|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 0/46 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: homosexuality | |||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
BUMP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
BUMP
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
LOL!
Yeah I wondered if anybody was going to comment on that the first time around...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: What if it makes sense in a theological context?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I'll agree with that.
quote: Clarify your point. Are you saying that Christian theology should allow homosexuality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I find it odd that the opposition is bring up Leviticus and the Law of Moses when they are almost irrelevant to Christianity. In Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15 (especially verse 10) we Gentiles are told that we don't have to keep most of Leviticus. Verse 20 says that we should abstain from fornication, things strangled, and blood. However other books in the NT continue to give us guidance.
A lot of things fall under the category of fornication (above). Romans 1:27 condemns homosexuality and various other un-Godly practices. However I have not yet found anything in the NT talking about mixed-fiber clothing....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: In another thread you claimed that if Israelite pracitices gave medical benefits, such killing a dove to cure diseases, this would be proof of the Judeo-Christian God. I pointed out that you would merely wave this evidence away by suggesting that the practice had natural benefits and the Israelites merely noticed these natural benefits and incorporated them into their religion; so that your beliefs about the non-existance of God are therefore non-falsifiable. I don't understand how you, who claims to be agnostic, and therefore, by definition, you lack the evidence to know anything about God, can possibly know enough to claim that Christianity is false?
quote: Actually, so far as I can tell, what Christians keep today generally is specified in the NT, and what they don't have to keep, is told in the NT. See my above reference to Acts and Romans. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I will admit that we try to infer a lot from the OT. Prophecies, types of Christ, etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: But that at least some of the Israelite practices that do work are somehow not 'proof'? So basically, if it works it is not proof, but if it doesn't work it would be proof if it did?
quote: No, I do not. Especially considering a culture that was ingnorant of the Germ Theory of disease. The only difference is that one is demonstrable today, the other is not. You said that if some of the Israelite practices work it would be proof. Well here, some of them work. Rejecting one because it works along a mechanism that is known today is irrelevant -- because just as you assume that the Israelites learned about covering wounds through observation, if sticking pins in a voodoo doll did cure disease and they had voodoo dolls then they (by your reasoning) could (and therefore, according to your reasoing, would) have learned this not through revelation but through observation. I contend that your position on this matter is unfalsifiable. Added by edit: By the way, it is not my position that Israelite knowledge of sores or anything else is positive proof of God because I contend that they could have learned that by observation. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: ??? I beg to differ. It says that the Gentiles should not be troubled with the Law of Moses.
quote: I don't kill my own food but it's my understanding that strangling is not used amongst the meat packing industry (too inefficient). If I were to know that that steak was strangled I wouldn't eat it.
quote: I don't. I want that thing cooked.
quote: Sick.
quote: (In addition to the verses in Acts?) The Law of Moses has been fulfilled. We believe Leviticus was written by Moses. Therefore most of what is in Leviticus has been fulfilled.
quote: No. I don't believe the NT is the final revelation of God. I also have an incomplete understanding of the Bible, I need to study it more to be sure. But I tend to think that the NT takes precedence over the OT, and that most of what is in Leviticus has been fulfilled.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Such is like walking up to a Catholic and explaining that they need no pope, or telling the Amish that they can join the rest of us in 21st century any time they like. You're entitled to your religious opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: If you wish. I admit that your knowledge of the Bible is almost certainly superior to mine because you've been studying it longer.
quote: Umm ok. That's definately not cool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: See, we can say we don't have to follow the Law of Moses but then we have things like the Ten Commandments, which all Christian sects seem (Protestants especially) to follow and which seems to be a good guide in how Jews and Christians should act. So when we teach it to the kids we are kind of inconsistent. This is where I guess we "pick and choose". (Not that I think we should plaster it up in gov't buildings though) [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Ok, I merely misunderstood you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: No. I am not trying to use "medical" practices to prove anything. I'm trying to demonstrate that the claim that the ancient Jews' treatment of sores came about through observation is unfalsifiable. I'm trying to show that your beliefs based upon the apparent failure of dove-slaughtering are unfalsifiable. Even if dove sacrifice did cure disease you would explain it away as observation, just as you explain away the treatment of soars.
quote: Then you would claim that the Isrealites noticed that certain priests could cure diseases and so the practice came about through observation rather than revelation. And by the way, if this only happens by the work of the faithful, doesn't that sound rather like contemporary claims of miracle healings? And if only the faithful perform this, do you think repeatable, scientific evidence would be easy to come by? That is assuming God will perform for the test. It may or may not be impossible for you to prove, but very difficult at the least.
quote: For the sake of this argument a mechanism is unnecessary, we are simply assuming that covering sores helps and, hypothetically, that the voodoo dolls and dove sacrifice work. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024