she has to, because she was compelled to; I'd be less-than-enthused. What's special about that? She's no choice in the matter. But if she said she loved me, and expressed to me why she loved me, and how she loved me, that would mean immeasurably more to me. She decided to love me, when she didn't have to. When there are others she could give her love to instead, she chose to give that love to me. Such is it with God.
Now, God understood that His decision to grant us free will was made with the full understanding that there would be the possibility of people rejecting Him and His plans.
God created us as intelligent beings with the capacity for logic and reason, among countless other capacities. Many severly underestimate the powers of deception that Satan has at his disposal. Satan and his demons do their level best to entice and seduce you. To twist and use out of context what God has created and called good. Would sin be a problem if wasn't any fun? What kind of hook would Satan have, then? We also often don't look at the whole picture. We are often caught short-sighted, and seeing only the pleasure that we can gain from an activity, without considering the consequences. This is human fallacy, but with the aid of the Holy Spirit and others to guide us, we can avoid this as best we can.
Some might ask, at this point, "was it fair to create us at all? Surely non-existence is preferable to torture for eternity." I would reply, "would it be fair *not* to have created us?" God knew, because of his omiscience, that many would reside in Hell for eternity because they rebelled and rejected Him. However, He also was aware of the vast multitude that would reside in His glory and desire to be with Him for eternity. So, would it be fair for those who desire to have a relationship with Jesus to miss out because of the contrary actions of others? Just because some patrons behave poorly doesn't mean the whole place needs to be shut down and destroyed. The choice is ours to make. God knows how we will choose to live out our lives, but He lets us do the directing.
"On another note how can one book the New testimant be the sole bases of 200+ different religions eg,pentacostals catholics baptists full gospel.....most of whom claim to be the only one to understand Gods will"
--I think it would behoove you to research even a small pool of said 200+ "religions". Many Christian denominations just stress one aspect over another, conduct their services differently, have different understanding of worship, or believe in (or doesn't believe in) an aspect non-crucial to the belief of Christianity (for example, the belief in spiritual giftings in a post-Pentecostal world is a widely-debated one, but most on both sides agree that an understanding either way is not necessary to be saved). Now, there are some other groups that have beliefs that deviate from cardinal Christian doctrine, but still claim the Bible as their main religious text. This can be chalked up to misinterpetation, deliberate or unwittingly.
But any piece of work can be misinterpeted, or even interpeted correctly several different ways. The constitution, a written work I am sure you are familiar with, has incredibly-varied interpetations of its many components. How can one written work result in so many different opinions and camps? Because it's a rich, complicated, and profound work. Likewise the Bible is such a work, but incredibly moreso. I see nothing irregular or attention-worthy about such an incidence.
"If God does exsist than Im gonna have some words with him when I pass away."
--You can count on it.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-21 20:16:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
JW, after reading your last comment, I'm compelled to give you a +2 because you seem like a great guy and a good example of the Christian tenets. While I don't agree with the faith, I have to commend you for representing it better than most.
I still encourage you to read http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm and think it over. There's nothing to lose by it.
Submitted by Smithstudd (user info) at 2004-08-21 20:06:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I personally dont beleive that God exsists,so you get a -2.......Any God that stays put while little children are raped and murdered.....Any all powerful....All seeing.....All knowing god that stands Idle in the face of so many injustices...Is no god of mine............................... On another note how can one book the New testimant be the sole bases of 200+ different religions eg,pentacostals catholics baptists full gospel.....most of whom claim to be the only one to understand Gods will........If God does exsist than Im gonna have some words with him when I pass away.
Submitted by Jocko_Johnson (user info) at 2004-08-21 19:29:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Didn't even read it. Christianity is for bald headed pedophiles.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2004-08-21 19:15:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Random Joe (whomever you really are):
Thanks for understanding and stating what I've tried to a couple times. I did indeed refrain from using any scripture, either New Testament or Old Testament, that can be used to uphold a view of God's direct disapproval of homosexuality. I wanted to approach this from a different angle than is usually brought up.
I want to say, again, that I understand that this argument only holds water if one believes at least in what principles I've outlined above. I'm not trying to convert anyone to either my Christian beliefs nor my view on homosexuality (this message appears to have been largely correctly received, but I wanted to reiterate). It is impossible to come to any real agreement on anything morally or ethically without a common absolute. My goal here was to educate others of the opinion of one person (a Christian), and how that opinion was reached. This was done with the hope that in future discussions an understanding of this view on the subject may be recalled and applied as it can be in that situation.
"Therefore anyone mentioning other old Biblical laws that are not followed today is missing the point."
--That, or being off-topic and/or inflammatory.
My thanks to those who expressed interest and intelligence and left well-founded comments.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by Random Joe at 2004-08-21 16:17:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2004-08-20 21:32:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
While I also applaud you for standing up to the tennets of Christianity in holding your own moral code before you and not judging others, I should also point out that many of the laws that God laid out in the Bible (at least in my copy) no longer apply in today's society. Unless you want to start killing people who wear more than one fabric at a time or those who don't marry virgins.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think he delibrately avoided citing Old Testament law in this post; his argument was that the heterosexual marriage is intended to be a reflection of God's relationship with his Church. Therefore anyone mentioning other old Biblical laws that are not followed today is missing the point.
Jinky, I don't entirely agree with you, but I admire your fair-mindededness in this post and in all your work on Uber.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-21 14:00:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"That's pretty much as far as I got".
Correction on the last sentence of my last review:
I do NOT see you as being a person of level mind, if you attemped to refute an argument you refuse to read fully.
By the way- Avals presented an excellent example of how the Christian Bible cannot be interpreted literally in the modern era. I do believe that Christ was a gifted prophet and healer, and that his words provide inspiration and guidance to many. I also believe that about the many Buddhas, about Mohammed, and from the Christian Bible, about Isaiah, Enoch, Elijah, and Elisha, to name only a few. Frankly, I don't see Jesu Ben Pantera (the man who died in 88 B. C. after whom the myth of Christ was developed) as being nearly as skilled as Elijah was; it seems he was simply far more hyped for his unorthodox views and leadership in a time that needed them most.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-21 13:42:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-21 00:23:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
"for if God is conscious, benevolent and just, he would present Himself equally to all mankind rather than to a select chosen few who would have to force the understanding onto the unenlightened."
That's pretty much as far as I got, because:
A) Who the hell are you to say what God (a God, ANY God) would or would not do? Here's a distinction for you to contemplate: mortal v. divine. The words you use to define his qualities derive their meaning from those qualities of His that they describe, NOT the other way around.
B) You cannot "force" understanding onto the unenlightened. Understanding comes, if at all, through Grace.
I call shenanigans on your claims of ministry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who are the proprietors of the Christian faith to make such interpretations as well? Assuming the Christian Bible IS the unadulterated word of God, it is still subject to misinterpretation by all those who have carried it on. However, I make the statement that you have attempted to refute on the basis that if a conscious God is benevolent and just, He would be accessible to all peoples of all nations and NOT to a single, small portion of the human race. A just God does not say: "okay, you few chosen, I am going to reveal the light unto you, and those you are unable to reach are damned." That is in no way just, and you must accept that there are billions who will never even hear of the Christian Gospel, and billions before them who died without having heard it.
As to your second point, I agree that you cannot force understanding; yet was that not the entire point behind the Christian Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition? Countless lives were taken in the name of God, by the Church who represented it. In the name of God were serfs oppressed to work under a Lordship in the Middle Ages. In the name of God did the Confederacy defend slavery during the Civil War.
Finally, as to you calling shenanigans on my claims of ministry, you simply have no basis upon which to make such a claim. I did indeed minister overseas, as a youth, through a company called Teen Mania ministries. I raised several thousand dollars in donations to travel to Garden Valley, TX, where they are located to be indoctrinated in the gospel. I then flew to Los Angeles International airport, where I travelled to Sydney, Australia with a brief stopover in New Zealand. After some brief ministry there, we flew to Perth on the west coast of Australia, from where we made the 13-hour bus drive north to the small town of Carnarvon, which hosted a large aboriginal populace. It was unto these people that we ministered, and looking back, we did so wrongfully. Their cultures and beliefs are equally valid and they do not deserve to be oppressed or guilt-tripped into accepting a culture alien to their own.
"That's pretty much as far as I got".
I do see you as being a person of level mind, if you attemped to refute an argument you refuse to read fully.
Submitted by imsupermandamnit (user info) at 2004-08-21 12:55:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Kudos to Aval!!!
I know I already gave a +2, but it's habit to change the rank as soon as this window pops up. I'm just too lazy to go back and change it, besides I think you deserve another +2 just for fun.
Submitted by Avals (user info) at 2004-08-21 10:22:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from these posts, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contacts. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Submitted by Kracka (user info) at 2004-08-21 05:46:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 for my own reasons
-Black Ninja
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2004-08-21 00:23:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"for if God is conscious, benevolent and just, he would present Himself equally to all mankind rather than to a select chosen few who would have to force the understanding onto the unenlightened."
That's pretty much as far as I got, because:
A) Who the hell are you to say what God (a God, ANY God) would or would not do? Here's a distinction for you to contemplate: mortal v. divine. The words you use to define his qualities derive their meaning from those qualities of His that they describe, NOT the other way around.
B) You cannot "force" understanding onto the unenlightened. Understanding comes, if at all, through Grace.
I call shenanigans on your claims of ministry.
Submitted by NetProphet (user info) at 2004-08-20 23:58:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First off, let me preface the following by saying that it is by no means a personal attack. I'm not even going to downrate this post, because I respect you st