Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
49 online now:
jar, Juvenissun, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,350 Year: 11,098/23,288 Month: 350/1,763 Week: 317/390 Day: 38/99 Hour: 0/3

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
Posts: 6059
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0

Message 21 of 111 (388528)
03-06-2007 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Phat
03-02-2007 7:34 AM

Re: Topic Synopsis
I agree. I am not saying that the Bible is Inerrant.

To be honest, I no longer know what it means to say whether the Bible is inerrant. I always understood the "inerrancy of the scriptures" to mean that it is free from textual error. I don't believe that it is free from error. However, if it means that the Bible is the true and inspired Word of God, then I am an inerrantist.

Anyone know, definitively, what biblical inerrancy actually means?

Ringo writes:

How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

Phat writes:

Good point, Ringo. I have always maintained that some folks believe that the source of all human knowledge is human derived while others of us believe that the source of wisdom is God-derived...but you are correct in pointing out that we could never prove it since it is evident that we are human!

This is why at some point you either have to believe that the Bible is true or it is not. None of us can ride the fence on this matter. The Bible was designed to be our guide in a world full of worldliness. If you can't trust that then what exactly sanctifies any Christian who does not believe its importance?

Its like the nihilist position, which seems safe by hiding in obscurity. Nihilists believe that there is no justification for any knowledge claims. They believe that nothing can truly be known with any sort of veracity. It should not take long, however, to see the flaw in their basic premise. How can the Nihilist even purport such a claim if he hasn’t the ability to "know" that knowledge is unattainable? If nothing can be verified then they should not offer any solutions, being that, it means nothing. What I mean to say is, if knowledge is unattainable altogether, then what gives him the reason to question any one else's truth?

Similarly, the one who holds fast to the solipsist argument believes that the "self" is the only verifiable thing anyone could know. Ironically, these are often the same people who will argue with you for hours about reality, and what’s more, morality. If they are only able to acquaint themselves with reality strictly through themselves, then what is their justification for criticizing another's reality? If they do not know if there is even knowledge apart from themselves, then what are they arguing about?

It's this kind of illogic that unwittingly pits the philosopher against his own beliefs. Is it not absurd and contradictory that Nihilists know that knowledge is impossible? I think we can safely say, yes.

Therefore, what other option do you, Phat, as a Christian, have regarding the Bible? Obviously you either believe in its knowledge claims or you don't.

Phat writes:

My stance in this thread is that while the book is not strictly innerrant, it is a source of wisdom and philosophy for many people. Given that this is so, I want to argue the position of why certain Biblically quote mined catch-phrases are used.

You are using the term "quote-mined" incorrectly. Quote mining is when you use quotes nefariously-- meaning, it either has nothing to do with the conversation, or it is being misrepresented, or the quote is inaccurate.

Phat writes:

Are these pearls of wisdom...uttered by Jesus Christ and by supposedly spiritually enlightened Biblical authors such as David (Psalms) Solomon (Proverbs) and Saul aka Paul (Many New Testament Books) relevant as a philosophy and as a world view in modern life?

The wisdom came from somewhere. If not Jesus, then another source. Either way most people seem to agree that the message is just fine. The problem they have is people who don't practice what they preach.

Taz writes:

What good is all this biblical moral high ground bullshit if the followers of this biblical moral high ground bullshit keep trying to oppress other people with their biblical moral high ground bullshit?

Probably because no one is using to oppress, but to free the captives. The easy position for an atheist is that you can't pin them down to anything. And for the most part, whether they are conscious of it or not, they prefer to live life this way. A Christian has clear guidelines for life that easily identifiable. Its easy for the atheist to say moralize and judge the Christian because they know exactly what they believe. Should the Christian do or say anything counter to the biblical claim, they feel obligated to point it out.

But really, atheists have their own set of morals. They simply don't usually relay that. Or if they do, there is always contained in the subtext a perpetual escape clause through their relativistic standards. How convenient. However......

The human condition is the prevailing disposition of man between joy and suffering. And for the sake of a really good argument, perhaps there is no one more acquainted with such a disposition than the carnal Christian who understands the invisible battle between good and evil, and yet lives a duplicitous life anyway. Followed not far behind him is the Christian who wants to befriend the world and Christ. He has one foot in the world, and one foot in the Church, because he wants the best of both worlds. His humility could be perceived as false, because self-deprecation is not really about humility, its about fishing for compliments. It ends up not being about God at all, but about themselves.

Doddy writes:

Anyway, you said I can have other scriptures, so I'd like to discuss the inerrancy of these two scriptures:

2 Thessalonians 3:6
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly..."

2 Thessalonians 3:14-15
"And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

How does one 'admonish as a brother', without keeping company and with withdrawing?

It means don't hang out with him like he's your buddy, because another scripture says that bad company corrupts good character. Consider this analogy: We have a man in a boat on a lake. The lake represents the world and its ways, the man is the believer, and the boat is the Spirit of God. What Paul is essentially saying is that in order to tell people about God, one needs to be out on the lake. There is no two ways about it. However, what good will it do for the man to be out on the lake without the boat? Without the boat (Spirit of God/Word of God), he will drown in the lake and no one will be saved. That's what it means.

Phat quotes John 17:14-15:

I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.

That's it...

Phat writes:

Perhaps we are showing how a staunch adherence to Fundamentalist Biblical philosophy promotes a sense of privilege and exclusivity in the church community. My question would then become: Well what do you expect us to do? Go around and let it all hang out...cussing and drinking and laughing at dirty jokes?

Exactly Phat. We all know condescending, legalistic Christians who are more focused on the letter of the Law rather than understanding the Spirit behind the Law. However, some Christians are falsely accused of doing this. How then can someone be a friend to the world, without befriending the world? We need to bring your boat and we need to keep our priorities in check with unwaivering support without coming off as a moralizing prig.

As a Christian, I know how tough that subtle dichotomy can be. We should be friendly and compassionate to all without neglecting to give it to them straight even at the risk of them supposing you aren't being compassionate. The reality is that for many people, simply by being a Christian immediately brings up the defensive barrier. And they will only not heap insults on you until you conform to their ways and their rationale.

Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quotes

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Phat, posted 03-02-2007 7:34 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 5:11 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Posts: 6059
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0

Message 34 of 111 (388639)
03-06-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by anastasia
03-06-2007 2:01 PM

Re: Topic Synopsis
Inerrancy undoubtedly has to do with textual accuracy, but I do not believe that this means every word, or as they say, every jot and tittle, is perfectly preserved, BUT that all due care has been observed in preserving the authors' intentions and meanings, and thus, the texts which we use can be 'trusted' to the ultimate extent.

That works for me. The only real questionable piece of Scripture that has stumped me to this day is found in the Book of Acts. (I'm feeling lazy today, so please forgive for not fishing for the exact verses). Anyway, the subject is about Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. In one portion of the book, it describes Luke talking about what happened to Paul. In a proceeding chapter, however, it gives a conflicting account as it reverses what was supposed to have happened. Its very minor and it doesn't change the tone of the story at all, but, if inerrancy was to mean that the Bible contains no textual errors, this one seems to clearly undermine that belief.

To this day, no one has been able to give me a reason for the disparity.

As you can see below, the 'human element' is noted, which involves discrepency in language and copying, presumably.

I know that the Bible is one of the most reliable series of documents in its accuracy of transcription over the millennia. Comparing the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Masoretic text, and the Dead Sea Scrolls has shown that the Bible we have in our hands today is nearly identical to what they were using 2,500 years ago.

The big issue is translation, IMO.

Absolutely. The English language is not nearly as sophisticated or in depth as, say, Greek. And because their language was so much more expansive, this is why we need a good concordance to accurately translate the meaning of any given word.

The church absolutely holds to the entire Bible as inerrant, not, as I would have thought, only those aspects pertaining to faith and morals. Yes, even the science! But therein is the gaping gigantic loophole...how literally do we interpret the parts having to do with science?

I have a very basic way of interpreting scripture. In my opinion, Scripture must be read as literature. In other words, if we want to interpret the Bible the literally, we have to first interpret it as literature, while paying close attention to genre and figures of speech. Most scripture is particular to this because the Bible is a historical narrative that is interlaced with symbolism, often formatted in a poetic structure.

In contrast, if we were to reduce the Bible to a mere allegory that conveys only abstract ideas without any real correlation to history, then we would miss the other intent. The biblical narrative descirbes scripture in a way that it evidently speaks about actual events in human history, but there is usually an underlying message just below the surface. The significance of the story is not always found in the story itself. Even though it is factual the real treasure lies within the integrated message.

Much, if not most of the Bible, is homiletical. God is providing for us a sermon intended to edify the believer or to bring about repentance to the unbeliever. But, if we were to look at the story of Adam and Eve simply as the first human beings on earth, we would overlook the true intent of the story. The true message is one about habitual sin and the consequences for rebellion.

I think the Hebrews of old and even many contemporary Jews have a good system. As far as I can tell, they've always maintained a system of decoding, if you will, in the Midrash, which is a specific way of interpreting the Bible. It is divided into four examinations, to which they refer to as, "peshat, remez, derash, and sod. Peshat is the straight up way of reading the Bible for face value and trying to extract meaning there. Remez is hints or allusions that are waiting to be uncovered. Derash is the exegetical way of analyzing the scriptures. And sod seeks to uncover the mystical meaning behind the text. When all are combined, the reader, in my opinion, can best understand what exactly what the intent of the verse is trying to elucidate.

There are also other parts, even possibly including Genesis, which, when not interpreted so literally, do not directly contradict scientific discovery.

This is the way Josephus describes Moses' motivations in Genesis. Extrapolate what you will from it. After he describes the first portion of Genesis quite literally, he says about Moses:

"Moses, after the seventh day was over, begins to talk philosophically; and concerning the formation of man, says thus: That God took dust from the ground, and formed man, and inserted in him a spirit and a soul. This man was called Adam, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that is red, because he was formed out of red earth, compounded together; for of that kind is virgin and true earth. God also presented the living creatures, when he had made them, according to their kinds, both male and female, to Adam, who gave them those names by which they are still called. But when he saw that Adam had no female companion, no society, for there was no such created, and that he wondered at the other animals which were male and female, he laid him asleep, and took away one of his ribs, and out of it formed the woman; whereupon Adam knew her when she was brought to him, and acknowledged that she was made out of himself. Now a woman is called in the Hebrew tongue Issa; but the name of this woman was Eve, which signifies the mother of all living." -Flavius Josephus

Josephus seems to agree that much of the Bible, even portions of Genesis, is figurative or allegorical.

When all is said and done, if it comes down to belief in the Bible or doubt of it, it IS the matters of faith and morals which save, (not the history or the science) and these are confirmed in their usefullness by daily life.

I agree.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 2:01 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:26 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 47 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-08-2007 12:46 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Posts: 6059
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0

Message 37 of 111 (388652)
03-06-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taz
03-06-2007 5:11 PM

Re: Topic Synopsis
So, based on what you said, would you agree that it was the right thing for christians to have captured non-christians from africa and civilize or "free the captives" by enslaving them and teaching them the word of god?

When the Bible talks about "setting the captives free," it is an allegory hinting to the Egyptian and Babylonian captivity of the Jews to be a representation for sin. So if said that Jesus came to free the captives, it means to set us free from sin.

I'm sorry, I'm not a poetic person at all. I tend to read things directly rather than try to drown the other person in obscurity.

Not a problem.

I'm an atheist and I haven't raped or murdered anyone.

I think you would agree that immoral behavior extends beyond rape and murder.

[qs]But history have clearly shown us that these so-called clear guidlines also changes over time. It was the christian thing to burn witches at the stake. It was the christian thing to hang witches a salem. You are conflating a fringe community in a small city to speak on behalf of all Christendom. That would be as unfair for me saying that because you are an atheist, and so was Stalin, that you must somehow agree that the mass murder of millions of people was perfectly fine behavior.

It was the christian thing to consider non-christian subhuman.

When was it okay to consider non-christians as subhumans?

It was the christian thing to bring about the white man's burden.

The white man's burden? I'm not familiar with this terminology. Can you expound for me please?

What you state as "clear guidelines" are exactly like any other form of moral guideline. Every moral guideline that's ever existed either changes over time or simply disappear.

Not really, because the moral guideline is established as absolute in the Bible. People's severe audacious misinterpretation of scripture is something totally different.

Was it a christian thing for the crusaders to kill every man, woman, and child who inhabited Jerusalem before the first crusade?

The reasons and history behind the Crusades is seriously in question as to what actually happened and what the motivations were. The Crusades were every bit political as it was a religious endeavor. There is too much to cover concerning the Crusades, so I'm going to defer to an article that I read fairly recently that attempts to rescue fact from fiction.

I simply don't know why you would claim, or imply, that there is such a thing as a christian guideline that is unchangeble.

I mean that the gospel narrative is the guideline and that it is not subject to amendment and that it is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.

We feel obligated to point out everytime one of you do something against what you preach is because christianity is currently a very powerful force in the richest and most powerful nation in the world and it continues to seek out new groups of people to oppress.

Seek out new people to "oppress?" Can you explain this to me, and please leave out the melodrama?

Rock 'n Roll used to be music of the devil, remember?

According to fringe Christians in America, during a very specific time. You are aware that Christians exist, and have always existed in other nations, right?

All homosexuals used to be pedophiles, remember?

No, I don't remember that.

God used to not want women to vote, remember?

No, I don't remember that. Show in the Bible where God doesn't want women to vote. You seem to misunderstand culture and custom with religious beliefs.

But the main reason why we point out everytime one of you do something counter to biblical claim is because on other issues "the bible says so" seem to be your only defense.

It doesn't really matter if the bible is not a source for inspiration to you.

Yes, and our own set of morals are very simple.

That they are set so low that breaking it is virtually impossible, or that it has special clauses and amendments for why something doesn't really go against their own morals?

Common human decency tells me that people of other races and cultures are people, too, and should be treated with respect... etc, etc

Then you are in agreement with Jesus' Golden Rule.

Now, let's look at all the above examples from a christian perspective. A christian would help another person to buy a ticket into heaven. Either that or they don't want to burn in hell.

Taz, its obvious that you don't have the faintest idea about the Christian perspective, otherwise, you wouldn't make these erroneous claims. You can't "buy" your way into heaven. The Bible is littered with things that clearly say otherwise. Before you knock the Bible, understand what it actually says. And if you still agree with your original sentiment, then at least you will be well-informed.

Just how many valuable artifacts and monuments have been destroyed so the local people could be converted to christianity?

You seem to know the answer since you are making the claim, which I can guess means that you have evidence of this destruction.

And let's not forget this very EvC debate that we have. Do you know how many times I've cringed my teeth because a christian have decided that a single google search would make him smarter and more knowledgable than the rest of us?

How many times? I should add that Google doesn't make anyone smarter, and that knowledge and intelligence shouldn't be confused as the same thing.

These christian guidelines you speak of have done nothing to protect the rest of us from the christian majority. If anything, minority groups have always had to struggle for their "godgiven rights" without the support of the major churches.

Since this country is unambiguously borne under the umbrella of the Christian ethos, I don't think you are in any position to say otherwise.

Sorry, I'm more left-brain person than right brain. Could you be kind enough to translate what you wrote there to something less... nonsensical? It's not you. It's me. I consider myself handicapped when it comes to all this poetic bullshit.

I would translate it for you if I didn't strongly suspect that it would make a difference. You seem bent on throwing a pity party. Blow out the candles and make a wish.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 5:11 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Posts: 6059
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0

Message 42 of 111 (388712)
03-07-2007 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:26 PM

Re: Topic Synopsis
I believe that you are conflating inspiration and textual inerrancy. If the Bible is inspired of God, why would there be disparate passages? To solve this, you need to determine what the church has to say about inspiration.

I stumbled across this clip last night, ironically enough. It was a Q&A seminar held at Oxford and the first question dealt with inerrancy. His explanation of how the meaning became obscured and what it actually means means is very similar to the link you provided and what you have written. The portion of the clip about inerrancy is right in the beginning.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:26 PM anastasia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by anastasia, posted 03-07-2007 1:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Posts: 6059
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.0

Message 44 of 111 (388761)
03-07-2007 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
03-06-2007 10:51 PM

Re: Topic Synopsis
Well, you were the one that claimed there are specific christian guidelines and that you implied these guidelines are perfect.

The guidelines I'm referring to are Biblical precepts. You may hear people saying, "it's the Christian thing to do." And it may be, and it may not be. The the actual meaning of "Christian," is to be Christ-like. How do we know what that means? By reading the Bible and understanding the nature of Christ.

Salem is an example of a christian community following your christian guidelines and killed innocent people. Also, I'd hardly call Europe a small town during the inquisition.

Taz, you are taking instances where people went away from their own doctrines and forged their own paths in order to indict all of Christendom. The inhabitants of Salem felt justified because they read the Mosaic law, "though shalt not suffer a witch to live." This was a Judaic commandment for those under the Law. Christians are not under the Law, and never were. It was their fundamental misunderstanding that caused such a horrible thing.

Your Stalin example would make more sense if I make a claim that there is an "atheist" guideline to morality that is perfect. But as you can see, people like me make no such claim.

Your Salem analogy would have made more sense had the Salem inhabitants actually followed the guidelines set forth for them.

When was it okay to consider non-christians as subhumans?

You should look up Sicut Dudum, Dum Diversas, and Sublimis Deus. Read them (or read about them) and tell me what you think.

Sicut Dudum is a plea to stop the slavery of the inhabitants of the Canary Islands.

"We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands, and made captives since the time of their capture, and who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free, and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of money."

As for Dum Diversas, I can't find anything significant on the subject. The most I found was a blurb on [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum_Diversas]Wiki[/qs][/qs]Wiki[/qs][/qs]Wiki[/qs] that was an attempt to reduce the slave trade.

As for Sublimis Deus, this also is an edict that spares indigenous peoples from the slave trade.

"Sublimis Deus is a papal bull promulgated by Pope Paul III on May 29, 1537, which forbids the enslavement of the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

The pope uses in the bull almost the same language as in his letter, Veritas ipsa to Cardinal Juan de Tavera, Archbishop of Toledo, sent less than a month earlier on May 2, 1537. Paul III unequivocally declares the indigenous peoples of the Americas to be rational beings with souls, denouncing any idea to the contrary as directly inspired by the "enemy of the human race" (Satan). He goes on to condemn their reduction to slavery in the strongest terms, declaring it null and void for as well as for any people known or that could be discovered in the future, entitles their right to liberty and property, and concludes with a call for their evangelization."

Each of these are denunciations of slavery.

It was the idea that the white man has the burden to "educate" the rest of the world our superior way of life, speicifically our religion (christianity) by enslaving other races and telling them that if they obey their white masters they will be rewarded in heaven.

This has nothing to do with being "white." It had to do with a misguided form of evangelism. They were trying to "save" their souls, even if it was completely counter-productive.

Oh, so we still can't eat shellfish?

I'm not Jewish. I can eat shellfish.

What about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics?

I wear clothes from various fabrics.

The shirt I am wearing now is made of cotton and polyester. Am I going to hell for it?

Certainly not. What ever gave you that idea?

I'm not talking about the reason(s) behind the crusades. Do you or do you not agree that every man, woman, and child inhabiting the city of Jerusalem were slain by the christian crusaders during the first crusade?

I doubt that every man, woman, and child were slain by christian crusaders. Do you have evidence of slaying? But if they were slain, of course I would not agree with it.

I mean that the gospel narrative is the guideline and that it is not subject to amendment and that it is as applicable today as it was when it was first penned.

Ok... so, am I going to hell for wearing clothing made of different types of fabric?

No. Why do you think different types of fabrics was even a discussion, much less a command, in the gospels?

First, it was the heathens. Then the jews. After Oliver Cromwell took over, the irish catholics were oppressed. Then the wise women were burned at the stake for witch craft. Then the muslims.

None of this has to do with oppression because none of these descriptions are accurate. Heathens have killed Christians, and Christians have killed pagans. Look at Rome. First the Christians were martyred, then then Constantine martyred pagans. The Jews have been oppressed by every one from every walk of life. The strife in Ireland has less to actually do with protestantism and catholicism than it does with political agendas. The Salem witch trials were abominations by fringe lunatics. The Muslims and Christians who fought each other were over many different things. Neither was oppressing the other. They were warring.

Africans were regarded as subhuman (read the 3 I cited above) and enslaved. Then they were emancipated but they were still segregated.

This was the ugliest stain in American history. But perhaps you forget that an entire Civil War was fought over it. Christian against Christian, brother against brother. It had nothing to do with religion. You are simply trying to invent reasons why Christianity as a whole is bad, by trying conflate instances of people who referred to themselves as Christians but went against its most basic tenets.

Then god didn't want them to be equal.

"Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity." -Colossians 3:9-14

"I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." -Acts 10:34

"This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message." -Galatians 2:4-6

Now, the gays are targeted by christians. Please don't even try to deny this. I've read enough church signs about how evil the gays are.

Its not gays are "evil," its that homosexuality is declared immoral by God. It does not mean that God loves them any less or that He isn't interested in their best interests. Whether it is deliberate or unintentional, you have a very warped sense of Christian theology.

Again, it was an example, out of many, that this so-called christian moral guideline thingy is far from perfect.

When people stray from the Word, yes, this, like anything else, is imperfect. This is why I say that you need to pay attention to what the Word is saying, not what some people are saying.

Would you, then, call yourself a fringe christian for opposing evilution while advocating a world wide flood that left behind absolutely no evidence?

I'm not a creationist Taz. I am an ID'ist. I disagree with evolution on scientific grounds. I believe in the Flood narrative not solely because it is a part of the Bible, but because of its historical documentation. I have no way of knowing whether the Bible was a global phenomenon or if it were localized to the Meditteranean and Asia Minor, which yields plenty of evidence.

Look, we don't have to look far to see what I've been saying. Remember Rob?

Rob is his own person. Should I blame you every time Crashfrog Dan Carroll, whoever says something stupid? Seriously, you are bigot and you don't even know it. Why don't you try to deal with people on an individual basis instead of grouping everyone into categories?

You really want me to start citing the same bible passages people used back in the old days to justify their unwillingness to see women as equal?

I asked, didn't I?

Um... jesus didn't come up with the golden rule. It existed long before jesus was ever born.

Whether Jesus invented the Golden Rule or not isn't the point. Can you find things about Jesus that you don't like? You said you're all about treating people with tolerance, (except for Christians). If Jesus taught the Golden Rule then is your beef with Jesus or is it with some avowed Christians?

I know what you are saying, but clearly christians aren't really doing what the bible says, like love thy neighbor and fucking leave the gays alone.

Some are doing what the Bible says. Loving your neighbor doesn't entail allowing people to do whatever the hell they want. Loving your neighbor means that you tell them the truth in a compassionate manner without yielding your position on the matter. I agree that these people that mercilessly hound homosexuals but deny their sexual immorality are a bunch of hypocrites. But that does not mean that you can blame all Christians.

Hmmm, I wonder what happened to all those mesoamericans after the spanish came.

They warred. What's your point?

What happened to the first amendment?

Its under attack.

No problem. I have a feeling that that paragraph was just more evangelical stuff anyway.

Its really not that difficult to understand. Its not really as much "poetic bullshit" as you make it out to be.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 03-06-2007 10:51 PM Taz has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020