| Who's Online | Stats | Memberlist | Top Posters | Search | Lost Password |
Please help to keep this board alive with a small donation (at the bottom of the forum) as it is NOW no longer free! |
| Welcome, Register :: Log In | Welcome to our newest member, enunmolni1981. | |
| Users active in this forum: | ||
| Users active in this thread: | ||
|
people online in the last 30 minutes - 0 members, 0 anon and 0 guests. (Most ever was 62 at 09:05:49 Sun May 18 2008) |
| Pages: [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
Tsukatu  19:01:08 Mon Oct 3 2005 Offline 177 posts inquisitor  Reply |
Um... why aren't they? Same God, right? Same Heaven, same Hell, same Bible.
Why are there so many sects? What kind of differences could spawn so many fucking sects? Seriously now... I mean, I understand literal interpretation and non-literal interpretation of the Bible, but that doesn't mean you have to split up Christianity. Each person has their own slight variations on their Christianity, but it's all the same at the core, isn't it? Another, more minor reason I don't like it when people say, "don't assume all Christians are the same"... I don't care what kind of Christian you are, you're still a Christian. I don't care that your sect doesn't think sexually-active gays go to Hell, you still subscribe to the same bullshit fairy tales. You people... |
|
Trust_Jesus 15:17:27 Tue Oct 4 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
You're right.
All these divisions simply show us how screwed up we are human beings. We can take the simple, very broad, very inclusive, very clear words of Jesus and end up with the train wreck called Christianity today. That should tell us something about ourselves. If you ask me, most of the divisions in Christianity come down to this. People want to play on God's level. They want to think that somehow they are in control of being cool with God on their own. Pride, it's all about pride. |
|
TDbear 16:59:44 Tue Oct 4 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop  Reply |
so what your saying is that its not different' interpretations of the bible that make the divisions, its the personal motives behins said interpretations.
like i could say that leviticus 18:22 promotes lesbienism. but its not the fact that i say it promotes it, its my motive behind interpreting it as such (which is obviously to make the passage not sound anti-gay) |
|
Loved_by_God 20:34:10 Tue Oct 4 2005 Offline 109 posts confessor  Reply |
I completely agree with TJ. Christianity should have always been focused and centered on God. However, in the past few centuries, it has become more about the doctrine, the interpretation(as TDB says), and about the self.
In church history, the church has always been the leader of western society, until the "humanist" movement... and since then it's been unfortunate to see the church folow society. -Jon |
|
TDbear 14:08:42 Wed Oct 5 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
yeah your right Loved by God, equality is such an annoying thing.. i mean i'm richer than most people in my street where i live, so why should i consider them as my 'equals'.
my skin is a different colour to some people, so why shouldn't i see them as inferior? i'm male, so ofcourse that should make me superior to ANY female oh and of course, because the person i love happens to be the same sex as me, our relationship is an abomination and cannot even be considered equal to that of a oposite sex couple. frankly, if it wasn't for that 'humanist' movement, society would still think the above is acceptible... which of course none of it is. the only thing that makes people un-equal is their abilities (i.e, some people are smarter than others, some are better at sports, some can play musical instruments, and some cant do anything exceptional) its unfortunute that you think its unfortunate that the church now has to take a back seat in society (not that i'm saying it shouldn't have any [place), change is difficult, but inevitable, get used to it. i'm sure the pendulum that is society will swing back the other way, and good 'ole traditional values will once again become the driving force, but for now, you can like it or lump it. |
|
Trust_Jesus 17:18:44 Wed Oct 5 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
I'm not quite buying all of what you are selling here Jon. I call it the "50's" syndrome. It's the tendency to think that in the PAST things were good but things are going bad now. The fact is that the church here on earth has been disserving Christ Jesus ever since Jesus' ascension. The crusades, indulgences, anti-semitism, corruption, denominationalism, and yes, humanism as you point out. But through all the messes we make God is still merciful and loving and still ACCOMPLISHES his good purposes through the church as he foreknew and designed it in spite of ourselves! |
|
TDbear 17:38:55 Wed Oct 5 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
God is like a movie director, he know exactly how things are going to pan out.
so, why bother making the movie if you know how its going to end? i mean, its not like there are other 'gods' sitting around watching to give him a mark out of 10 is there lol wow, this is funny, you two have jsut proved that not all christians are the same lol, TJ doesn't even agree with LBG loflmao |
|
Trust_Jesus 17:47:25 Wed Oct 5 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
I can read between the lines here. TD I am not gay I can only imagine myself in that position. Essentially, if I'm gay, I read in God's word that gay relationships are "an abomination" and yet I could not imagine living without that relationship. This puts me in a very difficult situation. Non-gay Christians can say "Hey, your relationship is a sin, so stop sinning! Abstain from this type of relationship, resist it, fight it, and move on with a "normal" life already! Well, I would want to tell that Christian, "Hey, speaking about others when not in their presence is gossiping. Gossiping is a sin. So stop sinning, resist it, fight it, move on with a normal life. If presented with this circumstance most Christians (no doubt myself included) would say, what I'm doing is not really gossiping and therefore not a sin, I'm not saying bad things about the person-- justify, rationalize, etc. etc. So there is no difference--all have sinned and all will sin and all will keep on sinning. The difference is non-gays can sin "in the dark". Masturbation is a sin yet no one has to know about it do they? On the other hand, gay people are forced to wear their sin on their sleeve for all to see. And that is a terribly difficult load to bear. I've never heard any gay person say they "want" to be gay. They just are. I have never had a gay thought in my life but I can tell you that I've comitted sin that is just as much an an "abomination" to God. If Christ taught us anything he taught us that we can't make things right for ourselves! We need Him to make all things right for each of us or we are lost. So we're all in the same boat. |
|
Tsukatu 20:44:17 Wed Oct 5 2005 Offline 177 posts inquisitor Reply |
We already know that Christianity is worked so that any seamblance of natural actions or urges are considered sin.
So let's talk about the myriad denominations of Christianity. Sounds to me like you (TJ) and LBG are blaming human pride, is that right? Just want to get it straight before I comment... |
|
TDbear 09:21:04 Thu Oct 6 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
you make a very good point. but i never knew masturbation was a sin? even in women? i mean they dont produce sperm, or semen, so then they 'cum' nothing realy happens, so is that still sin? i can under stand why you say its a sin though (sex is only for in a married situation when trying to pro-create) and masturbation is jsut sex with yourself. -rant- well, from what i've experienced through mylife s far, and what i've seen... it give me great pride (lol, pride, the focus of this thread) to say that i do want to be gay, i am gay, i have been since i started puberty(or at least thats when i realised i was), and i dont see anything wrong with it. if in some decade in the future scientists find out what it is thsat really makes someone gay, and then decideds to invent a pill that could' change' me, i would refuse it outright. if God made me, then God made me gay, and he must have done it for a reason. its part of who i am, and its part of what makes me unique. -rant- i said you made a good point, but then i dont believe as you do, and i dont believe there is such a thing as SIN. yeah i've done bad things, i've lied, cheated one my partner(though for the record, he deserved it), i have been disrespectful to people and i've been selfish. But i dont believe that all of that is kept in a filing cabinet and will be read out to me when i die then i will be judged acordingly. no, for every ill thing ihave done, there have already been reprocusions... when i lie, its always found out.... when i cheated it really hurt my Ex and he tried t commit suiside, when i was disrespectful i found people to be the same back and it wasn't pleasant, and when i've been selfish (which isn't in my nature) i've hurt people who are my friends and family. |
|
Trust_Jesus 13:56:59 Fri Oct 7 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
No. natural actions, urges does not equal sin by definition. Eating, drinking, sexual desire, anger, joy, humor are not sinful in and of themselves. Yes, human pride or self-rightousness is at the core of denominationalism. Every world religion requires YOU to earn your way right with GOD. Every one. Christianity is the only world religion where God GETS YOU right with him. But over the years, Christians have corrupted this pure and simple message. Almost every difference you see between all denominations is a difference injected because we must DO SOMETHING ELSE to add to what Jesus did to get right with God. Check it out. |
|
Trust_Jesus 18:58:21 Fri Oct 7 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Great post. I think you've got the biology down. But look at what's happening in your mind. What does one think about to assist in becoming sexually aroused? What does that mean? Jesus made it clear that thinking about sex with someone is the same as having sex with that someone in God's eyes. It's not just about the act, Jesus told us it's about the mind (the "spirit of the law" to use a modern legal term). What this makes vividly clear to me is that I can't measure up to even the easiest requirement of God. I see what is required and I want to do the right thing but I can't do the right thing. At some point, I give up trusting in myself and I trust only in Jesus' rescue that he's already made.
I respect your opinion. I don't mean to say you should be ashamed of what you are or what God made you, or that you should accept a 'straight pill'. After all, are straight people free from sin? Of course not, so what's to be gained? And God indeed did make you the way you are for a reason. But do you suppose that reason was to deny that he exists? Or that sin doesn't exist? You see what I mean? It seems to me that Christianity is guilty of saying: Yeah, Jesus saves us as a free gift, but here's what we've determined you must do to get that free gift. Whaa? You don't earn free gifts! You might say, let's see, God made me this way so now you tell me I can't do this or else God won't accept me? Doesn't make sense, says you. To me, that mindset is a reaction to modern Christianity (and all its flaws) rather than a simple focus on the words of Jesus.
You don't believe in sin. Yet you speak of doing 'bad' things? I'm curious, how do you arrive at the notion that something is 'bad'? Reading a little further in your post, it strikes me that, for you, a 'bad' thing could be defined as when one of your actions hurts yourself in some way. A lie comes back to haunt you, for example. Is this an accurate statement? Sorry to be so dense, I'm just trying to understand how you give definition to the word 'bad' when there is no such thing as sin. |
|
TDbear 20:27:57 Fri Oct 7 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
ok, that makes sense, but hwat it the person you are 'imagining' having sex with is actually your lover? say, they are away for long periods of time and you only see them like once every few months? (yeah i know absense makes the heart go fonder, but abstinence can lead to problems)
so you admit that God makes people gay, and that its not just a choice? Haha... sorry If God made me who i am (with absolutly NO attraction towards the oposite sex (except platonic ofcourse), then I suppose that there are passages in the bible that the 'author's added in because of their own preudicees (or in the case of leviticus 18:22... the translator). the meaning of sin is = 'falling short of Godliness' is it not? in that case, no i wouldn't say sin doesn't exist, because no-one is godly. there is a differnce between 'sin' and 'morality'(good and bad actions) according to christian thinking (correct me if i am wrong), somehtig is immoral if the bible says it is.. ergo, something is immoral if God says it is. We know God is perfect (without sin). God kills people (or he used to), so killing is part of his perfection. God says in the bible for people to kill. But... we know that killing is wrong (immoral). so how can God be perfect if he does and tells people to do something that we know is wrong?
when i say 'bad' i mean 'immoral'. i arrive at the notion of something being 'immoral' because something is immoral if it has a detrimental effect on: you people around you the enviroment or all of the above (according to atheist/my own thinking) so what you said about the lie is correct in a way, because people always find out and lies come back to haunt you. But a lie can also have a negative effect on others as well. |
|
Trust_Jesus 15:08:50 Sat Oct 8 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Obviously, sexual relations are not in and of themselves sinful, so it seems to me that a godly sexual relationship could be extended in this way as well.
It's both, really. Being gay is a sin just the same as I have "lust in my heart" (to use Jimmy Carter's famous words) for a nice-looking woman on the street who is not my wife. There is no difference in these sins. Both are ongoing sins that neither of us can control on our own. Now, did God make us the way we are? Yes. He didn't create man sinful, but he allowed man to sin. A lot of people get hung up right here which is exactly what your asking about whichi is also Tsukatu's point, isn't it? To me this is an interesting side issue and nothing more because God had already provided the fix for sin before sin even occured -- Jesus. Instead, God's empahsis is on faith -- always has been even back in the OT. To reject your own "God enabled" personal view of right and wrong (namely that I'm always right) and embrace God's view instead. This is literally impossible to do without God's help. It's that simple and that complex.
You'd have to agree with me that gay relations would be considered strange behavior (and therefore subject to all kinds of ridicule) no matter when it took place in history. Anything that only 10% of people do would be considered culturally strange. So these "prejudices" are universal and part of human nature are they not?
I don't see your point here. Morality and sin are hand-in-hand. There is such a thing as justice. God is the sole owner of justice. With our laws and courts we attempt to simulate God' justice as best we can. If you read the OT Bible you see that God has no problem killing people because he alone owns justice. Not a thing we can do about it. As defandant or plantiff we can't look at the case and decide justice, only the judge can do that.
Again, you distinguish between sin and morality which I don't get but I don't see how your 'immoral' decisions work. If I do something that helps me but hurts someone else is that immoral? If I do something that hurts me but helps someone else is that moral? Plus, if there is no God then what "morality" could their be but to help myself? I don't know what's good for anyone else, I expect they will have to be in charge of their own good. Without God how could you even begin to sort out what is "moral" or "immoral"? |
|
TDbear 19:03:14 Sat Oct 8 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
being gay is a sin because its written in the bible yes. God made me Gay, so God had to have made me Sinful or created me with only the ability to commit the 'Gay' sin. i cant have sex with a woman, because no woman can even get me sexually aroused unless i imagine they are a man. i cannot have a relationship with a woman because i dont feel anything emotional towards women. the only other solution is as i said, that the passages in the bible that say being gay is sinful were not the words of God but the words of corrupt men who didn't like Gay people. there is a big difference between them. If you are Heterosexual, the only sin you commit is having lust for a woman who you are not married to(if you are already married of course). however, if you are Homosexual, then no matter who it is you have lust for, whether its your husband(if you live in a country that allows gay marriage) or ANY other man, your sinning.
actually, i've read alot about sex throughout history, and i have to disagree with you on this point. it wasn't until the foundation of judism, islam and christianity that gay sex was considered 'strange' or 'wrong'. sex was celebrated in almost all world cultures from greece, through egypt to the ancient celtic societies of northern europe. so no, these predudices are not universal and part of human nature, they are embedded in society because of said religions. i think i will stay away from the christian thinking about sin and morailty, because i dont see it that way. as for your questions... yes and yes.
the morality that helps yourself is the basic sense of marality present in all humans.... our innate ability to disypher(sp) between right ad wrong is what sets us apart from other animals. theres an article on no-god.com that talks about the difference between christian morality and atheist morality. simply put. to a christian, something is immoral if God says it is, and visa versa. to an atheist, something is immoral if it has a negative effect on people and/or the enviroment. so for example. A christan could say to an atheist "If you dont believe in God, what stops you from leaving your wife and abandoning your children" the ateist would reply "because my human reasoning tells me that that is wrong, i dont need a god to tell me whats right and wrong" "So what your saying is that you only dont leave your wife and abandon your children because God tells you its wrong... so does that mean if God told you it was ok, you would? |
|
Trust_Jesus 15:22:05 Mon Oct 10 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
So when the Bible says I should not cheat on my wife I can say it's corrupt men are saying it so I should seek other women? Look, sin is sin. My sin is called out and named just like your sin is. There is no difference.
The ONLY sin I commit? All sins are the same, don't you see? You've either sinned or you haven't. I have sinned. You have sinned. You continue to look at sin thorough the eyes of man and not as God talks about it!! You are caught up in this 'eyes of man' thing because you think the bible is saying you are a BIGGER sinner than I am. By comparing two people we find out who is worse. That's not what God says he does. If we want to claim eternal life he invites us to stand judgement. He compares EACH of us to perfection. We both will fail. So what difference does it make what that sin is? None.
The last 2 questions which you agree with were the point I was making. And, yes, I suppose a culture that didn't formally recognize God's law would think sex of any kind would be OK, I agree.
To judge right and wrong means there is a standard somewhere. We compare and action to the standard and we can then say: This action is right or this action is wrong. Where did the universal standard come from?
How in the world can you make that statement? Every human for the last 2000 years has been born into a world that essentially observes laws that are factually rooted in religion. Abandoning all scientific reason, you are going to say that atheists who are born into a world totally dominated by secular laws based on religious principals that their sense of right and wrong comes from within themselves and NOT from either secular or religious laws? |
|
Soltan 16:35:10 Mon Oct 10 2005 Offline 9 posts blasphemer Reply |
""Jesus made it clear that thinking about sex with someone is the same as having sex with that someone in God's eyes.""
Holy crap! I've fucked half the world! |
|
TDbear 17:22:40 Mon Oct 10 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
not at all. The bible is flawed for one simple reason, it wasn't written by God. it was written by men, so ANYTHING written in it should be subject to skeptisism. the bible says that a man should not marry more than one woman. the bible says that if her husband dies, a woman MUST marry his brother (it doesn't say whether he has to be single at the time) so by doing so, she would be making him disobey on of God's laws one of the Ten commandments states "Thou shalt no kill" leviticus says "if two men have sex in a womans bed(literal translation of Lev18:22 from hebrew), they should be stoned to death" so if two men are caught having sex in a womans bed and they are stoned, who ever participated in said stoning has broken a commandment If God exists, then only He can tell you what is sin and what isn't, Not his little book because common sense says it cant be deemed a reliable source.
i meant in that situation!... if your straight and you think about another woman the only sin you have commited is adultery. but if your gay, you have commited adultery AND homosexuality. get it? yes you still would have sinned so it doesn't make a difference. unless if your straight and the person your thinking about IS your lover, then you haven't sinned, but if your gay and the person your thinking about IS your lover, you still have sinned
you mean EVERY world culture that ever was BEFORE the 'bible' and the 'koran' were written. actually, no, sex between adults and children or animals was considered wrong (unless the child was a slave in greece, then they were no longer thought of as a child at all, just a slave)
i dont know, morality has been around since humanity became civilised(lol, in fact its probably 'why' we became civilised). As i said, it is what separated us from the rest of the animals, so it probably developed at some point during our evolution.... wait... thats it! thats why you dont understand!! As far as you are concerned, adam and eve were the first people; humans didn't evolve, so any cultures that emerged after them would have already have been aware of 'God's' law. well, theres another "i think we're going to have to agree to disagree" topics.
yes and in japan up until about 100-200 years ago, the samurai believed that if you dishonoured yourself in any way, you should comit suiside... that was the law layed down by the emporer, which was rooted in the samurai religion. it wasn't until 200years ago that people stopped thinking slavery was OK, and upuntil then there were laws all over the world that regulated slavery, and slavery is regulated in the bible, and the bible the written word of a religion. so now, since the words of the bible haven't changed, But the laws have, can you still say that our laws are 'fully rooted in religion'???
I'd say that many recent secular laws in this world are actually contrary to religious principals (you know, equality laws for gays and lesbiens, capital punishment being removed, slavery laws abolished). So yes, it does come from within themselves because if it didn't, those laws wouldn't have changed, and never would. welcome to the boards soltan. personally i'd say thats something to be ashamed of if you had fucked half the world.... you slut! haha |
|
Soltan 19:33:43 Mon Oct 10 2005 Offline 9 posts blasphemer Reply |
original quote: ""Jesus made it clear that thinking about sex with someone is the same as having sex with that someone in God's eyes.""
I've thought about having sex with half the planet (the female half), and God says it's the same as the real thing so I must be a slut in God's eyes. This really sucks. |
|
Trust_Jesus 13:35:57 Tue Oct 11 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Exactly! Now do you see why I think it's so hilarious that people of all faiths run around as if they are somehow pleasing God with their noble works?! |
|
Trust_Jesus 14:36:28 Tue Oct 11 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Oh not this tired old argument again. You've already stated that you don't buy Christianity so of course you that some conspiracy made it up to control the world. I understand why you think that. But if we're going debunk Christianity it will be by using the foundation of that faith. You should be insisting that the Bible IS the word of God then you could expose the Christian God as a fraud, yes?
Sorry, yes, I see what you are saying. But again I say what does it matter? One sin, a thousand sins, a million sins. One sin will bring me down. You're doing that comparing thing again. God does not look at you and me and see any difference in our "sin quotient".
Correct. But after that first sin, why count? The free gift of Jesus Christ covers us.
Your point is that being gay is not wrong according the laws of man's intellect. It was only these crazy books that declared it "wrong" and all went backward from that point. On that we agree, man's intellect, reasoning and quest for knowledge could easily accept that being gay is not wrong.
You talk about "morality", singular, as if it comes from a single source. Tell me, does the evolution eminate from a single source? And you didn't state whether you agree that a standard is necessary to decide is something is right or wrong.
The Bible states that Adam and Eve were God's first human creation, yes. No, I don't think I evolved from a monkey. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it.
Yes, that was my point.
Slavery is regulated in the Bible, yes, but nowhere in the Bible does it say it's required. Everywhere the term 'slave' is used it is used as a term of shame. If casinos are regulated by city ordinance it certainly doesn't mean the city is requiring casinos to stay in business. Usually "regulation" is quite the opposite to control the growth of the casinos rather than worrying about their elimination. So I don't see any inconsistency between regulated slavery in the Bible vs. secular laws abolishing slavery.
Well, the slavery one I do not buy as stated previous. The gay and capital punishment laws are much better examples. I think there is indecision in the secular laws concerning these two issues right now. We see seculars for and against capital punishment. We see laws for and against gays. The very notion that there is a struggle demonstrates the influence of religion vs. man's conscious. The interesting question to me is, and I'd like your view on this. If we were able to remove all biblical thought on these two areas: capital punishment and gay laws what do you think would happen? In other words, you may think it is religion stopping gay empowerment. I'm not so sure. You may think religion is encouraging the pro-capital punishment law. I'm not so sure. |
|
TDbear 21:14:32 Tue Oct 11 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
well, for a real-life example of a society whos laws no longer have religious influence would be china. i dont know where they stand on capital punishment, but the laws reqarding gay equality (not empowerment.... we're not trying to take over the world, as some conservatives seem to think) are taking a turn for the better (in my opinion anyway) thanks to the UN adopting the EU's bill of human rights. to answer your questions directly.... yes i do think that religious organisations (mostly christian, and mostly in the USA) are trying to prevent gay and lesbian people from being treated Equally.... its not 'empowerment' because we dont want 'SPECIAL' rights that i keep hearing conservatives accuse us of, we jsut want EQUAL rights... like: The right to be able to visit our partner in the hospital The right to inherit my spouces estate in the event of his death. The right to Marry the person i love and actually have our relationship recognised by the government. The basic rights that stop us being discriminated against just for being gay. Did you know that most employers in the US still have the ability to fire someone because they are gay, or that a child can be expelled form their school for having two parents who are women? in relation to your first point, i think that if every government ignored all religious influence on gay rights, then we would make much quicker progress towards equality. aaanyway, sorry for ranting, thats jsut a very sensitive subject for me. as for capital punishment, i haven't actually heard any religious persons say anything about it so i cant comment.
the bible also states that God created everything in 6 days and then rested on the seventh. How can God be all powerfull if it even took him 6 days, shouldn't he be able to do it jsut with a snap of his fingers? he is a god afterall... and if he is all powerful, he shouldn't need to rest. I can't give you evidence because it would be pointless to do so, we both already know that you wont believe it. So i'll give you the same answer as most christians give me... theres plenty of evidence that supports human evolution, you just have to look and believe it. personally it makes more sense that the world was formed over millions of years, and that we evolved from primitive apes into what we are today, than that the earth is only 6000 years old(because there are civilisations that have been recorded to be older than that), that it was 'created' in a week and that 6.4 billion people, all with different skin-types and facial features, and different languages spawned from just TWO people(thats some serious inbreeding going on there). |
|
Trust_Jesus 16:38:19 Wed Oct 12 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
China is a good example. Religious thought has been wiped out for generations yet their stance on gays at the moment (it's changing for the better only now) is much farther right than even most conservative Christian view here in the US, agree? Yet no religion in China for generations. My prediction: Gay rights will probably come to pass in the US as some new designation "life partner" or some legal status less than "marriage".
Yeah, that was a stupid thing I threw out there, sorry. After all what is "evidence"? Of course it's interesting you take up the "6 day" thing. I happen to believe exactly what the Bible says about it. By the way, nowhere does the Bible say the earth is 6000 years old. It does say creation happened in 6 days and that indeed God rested. Why couldn't God do it in an instant? Why didn't the entire history of the earth pass in an instant? I don't know that he couldn't. I take Saturday and Sunday off from working but I don't need to. I want to. Kinda leads us right back to your "time is a circle" and repeats itself. Given the above paragraph how you seem to be arguing against God creating the earth because time is a VECTOR where time has a beginning and end. You point out the 6 day period was calculated to be only 6000 years ago with Jesus 2000 years ago, etc. So you say time is circle but debunk creatism with time as a vector with a definite beginning. |
|
TDbear 21:33:51 Wed Oct 12 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
just because it hasn't been around for generations doesn't mean that everything suddenly changed over night in terms of peoples perspectives... Religions such as christianity and islam have embedded many things into peoples minds, some of which are more engrained than others, so its logical to say that those issues would take longer to change. think of it like trust... we all have an inate sense of trust for other people, but that trust needs to be built on and strenghened. So when something happens that disrupts that, we lose it, and it takes ages(even years) for it to come back
you might be surprised by this, but my personaly opinion is that i dont think gays should be able to marry. to my opinion, marriage is a religious thing, so its upto the religion in question as to whether it should be considered viable. saying that, i do not believe that all of the legal (secular) responsibilities and benifits (as noted in previous post) should only be available in a married. i agree on the 'life partner' thing, or what we have introducing here in the UK, civil partnerships, but i disagree that it should be considered 'less' than marriage. it should be 'equal but different'. But then again, the USA is much more of a religious country than the UK. (kinda ironic when we're the ones with an offical church, and your the ones with the 'supposed' separation between church and state)
i know it doesn't, the bible doesn't make any reference to how old the earth is to my knowledge. i suspect its just these 'creation-scientists' who try to use science to prove the 6-day hypothisis (its not a thery because there are no conclusive tests to make it thus), and have some how come tot hat conclusion. one thing that i think is really funny is that based on that, they are now actually trying to say that the grand canyon was formed over millions of years because of errosion by the rivver that passed throught it, but in fact it was 'created' 2000 years ago at the aproximate time that jesus died. you say that you believe exactly what the bible says, but (in relation to your comment in the other thread about time being a concept) what time scale do you think it was done? do you think that it was done in six actual days, or over a longer time but God jsut condenced it into a more understandible scale for us lowely mortals? |
|
Trust_Jesus 12:38:19 Thu Oct 13 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
I hear what you are saying but you didn't deny that China is more right than conservatives here in the US and one can not deny that China is about the closest thing to a society TOTALLY stripped of religious thought. It was outlawed and people were persecuted because of it for generations. To me in the case of China it is as clear as it can be that religious thought alone does not explain anti-gay sentiment.
1. Actually I am quite surprised. 2. I think the US will eventually do what the UK has and that is recognize that people are doing this but deny them "marriage". 3. Marriage is a civil legal status not just a religious thing (at least here). 4. I've been to the UK several times and have attended Church of England services on Sunday morning. The hype in the US is that basically Christianity has dissappeared from Europe. I found the church I went to (in a smaller town outside Liecester) was well attended and had some very enthusiastic members and clergy. 5. Yes, a "state church" is the kiss of death for any religion. I know that the US federal government screws up anything they touch. I can't imagine belonging to a federally sanctioned church. No one would come!
My point is that I believe what the Bible says. The Grand Canyon is a good example. Our eyes and our science tell us it took X million years for the GC to form. (The bible doesn't say it was formed 2000 years ago but lets just suppose that it did). There are assumptions built into the scientific proof aren't there? One assumption is that the current rate of erosion in the canyon has never changed. The amount and how caustic the water was has never changed (or can be predicted). Radiologic half-lives have never changed, etc. But one accepts all those assumptions and "has faith" that their eyes and their science doesn't deceive them. The second point I was making is that someone who believes time is a circle has very little to argue with if time does not appear to present itself in a linear fashion! The time is a circle thing may suit creationists quite well. For me, as I've said, time is a concept. It is not linear and it is not circular. What time is and what it appears to us to be are two separate things. So I believe God's word when it says it was done in 6 24 hour periods. This is our concept of time and I believe God speaks to us on our own terms. So I'm not sure which of your two categories that puts me in? |
|
TDbear 14:46:25 Thu Oct 13 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
the reason i dont deny it is because i didn't know it was, i haven't heard much about gays being persecuted in china, except that the mayor of honkong cancelled the first annual pride festival last year, and that it only de-criminalised homosexaulity like this year or something stupid. i know that religion is the only thing that explains homophobia. human nature also has a thing about fearing what it doens't understand, and fear usually leads to hate. its only now that we are actually begiinning to understand it, which is helping to dispell much of the fear(and hate) surrounding it. my view is that its the religious folk that are the most vocal and visible in their 'opposition' to it.
i thought you might be. i will admit i'd love to have a proper wedding service, like the whole exchanging of rings, vows, walking down the isle, confetti in the mouth thing, but i'd be just as happy in the knowledge that my relationship with my partner is viewed as being just as valued as that of a married straight couple under the law. i know its a civil thing as well. my point was that i dont think that all those benefits should only be available to couples of oposite sex's, because like in the above paragraph, it gives the impression that that kind of relationship is the only really valued one and anything else is just second class. i didn't mean that the UK is an atheist country, far from it. It just we dont pay much attention to thr rambellings of the church anymore. Over here, most people subsribe some one faith or another, or non if the case may be but the varying faiths just keep to themselves really, and the CoE doesn't have much of an influence over our goverment anymore (though they still have privilaged seats in the house of lords). We still have the odd evangelist on the street shouting through a mega-phone, but hey, if you dont want to listen, just walk on by. A state church is also a death sentence for any other religion in the same country also. did you know that part of the UK's pledge of alegence sates "being a catholic, buddist, muslim, sihk, agnostic or athesit, i recognise that the church of England hold supreme authority in all spiritual matters"... basically demotes them to second-class status. |
|
Trust_Jesus 13:13:18 Fri Oct 14 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Your last statement is totally illogical based on the above paragraph you wrote. Look at what you are saying. 1. Fact: Homosexuality has been a crime in China up to this year. 2. Fact: As a communist nation for 60 years all religious practice and discussion was eliminated. 3. From that you conclude that religion is the "only thing that explains homophobia"? You will not sell that argument to any rationally thinking person.
It's time to face reality here. Approximately 90% of the population will be opposed to the homosexual lifestyle! Yes, some of the 90% will profess their endorsement of the gay lifestyle in order to pass the litmus test of being a "free thinker" (bringing glory to themselves by the way). But how can you escape the biology of a hetrosexual, to whom homosexual relations are unnatural, foreign, and not to be embraced? I'm not being "religous" here, I'm just talking from an anthropological point of view: 90% hetro 10% homo.
Very interesting, I did not know that. |
|
TDbear 14:23:33 Fri Oct 14 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
first point... shite, i didn't realise i didn't actually type "not" in the last statment, my sincere apologies.
so what your saying is that 90% of the worlds population is straight, 10% is Gay... and of that 90% of straight people, 100% are opposed to the other 10%'s 'lifestyle'.... speaking of which, could you clarify what a 'gay lifestyle' is exactly, because i've always been confused as to what that is. and you also say that all those people who say they aren't opposed to 'it' are liars? and are only doing it to be politically correct. excuse me but if thats what you believe, your the one who needs a reality check. where did the biology thing come from? i'm not trying to escape anything, i know two men or two women cannot conceive a baby through intercorse. sexuality isn't about pro-creation. (well in a way it is, but its not the be all and end all) so what if 90% are straight and 10% are gay? whats the percentage ratio between caucasion and black people in the world? it makes no difference. yes gay sex is foreign to straight people, just as straight sex is foreign to gay people. if there are stright people who dont hold religious convictions who think homosexuality is wrong or 'disgusting'(which i dont understand because 60% of people who say that, usually practice the same thing with their partner), fair enough, thats their opinion. it doesn't mean that we're suddenly going to change, or that we should pay attention to them. i'm really struggeling to see the point to those comments? are to trying to prove that homosexality is 'wrong' through science and 'nature'. well homosexuality is evident in the rest of nature. i can give example is you wish. |
|
Trust_Jesus 15:10:57 Mon Oct 17 2005 Offline 1477 posts bishop Reply |
Of course that's what I'm saying. You weren't born under a rock. Let's forget gay. If 90% of the people live on the east of the tracks and 10% live west of the tracks in town. Will not the east siders view living on the west side as "foreign"? Will not the east siders in general think that living on the west side is preferrable and that those on the east side are not quite as smart, good, or worthy as they are? Show me EVEN ONE athropological study that would suggest otherwise. I'm saying it's a very simple matter of human nature and science. The 90% will always feel "correct" and "righteous" over the 10% no matter WHAT the subject is. That's all I'm saying.
The gay lifestyle is simply a male taking a male in a spousal relationship or a female taking a female in a spousal relationship.
If I meant "all" I wouldn't have said "some". As I said there are all types of reasons for people to say they believe something. Today, if you say you support gay lifestyles, that gets you a certain panache with some people, socially, politically, emotionally. It's really not that complicated, people have all sorts of motivations for saying things they don't really believe. I am simply suggesting that some people who profess to be friendly to the gay lifestyle are likely doing it for reasons other than genuine support of gay lifestyles.
Yes, obviously the gay point of view is that it's not the "be all and end all".
Everything you say may be true, but it does not change the fact that minorities have always been and will always be discriminated against. That's the way mankind works always has. In this case, the 90% will oppress the 10%. But if we're all getting "better and better" as you suggest, this is disappearing as we speak, so not to worry.
It was a response to your statements: "i know that religion is the only thing that explains homophobia." "my view is that its the religious folk that are the most vocal and visible in their 'opposition' to it." I'm simply pointing out there there are obvious sociological and antropological reasons why there is "homophobia". My overarching argument is that the enemy of gays is not God but man's sinfulness. That the ongoing sin of living a gay lifestyle is no different than my ongoing sin each day. There is no special argument against God because you happen to be more vulnerable to this sin. I understand that you don't believe it to be a sin, but hey, I don't wish to believe the sins I commit are sins either. We all feel that way not just gays. |
|
TDbear 17:25:11 Mon Oct 17 2005 Offline 567 posts bishop Reply |
Oh i'm going to have so much fun ranting here
all that depends on the condtions is each side. if the east was more fertile, and a better place to grow crops, then yes, people living in the east will think that its preferable to live in the east. in this case, the only subject that one side has an advantage over the other is the peoples ability to conviece children... there is nothing else that divides them. thats a bit 'school yard' to say isn't it "those on the east side are not quite as smart, good, or worthy as they are?". unless as you say, you do a study that actually says as such, then there is no difference between.
i asked you that with the assumption that you wouldn't know, and i was correct in that assumption. what you said above is a social definition of homosexuality. i lifestyle, is somehting like a buisnessman, or an athlete, or a geek. its the things they do, how much exersice they do etc etc. the only example of a 'gay lifestyle' i've ever heard is from fundamentalists who say that it is "Men who spend all of their time in clubs and bars cruising for sex". and thats bollox! yes there are people who say things because they are trying to gain a repour with people... politicians for example. And yes there are people who say it because they so accept it and support anyone who is.
what i meant to say was that pro-creation is not the only thing that sex is about. and in that vein, its not just a 'gay' point of view, its just a 'non-religious' point of view.
1) you obviously didn't read the first statement i made in my last post. 2) my second statment still holds true. many people have their predudices agasint gays, but its the religious ones that are the most vocal 3) i know God isn't gays enemy, God loves everyone. 4) THERE IS NO SIN, there is only pathetic men who think something is wrong so wrote it down and claimed it is the word of their deity. |
| Pages: [ 1 2 ] |
| [ Notify ] | [ Print ] | [ Send To Friend ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ > ] |
|
Total Members: 412 | Register :: Log In :: In Power The time is now 11:13:14 Sat Dec 2 2023 |