Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheist evolutionists: How far will you allow yourselves of sexual perversities?
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 76 of 152 (523607)
09-11-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
09-11-2009 10:43 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
Especially when the Catholics do forbid such marriages.
Not really. My Dad and Step-mom both got remarried (to each other) after being divorced...all they needed was an anulment of their previous marriages. So, in the mind of the church, the marriages never really happened...but they did. It's a backdoor escape clause.
IIRC, it's what led to the Anglican Church in the first place. The Pope wouldn't grant an anulment to King Henry VIII for his 5th (?) wife.
Edited by Perdition, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2009 10:43 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 77 of 152 (523724)
09-12-2009 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by PaulK
09-11-2009 10:43 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
PaulK writes:
If it is so clear, why exactly do Mark and Luke both miss out the exception ? If it isn't clear to the Gospel authors, how can it be clear to you ?
I dont believe they missed the exception. The gospels are individual accounts and they don't all have to be completely identical to be accurate.
the gospels should be read as a whole because together they give a more detailed picture of Jesus teachings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 09-11-2009 10:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2009 5:06 PM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 78 of 152 (523797)
09-12-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Peg
09-12-2009 7:45 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
quote:
I dont believe they missed the exception. T
So you are saying that someone else edited it out ? Because it isn't there. And why would both Mark and Luke have been edited in this way and not Matthew ?
quote:
The gospels are individual accounts and they don't all have to be completely identical to be accurate.
However, there is a contradiction here. So either Matthew is inaccurate in allowing the exception or both Mark and Luke are for not allowing it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Peg, posted 09-12-2009 7:45 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:49 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 79 of 152 (523882)
09-13-2009 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
09-10-2009 7:25 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
Don't you think that that shows a degree of prejudice against homosexuals, beyond simply regarding homosexual behaviour as sinful ?
Yes.
I will address Percy's post because it hits on the problem. Sorry for the delay, I am still "finding" posts to me. Lol

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2009 7:25 AM PaulK has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 152 (523885)
09-13-2009 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Percy
09-10-2009 7:39 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
I think there's a lot of truth to what you say. This is the hardest area for a person whom believes they are genuinely born again, such as I.
I FEEL completely unable to convince you of anything because basically it's too hard to explain.
Your bible verse is a good example of why people do those very things you say. But I believe there is an "overall" theme to the "bible", and if you are going to go with the "bible", then you go with that whole theme.
Our way (born agains), is to take what is said throughout the whole bible, searching the context, not the syntax, and finding, with the help of Hebrew, in some cases, what the answers are.
With the homosexual issue, you're going to get "religious" people that are more concerned about homosexuals because of personal bigotry or hatred, rather than what the whole bible is telling us.
But this is why I feel completely unable to explain this, because you will think, when I say "religious", that I mean all faiths. But infact, I believe it is a religious spirit, or what we call legalism.
The problem is that there are all manner of sects. I saw a programme recently where a Coptic Christian stated, "we are biblical", and this very problem you mentioned, arose, because they were giving babies full-immersion baptisms, even though the bible clearly indicates that baptism should happen when a person comes to a position of decision about their lives. A baby can't do this.
They also, although don't quote me on this as only the presenter said this, they also were burning incense to "help" their prayers.
I think lots of religious denominations exist, but that it doesn't follow that these people are truly born again. Now before you state, "no true scotsman", remember, my point isn't that they do not call themselves Christian, but that they have to meet the criteria of the Gospels. It also doesn't follow that they are not born again, but eventually they will come to repent of these issues, if they really are.
If they hold views which are generally contrary to those Gospels, then we have to ask - are these people really born again? Because if you are really born again, from experience, you know that there is no place left for either falsehood or hatred.
Even now I am frustrated, because it simply is too hard for me to explain how I wanted to. My apologies.
P.s. I believe the bible explaining the bible is the best proven philosophy. If one verse says all are saved, then why does it say in other places that people are condemned already if they don't believe in Christ?
Logically, the only answer is that a syntax-level interpretation doesn't work, as the writers of the Gospels obviously aren't telling us that people who disbelieve are saved.
So with these handpicked verses, the verses sometimes don't represent the "theme". Afterall, it was well understood by the apostles, as to why Christ came, Who he was, etc...and there are verses that deal with hell. therefore there MUST have logically been a misunderstanding on the part of those who take these verses and build dogmas by them.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Percy, posted 09-10-2009 7:39 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:11 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 81 of 152 (523887)
09-13-2009 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
09-10-2009 7:25 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
There is a "generic" , "religion".
It is likely that I am put under this category. The only logical problem with that is that if you take thousands of slightly different beliefs, where is the "truth", in them? It can be easy to make them generic, and handwave away them all as false.
This is such a big problem because even born again Christians disagree about what scripture says.
But there has to be a difference in motive, if someone wants to understand what they say, and admitt he doesn't fully know, and someone who wants to "use" scriptures to justify in-built prejudices.
But - yes, it is very understandable why say, an atheist, might want to handwave it away as A L L completely false. My advice would be to understand the bible, after having a real-life encounter with the God of that bible, and then try and understand it.
That's all I can say. even if I am technically wrong, the truth is all that matters to me. I knew that saying "no" would make me look bad because people see me as a generic entity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2009 7:25 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2009 10:09 AM mike the wiz has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 152 (523905)
09-13-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
09-13-2009 6:34 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
Hi Mike,
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but your post highlighted a number of sources of ambiguity and is a strong argument for why there can be no single correct theological interpretation of the Bible.
Religious people of all stripes with mutually exclusive beliefs think they possess the truth. They'll tell you that they have the truth, they'll explain why they have the truth, and they'll argue at length with anyone who thinks they don't have the truth. Obviously they can't all be right, and most likely all are wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2009 6:34 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2009 6:18 AM Percy has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 83 of 152 (523922)
09-13-2009 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by mike the wiz
09-13-2009 6:48 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
quote:
There is a "generic" , "religion".
I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about Protestant Christianity.
quote:
But there has to be a difference in motive, if someone wants to understand what they say, and admitt he doesn't fully know, and someone who wants to "use" scriptures to justify in-built prejudices.
I've seen plenty examples of the latter from "born-again" Christians. And many fundamentalists seem to hate Bible scholars, who should be an essential resource for anyone truly hoping to understand the Bible.
What I don't see is any sort of answer to my point. Are you saying that the evidence I am seeing is a widespread example of Christians ignoring an inconvenient part of the Bible, while many among them go rather beyond what the Bible endorses when it comes ot homosexuality ? That a good many Christians could be described as "homophobic" ?
quote:
But - yes, it is very understandable why say, an atheist, might want to handwave it away as A L L completely false. My advice would be to understand the bible, after having a real-life encounter with the God of that bible, and then try and understand it.
I don't say that the Bible is "A L L completely false", no do I handwave away any of it (unlike fundamentalists here) - and I'm all for understanding it (unlike many fundamentalists here).
quote:
That's all I can say. even if I am technically wrong, the truth is all that matters to me.
I wish I could say that was true Mike. But sadly it isn't. You gave up on the truth, and that makes me sad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by mike the wiz, posted 09-13-2009 6:48 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2009 6:07 AM PaulK has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 84 of 152 (524010)
09-14-2009 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
09-13-2009 10:09 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
I wish I could say that was true Mike. But sadly it isn't. You gave up on the truth, and that makes me sad.
It surprises me that you say that. I don't know what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I admitted the church was biased, based on your reasoning, that they justify false marriage of straight folk, but no gay folk. Am I therefore a liar? Would a liar admitt to this truth?
You have to remember, that through all of my struggles I never actually ever stopped believing in Christ. But it's not as though I'm a person whom insists I am right. All I know is that as far as I know I have searched for the truth, and as a believer I believe Christ has not led me down the garden path.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2009 10:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2009 7:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 85 of 152 (524012)
09-14-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
09-13-2009 9:11 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but your post highlighted a number of sources of ambiguity and is a strong argument for why there can be no single correct theological interpretation of the Bible.
I don't see how. That people come to wrong conclusions, in their various groups, won't get you to that conclusion.
I would say that God has the ultimate meaning. That even boen-agains have their differences, doesn't mean that they undermine the general meaning of the bible as a Revelation.
Yes, we can be theistic evolutionist or YEC, or OEC, or many things, such as pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib.
But really, we do believe that Christ has gave us a general revelation. Afterall, the "whole" bible, taking it all as true, only really means something to those who are Christian, and take it as it is, because that it what the "whole" of it represents.
There is a theme you can't deny if you learn about it. Such as Christ being made sin because of atonement, which can be understood from the law books...death, overcoming it, because of the sin of Adam, at the beginning, and Revelation, a restoration of creation or a new creation, because of Christ's victory.
All these things aren't up for interpretation. That a lot of the bible needs interpretation, doesn't have a baring on most of it. It would be a compositional error to give one issue such a huge "say", when the majority of scripture can be understood.
I'll give you an example;
When I was ten years old, I got to reading Genesis, and guess what - before any kind of worldly influences of any meaning, I understood Genesis.
So what is it that really is the problem? Interpretation, or a pollution of our minds with other issues? Notice that eveolution wouldn't have been a problem at this stage of my life, therefore I didn't think six days could be six billion years, nor any need to water-down any verses.
So it's not nearly as simple as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Religious people of all stripes with mutually exclusive beliefs think they possess the truth. They'll tell you that they have the truth, they'll explain why they have the truth, and they'll argue at length with anyone who thinks they don't have the truth. Obviously they can't all be right, and most likely all are wrong.
But we are born again. We say, Christ is the truth. We say, that you can argue about anything, and defend "self" all you want. We don't believe other people's differences means that Christ didn't go to the cross, or that his miracles were parables, or that he died for an allegorical "death". We believe what is actually said, and the majority of the Gospels are understandable. The message is clear, but it's that people don't want to believe it in that form. It is more comfortable to believe it was all a parable, and that we all go to heaven no matter what we do in life.
It's a matter of studying the bible, as a "whole" thing, and asking; "If God is behind this WHOLE thing, then what is his message?"
The message is sin.
Have you ever lied?
Have you ever stolen?
Have you ever cursed God or took His name in vain?
Have you ever commited adultery, even in your heart? Have you lusted ever before?
Have you ever been angry at your brother?
Nobody has ever gotten around the fact that they have all done wrong in life, and even though the bible tells us about a Holy God that cannot withstand sin, people still believe they can enter his presence and live.
What about the new creation? What if you lied by accident, and offended me, in that creation? What if you done a petty sin that led to something grand?
Sin can only be addressed on a personal level. The sanctification process requires the Holy Spirit. We know through experience that this Spirit is real, whereas our worldly church-upbringing made us think it was "fake", something you had to believe in.
if even the church doesn't believe in the message, then how are they real believers? How can they believe in the truth?
It is being born again that matters. The body of Christ is human-form, not stone-form.
All of these things can be understood from reading the real-life accounts of Paul, alone.
What I'm saying is that the Holy Spirit is actually real. I have felt the presence of God and you can to. And my challenge is easy - if it is fake, go through the experience, and then say it is fake. But it is real - and Jesus Christ IS REAL. You have to therefore REALLY believe what he says.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 09-13-2009 9:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 9:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-16-2009 8:31 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 93 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-16-2009 9:04 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 86 of 152 (524027)
09-14-2009 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
09-14-2009 6:07 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
quote:
It surprises me that you say that.
I'm afraid it's pretty obvious from your overall behaviour here.
I don't want to get into a long argument over examples (because the mods don't like that) but this post is pretty telling Message 1
quote:
I admitted the church was biased, based on your reasoning, that they justify false marriage of straight folk, but no gay folk.
And I wasn't replying to the message where you said that. I was replying to the post where you made some vague comments with no clear connection to the post it was replying to (and you haven't bothered to answer my request for clarification) - and which contained some points which I consider to be quite definitely wrong.
quote:
But it's not as though I'm a person whom insists I am right
Sorry Mike, but from reading your posts I would say that you quite definitely ARE that sort of person. In fact I would say that you are the sort of person who demands that other people say that you are right - even when you happen to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2009 6:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 87 of 152 (524028)
09-14-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by PaulK
09-12-2009 5:06 PM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
PaulK writes:
So you are saying that someone else edited it out ? Because it isn't there. And why would both Mark and Luke have been edited in this way and not Matthew ?
no im simply saying they didnt write it in just as they did not write other events that happened.
if you were to read 3 or 4 different biographies written by different authors about the same person, you would likely hear some different details in each of them that give you a wider picture of the person you are reading about.
the gospel writers did not copy from each other, they wrote their own accounts and they did not all write the same details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2009 5:06 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2009 8:19 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 89 by purpledawn, posted 09-14-2009 2:42 PM Peg has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 88 of 152 (524031)
09-14-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Peg
09-14-2009 7:49 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
quote:
no im simply saying they didnt write it in just as they did not write other events that happened.
Except that it isn't a separate event. Nor is it an inconsequential detail. By leaving out any exceptions the authors of Mark and Luke implicitly deny the existence of any significant exceptions.
quote:
the gospel writers did not copy from each other, they wrote their own accounts and they did not all write the same details.
That's not true. Who copied who is not entirely clear, but most likely the authors of Luke and Matthew copied from Mark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:49 AM Peg has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 89 of 152 (524122)
09-14-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Peg
09-14-2009 7:49 AM


Unbalanced Tolerance
quote:
the gospel writers did not copy from each other, they wrote their own accounts and they did not all write the same details.
The author of Mark probably wrote his own account, but Matthew and Luke relied heavily on Mark and embellished. The author of Luke claims to have investigated everything from the beginning, so I feel it is very significant that he omitted the divorce statement. The author of Luke doesn't always side with the Matthew author. He seems to correct some of the oddities in Matthew.
It is contradictory for a group that claims an understanding and loving deity shows favoritism when it comes to sexual misconduct. If all "works of the flesh" are equally "bad", then those people, accordingly to Paul Message 64, will not inherit God's kingdom.
So as PaulK pointed out in Message 65
PaulK writes:
Then you are going to have to explain why many Protestant Churches are willing to support adultery (as in Mark 10:11-12). - but will not show the same tolerance to homosexual behavior.
Christian clergy will tolerate divorced individuals (not due to fornication) within their flock and will perform marriages of such individuals which will cause those individuals to commit sexual misconduct according to the writer of Matthew, but they don't usually (I think there are a few exceptions) tolerate active homosexual couples joining their flock. The Catholics even try to get around the rule by annulling the marriage. (Which seems odd for a group who considers God to be all knowing.)
So the question remains. If Christianity claims that all sexual misconduct is equally disdainful and unacceptable, then why allow and even perform marriages of people who have divorced their mate for reasons other than fornication, but not allow homosexuals to live and marry without being harassed?
Perverse means turned away from what is right or good.
How perverse is it to condemn one, but not the other?
How perverse is it to condemn one, but allow the other to think they are fine in the eyes of God?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 7:49 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Peg, posted 09-16-2009 7:03 AM purpledawn has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 90 of 152 (524239)
09-15-2009 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by mike the wiz
09-14-2009 6:18 AM


Re: No Contradiction, Logic, or Morality Here
mike the wiz writes:
I'm sure you didn't intend it this way, but your post highlighted a number of sources of ambiguity and is a strong argument for why there can be no single correct theological interpretation of the Bible.
I don't see how. That people come to wrong conclusions, in their various groups, won't get you to that conclusion.
How do you know you don't belong to one of the various groups with incorrect theological interpretations?
How are outsiders supposed to tell which of all the various groups have correct interpretations?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by mike the wiz, posted 09-14-2009 6:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024