Wonky missile aimed at Israel ends up hitting Aqaba, Jordan

[Wij]

Lots of books are, you have to remember the period the people lived in and the context of their actions.

but Lot was described by Peter as a just and righteous man. Makes a bit of a difference.

 

[Wij]

Lots of books are, you have to remember the period the people lived in and the context of their actions.

Also, a delicious irony that someone who holds that right and wrong is determined by God can then say you have to judge actions by the prevailing opinions of PEOPLE at the time.

...and you didn't answer my thought experiment

 

[Turamber]

So Turamber, if you're willing to discuss it, do you consider homosexual sex an abomination, how do you define "abomination" more explicitly and do you feel similarly about those that eat prawn cocktail sandwiches?

I think the expression is 'hate the sin, not the sinner' or some such. Plenty of homosexuals have abandoned that way of life to become Christians.

There are plenty of Churches that believe homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, but to be fair they are on a sticky wicket as far as the Bible is concerned.

 

[Turamber]

but Lot was described by Peter as a just and righteous man. Makes a bit of a difference.

In the era and place that he lived Lot and all of his family would have been expected to put their lives on the line to protect guests, it is the same now in some parts of the world where the rules of hospitality are valued.

I can't say what Lot's thought process was, but he offered his daughters to a group of homosexual men. Was this ever going to be a winning suggestion? I'm doubting it myself.

Besides if you actually read 2 Peter 2:7-8, rather than just repeating what others say, it tells you why he was righteous. He hated the way the people of his city behaved, and his values were opposed to theirs.

I'm still not sure why the Bible including unsavoury accounts is a bad thing. If it was full of stories of princesses in pretty towers and dashing heroes waking them with kisses you'd find it was written by Walt Disney.

 

[Raven]

Then they are lying to themselves and their god, which is surely also a sin?

 

[Turamber]

Then they are lying to themselves and their god, which is surely also a sin?

Some Churches believe that the Bible isn't the be all and end all, but that Church tradition is important and that God is still revealing his will through Church councils etc.

 

[DaGaffer]

Some Churches believe that the Bible isn't the be all and end all, but that Church tradition is important and that God is still revealing his will through Church councils etc.

It worries me that you can write that down and not see how that reads. You may as well say "reveals his will through the voices in my head".

 

[Wij]

In the era and place that he lived Lot and all of his family would have been expected to put their lives on the line to protect guests, it is the same now in some parts of the world where the rules of hospitality are valued.

I can't say what Lot's thought process was, but he offered his daughters to a group of homosexual men. Was this ever going to be a winning suggestion? I'm doubting it myself.

Besides if you actually read 2 Peter 2:7-8, rather than just repeating what others say, it tells you why he was righteous. He hated the way the people of his city behaved, and his values were opposed to theirs.

I'm still not sure why the Bible including unsavoury accounts is a bad thing. If it was full of stories of princesses in pretty towers and dashing heroes waking them with kisses you'd find it was written by Walt Disney.

It takes it back to the original point that about there being good 'Christian Values'. I find Lot's behaviour despicable. Trading off the rape of his daughters as the lesser of two evils is not on. This is one specific example but throughout the bible it's pretty hard to find a character who anyone today would regard as moral. Therefore, at least as far as the bible goes, I find very little in the way of values I'd wish others to follow.

Of course, if morality is set by God then I'm just plain wrong but I've already stated elsewhere that that position doesn't make sense. I had an old essay I wrote on it but I can't find it. I could paraphrase if you're bothered. Won't bother if noone is though.

 

[nath]

I think the expression is 'hate the sin, not the sinner' or some such. Plenty of homosexuals have abandoned that way of life to become Christians.

There are plenty of Churches that believe homosexuality is perfectly acceptable, but to be fair they are on a sticky wicket as far as the Bible is concerned.

What about eating shellfish and all the other no-go foods, they too were considered an abomination so what are your thoughts on that. Do you have similar feelings towards people who eat those foods as you do towards homosexual acts? Are churches that have no problem with those foods now also on a sticky wicket?

 

[Wij]

What about eating shellfish and all the other no-go foods, they too were considered an abomination so what are your thoughts on that. Do you have similar feelings towards people who eat those foods as you do towards homosexual acts? Are churches that have no problem with those foods now also on a sticky wicket?

Paul indicated that following strict Jewish law was no longer necessary as Jesus was now the saviour, not the law. However I'm not aware of any general agreement between churches about which bits of the Old Testament should be followed still and which ignored. As you mention it seems like most churches pick the bits they like and pretend the many crazy edicts aren't there in the bible just as real as the ones they like. There's all kinds of things the bible recommends a good stoning for but I don't see any churches following these even though many espouse the anti-gay bits happily.

 

[Scouse]

There's no point in arguing with religious people because, by their very nature, they only take things in that reinforce their belief system. Failure to blinker yourself in this way would very quickly lead to a total loss of faith.

Evidence for this is the amount of circular reasoning that Turamber engages in

 

[nath]

Paul indicated that following strict Jewish law was no longer necessary as Jesus was now the saviour, not the law. However I'm not aware of any general agreement between churches about which bits of the Old Testament should be followed still and which ignored. As you mention it seems like most churches pick the bits they like and pretend the many crazy edicts aren't there in the bible just as real as the ones they like. There's all kinds of things the bible recommends a good stoning for but I don't see any churches following these even though many espouse the anti-gay bits happily.

I don't know much about the bible (shocking I know) but is there any mention of homosexuality in the NT?

 

[Wij]

I don't know much about the bible (shocking I know) but is there any mention of homosexuality in the NT?

Nothing particularly clear. It all depends on the translation.

Homosexuality in the New Testament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's no point in arguing with religious people because,

There's also no point in arguing with the anti-religious zealot group here, because of a very similar argument.

 

[Turamber]

It worries me that you can write that down and not see how that reads. You may as well say "reveals his will through the voices in my head".

Heh, some Born Again Christian types do believe in that too. Besides I was just relating what some people believe, without any commentary of my own thoughts.

 

[Turamber]

What about eating shellfish and all the other no-go foods, they too were considered an abomination so what are your thoughts on that. Do you have similar feelings towards people who eat those foods as you do towards homosexual acts? Are churches that have no problem with those foods now also on a sticky wicket?

Christians aren't Jews, they have a different relationship with God and are not required to keep the Mosaic Law Covenant. However some laws were re-stated to Christians as being binding on them in the New Testament, no laws against shellfish were included but fornication, homosexuality and the eating of blood were amongst those re-stated as being objectionable. (Check out Colossians 2:14-17 amongst other scriptures).

 

[Scouse]

There's also no point in arguing with the anti-religious zealot group here, because of a very similar argument.

Disagree Toht. The "anti-religious zealot group" use reason and are willing to change their views given proof.

The well-balanced and very sensible religious group, on the other hand, aren't.

 

[Turamber]

It takes it back to the original point that about there being good 'Christian Values'. I find Lot's behaviour despicable.

Evidently God is more forgiving than you, this strikes me as being a good thing Characters in the Bible are real people, warts and all and are presented in this manner.

You think its objectionable that he and his family put their own lives on the line to protect strangers? Do you not find the actions of the Sodomites to be objectionable?

Lot left all of his worldly possessions behind to save his family, the scripture I quoted previously clearly states that God considered him to be a good man as he hated the way the people around him lived, so evidently he lived his life differently. Morally.

He was a flawed person, the Bible presents certain facts clearly about him. When Abraham offered him his choice of land to settle in - he chose the land where the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were. He knew they were a bad lot, yet he moved into one of their cities with his family.

Yet God considered him to be acceptable, not perfect - acceptable. Gives me hope to be honest.

There are plenty of excellent characters in the Bible. Check out Hannah the mother of Samuel, a woman of great virtue and faith. I like King David -- deeply flawed but passionate and, at his best, brave and fair. The Apostle Peter lets Jesus down all the time, but his love for Jesus shines through.

All of these people have strengths and weaknesses that we learn from, they're not Walt Disney characters.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Disagree Toht. The "anti-religious zealot group" use reason and are willing to change their views given proof.

The well-balanced and very sensible religious group, on the other hand, aren't.

Not really. Every discussion that in any way shape or form mentions religion, will withut a doubt, cause the default rage answer of "there's no god!" come out. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the church helping the poor, or some guy wanting a discussion on a particular religious aspect.

There's no reason here, just mockery, ridicule and hatred. Whichy spreads into other araes of the forum as well(such as nath "jokingly" wanting to kill every religious person).

The way you automatically go into "we are into proofs, you is not"(when i mentioned no such thing, not even the ballpark) is jsut another proof of how you operate. Blind.

 

[Scouse]

Characters in the Bible are real people

I wish you'd stop saying this shit


Edit: And Toht. Circular reasoning again I see

 

[Turamber]

Not really. Every discussion that in any way shape or form mentions religion, will withut a doubt, cause the default rage answer of "there's no god!" come out. It doesn't matter if you're talking about the church helping the poor, or some guy wanting a discussion on a particular religious aspect.

There's no reason here, just mockery, ridicule and hatred. Whichy spreads into other araes of the forum as well(such as nath "jokingly" wanting to kill every religious person).

The way you automatically go into "we are into proofs, you is not" is jsut another proof of how you operate. Blind.

Or the mention of "sky fairy", as if they were the first person to have used the term and it is somehow original and "wins" a discussion. When in reality it is rude, aggressive and unlikely to continue any respectful dialogue.

 

[nath]

Christians aren't Jews, they have a different relationship with God and are not required to keep the Mosaic Law Covenant. However some laws were re-stated to Christians as being binding on them in the New Testament, no laws against shellfish were included but fornication, homosexuality and the eating of blood were amongst those re-stated as being objectionable. (Check out Colossians 2:14-17 amongst other scriptures).

So is the OT not the word of God according to Christians? If so what was the reason for the NT undermining some of its rules such as what can and can't be eaten? Naturally my opinion suggests that it's merely representative of what was culture acceptable at the time of writing but if one accepts it's actually God's law then why has it changed? Why is it now OK to eat shellfish and couldn't the same logic be applied to homosexuality?

I'd like to clarify because it's not always easy to put across, I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely interested to understand your position (even though I'm fiercely against it).

 

[Turamber]

I wish you'd stop saying this shit

There's independent evidence that Jesus was real, ditto King Hezekiah of Judah. There is little reason to think any of the Kings of Israel and Judah were made up. Other historical figures, such as Roman Caesar's and Persian and Babylonian Kings are mentioned in the Bible.

The Bible is a valuable source for people who wish to learn about the Bible lands, settlements and customs and practices.

But of course none of this sits with your close minded, bigotted viewpoint. Shouldn't you be mentioning "sky fairy" with a funny smiley around now to "win"? Or perhaps call me a few rude words or mock me?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Edit: And Toht. Circular reasoning again I see

Not one bit, but that's another nice default excuse to not answer anything. (i'm eagerly waiting for the "he's tohtori" excuse)

If there's any circular reasoning there, here's a thought; proove it.

Just in case you missed it, from the "highly" complex post;

There's no point in discussing things with the anti-religion zelaots, because everything turns into the same thing(there's no god/we is into proofs), even with no cause for it to go there.

Proven by your last post.

 

[Turamber]

So is the OT not the word of God according to Christians? If so what was the reason for the NT undermining some of its rules such as what can and can't be eaten? Naturally my opinion suggests that it's merely representative of what was culture acceptable at the time of writing but if one accepts it's actually God's law then why has it changed? Why is it now OK to eat shellfish and couldn't the same logic be applied to homosexuality?

I'd like to clarify because it's not always easy to put across, I'm not in any way trying to be antagonistic, I'm genuinely interested to understand your position (even though I'm fiercely against it).

No, its okay, I do understand - they are valid questions.

A lot of the Mosaic Law includes instructions to do with food, cooking, cleaning, disease management, how to organise their campsites in the wilderness, the storage of food, the disposal of faeces etc.

Much of it is very specific to the circumstances of the Israelites, walking about in the wilderness for years.

There were so many laws that it was pretty much impossible to follow completely, hence there were lots of different sacrifices to be offered for various transgressions.

For Christians there is only one sacrifice, the life of Jesus. Christians, once they are dedicated to God, enter into a "sabbath", where their whole lives are (supposed) to be spent in dedicated service to God.

Paul called the Law a 'tutor leading to Christ' as only Jesus could keep it correctly and completely. With his sacrifice the law covenant ended. Christians weren't camping in the wilderness, they weren't all in one nation and they had many different diets. So Paul restated the necessary parts of the law covenant.

And it is a good job really as without a temple it is impossible to keep the Mosaic Law as it was recorded in the Bible. Even the Jews can't keep it completely, so why should Christians even try?

 

[nath]

From the wiki link the most clear point about homosexuality in the NT seems to be this line.

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practising homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Is there anything more significant in the NT that cites that homosexuality is wrong?

 

[old.Tohtori]

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor practising homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Think you should gert on the christian train nath, female prostitution is a ok

 

[Scouse]

Actually, I think you two are getting pissy and annoyed because people are knocking your religion and, if you check back T, you'll find that the direct insults are coming from you.

I mean, calling the use of the term sky fairy aggressive and, most amusingly:

nath "jokingly" wanting to kill every religious person

Lol! Of course it's jokingly you pair of massive girls blouses!

"Boo hoo! We're being mocked for our nonsensical belief systems - mwaahhh!"


Anyway, and just for the record. I'd rather mock than contribute meaningfully to these "discussions" - because of reasons stated previously...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually, I think you two are getting pissy and annoyed because people are knocking your religion and, if you check back T, you'll find that the direct insults are coming from you.

I mean, calling the use of the term sky fairy aggressive and, most amusingly:

Lol! Of course it's jokingly you pair of massive girls blouses!

"Boo hoo! We're being mocked for our nonsensical belief systems - mwaahhh!"


Anyway, and just for the record. I'd rather mock than contribute meaningfully to these "discussions" - because of reasons stated previously...

And another post that has no merit and no connection to what was said.

Well done.

Even that post has several mistakes;

1: putting me and turamber in some form of same team.
2: putting me and turamber in same religion.
3: putting me in ANY religion, when my point had none of it.
4: Claiming i've used insults.

No proof, no reason, no form of discussion and simple mockery.

Also you can't even answer what was said last, but instead go dig out a -part- of another post to create a nonsensical flame post.

I think i've proved my initial point of;

There's no point in discussing things with anti-religion zealots because it always turns out the same way.

Any logical person can see that by now, so...

NS

 

[Scouse]

No proof, no reason, no form of discussion and simple mockery.

...

just for the record. I'd rather mock than contribute meaningfully to these "discussions"

What part of that bit didn't you understand?


Looks like the mocking had the desired effect! It's the first time I've managed to smile since starting this god awful job