|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:28:28 GMT -5
Justin McBride 72 11-14-2004 02:38 PM ET (US) Jeff & Jeff, I have a silly story from my past. Tyler's ex-wife Tina (of the OTHER "Tina and Lisa" group) had a friend named Justin. I think his last name was Weinstein. Instead of having a Justin W. and a Justin M., we simply decreed that the other Justin be called Orville. It's simple, it's not confusing, and you're not likely to ever have two friends named Orville. Now, this was during my younger, more selfish years, so I got to keep my name. I realize that such is unfair, but Orville didn't mind, since he was younger than me and he was a nice guy. It was either Orville or Justin the Younger/Lesser, and Orville was the better of the options. I suppose in a perfect world, he'd have been Orville and I'd have been Wilbur, which is equally obscure, and, when taken in conjuction with the other, connotes a specific connection between the two names. I'm not suggesting that one of you give up his name, or anything like that. I just thought it was a silly story, and bore repeating only inasmuch as a similar situation has come up here. As a curious aside from this curious aside, I believe Justin W. went on to be called Orville Justin by others for quite some time after the one summer we all hung out together. Go figure. Jeffbro (as opposed to Jeffnobro), I'm responding here sorta for me and sorta for Mandy, who's got her hands full with the baby right now, but who is sitting next to me as I type. I think you're taking her question a little too deeply. She really asked that primarily to Adam, given that he had just said homosexuals can be great folks, and that they were merely sinners like the rest of us. So, she was simply wondering then why should they not be allowed to marry ONE ANOTHER. It was just a way to draw out an answer from him (or anyone else, for that matter). But it brings up a curious point. We've never taken the time to actually state the basis of our positions. We have had to read through 50 pages of stuff in order to extrapolate people's opinions. For instance, has Adam ever said before now that he believes homosexuals should not marry one another, or have we just assumed it? Who has explicitly stated his or her position? It might be a good idea to do that at some time. Secondarily, given Adam's response to Mandy's question, it makes me think that we should periodically SUMMARIZE the status of the (two or three or however many there are here) arguments, just to keep things easy to follow. I don't really suggest any particular format for these summaries, but we had best avoid intentional bias in them. For instance, here's a VERY BAD summary. HOMOSEXUALS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MARRY. Oh yeah? Why's that? BECAUSE IT SAYS IT'S WRONG IN THE BIBLE. But the Bible says lots of things are wrong, and noboby seems to care much about all that other stuff. WELL, I JUST HAVE TO TAKE THIS ONE ON FAITH. But that makes your faith strange and inconsistent, and your faith-based behaviors rash and unpredictable. And not only do you seem to take no notice of this, you appear not to care about how or why it might be, even when evidence is shown to you. ... In this crappy summary, the positions are obviously slanted in favor of the non-uppercase person (in this case, me). So, let's do better than this. 'Cos this is just not right. It's bad, quite bad. Jeffnobro, " Justin, if it doesn't matter, then what purpose does god serve, if any?" Well, I'd say God is responsible for the creation and the momentary continuation of the universe. "If god is simply the all-knowing and everpresent, which I agree sound like the same thing, why is god worthy of anything other than comment?" I guess I just like to worship all-knowing everpresent entities. I'm a goof like that. Seriously, though, I just do. I think I'm naturally God-inclined, and have been for most of my life--except for a time during high school, when I went through a serious spiritual crisis. I came out believing in God, but rejecting most scripture. To me, God is approached best through simple observation of the wonders of nature. I don't plan this stuff. It's just what I've learned being me. I have a theory about it, that I feel is most aptly summed up by the word 'resonance.' That's a story for another time, though. Suffice it to say, that I simply do believe in God, and that I cannot directly vouch for that God's omnibenevolence or commitment to justice, except to say that it seems to run counter to what I've observed. "And without benevolence, why would god care to listen to prayer, assuming it does? On what grounds does it decide what to grant/deny if it has no goodness/badness? No disrespect intended; I just don't understand how your god differs from my science..." My God may not differ from your science, because I don't know exactly what you mean by your claim to it. But I can speak to what I know about science in general, and its relation to the God I worship. In simplest terms, I'd say that God appears to be the fundamental force in the universe, not a way to catalog and understand either the fundamental forces in the universe or the universe itself, which is how I'd define science. In those terms, I'd say that science cannot be a god, because science is merely a methodology--given, the most powerful one we have. I have the utmost faith in science. Since it's necessarily rooted in observation, and I believe observation is the way we can understand God, I am fully committed to furthering science, and placing the results of scientific discovery into less-than-academic applications as often as possible. It should, in my mind, increase awareness of God. As to the answering of prayers, that's another one I have no real hard and fast answer for, partially because of what prayer means to me, and partially because of my poor understanding of the universe. As a human, I feel a strong desire to look for answers, and I find them ALL THE TIME. I feel that prayer is one of the best ways for me to align my consciousness to what I would define as the proper vantage point to witness the greatness of God. So, prayer helps me find answers... not really sure how, but it does. Let me say that again. I'm not sure why prayers are answered, but they are. But still, for me at least, that doesn't speak at all to God's omnibenevolence. Just because one prayer is answered (which may have as much to do with me as with God), there may be others that are not. I don't equate a lack of omnibenevolence with omnimalevolence. It's not one or the other. And I have observed that the answering of prayers seems to be unjust. I can assign it a justice value in retrospect, but I'd say that's all just human rationalization. From what I've observed, God is simply uninterested in human notions of justice. God smiles on that which It chooses. Unjust? Maybe. Malevolent? I'd say, not necessarily, and likely not at all. Also, thanks for the respect you have shown me as far as my beliefs are concerned. I appreciate it. Beliefs are sacred things to those who hold them, and no one wants to be told that their beliefs are wrong, even when they are. Sorry about that, all you flat-earthers out there...
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:28:53 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 73 11-14-2004 02:53 PM ET (US) Edited by author 11-14-2004 02:54 PM This is my last thing this weekend, and it is less than a sketch. (Sorry!) I'll probably have some time on Tuesday to look back here, but not till then.
Responding to Tina, Jeff H., and Justin's concerns about omnibenevolence:
1. Tina says a God who requires what the Literalist God seems to require would be a "grade-A jerk." My thoughts exactly. I'd probably go on to argue that God’s commitment to social justice would also be at odds with Her actions. Thus, a God that isn't good seems contradictory.
2. Jeff H. wants to know how value gets into the universe if God isn't good... well, he didn't say it just like that, but that is how I would put it. He said, something like how is your God different from my science? This is a deep question. I would like to see how Justin would respond to the charge.
Jeff H. probably wouldn’t want to go this way… but I think his point is so general as to constitute an argument for God’s existence. I tried to make this argument earlier, because I thought that it might come up. But briefly: How is value possible in the absence of God? I don’t think it is, and this fact constitutes a version of the cosmological argument. You may not think it works. Fine. But if it does, it is only because goodness has the power to unite values whereas evil doesn’t. That is, if there is a coherent set of values to be had, it is only in their unity through goodness. Or so I would argue.
3. The Bible is committed to omnibenevolence in its commitments to both the perfection of God and Her goodness. You can make the same connection in terms of God's holiness and/or Her righteousness.
4. Other arguments will be forthcoming. I think there are some illuminating things we can discover through descriptions of evil in the world's religious literature. Also, some interesting comparisons can be listed between Christianity and Zoroastrianism and/or Manichaeism, which have, under some interpretations, equally powerful gods of good and evil.
Jeff
PS Tina, I think it does. Further, i think it also condemns victims of same-sex rape, which is just disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:29:26 GMT -5
Justin McBride 74 11-14-2004 02:55 PM ET (US) "Our parents also get to have the title of ‘maker of us.’ If my father beat me, kept me locked up, & ruled everyone of my actions, I may obey because it was demanded, but I would not worship this man. I’m not sure why you do Justin."
I don't.
I believe in a fairly generic God, and I struggle (vainly at times) principally to live my life in congruence with the teachings of Christ. I'd say this makes me a Christian, but others may not.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:29:44 GMT -5
tina 75 11-14-2004 06:40 PM ET (US) Justin, Just so you & Amanda know, in case Adam is unable to respond for a while, Adam has stated he's against gay marriage. He voted against it this last election, which I take to mean he's against gay marriage. Hope this helps! tina
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:30:03 GMT -5
Adam Hull 76 11-14-2004 09:10 PM ET (US) Tina to address why I keep pointing out the salvation message is because so many seem to believe that Gays are going to eternal damnation just because they will not turn away from there sin. This is how some many Christians seem to approach Gays and it's WRONG. This is why I keep pointing this out, the bible sayes the only ones to be seperated from God are those who have never believed. If I don't make this point it is very easy for readers of this discussion to place me in the wrong catigory on this subject. So again unless we really do wish to start another discussion group Keep this in mind. I have friends who believe but have choosen to continue living their lives as they see fit, this just means that they still look like the rest of the world on the out side even though they are different on the inside. I do believe Gays can be Christians, but their lifestyle will damage their testimony to others until they choose to deal with it.
I will stay on the original subject, but I will always remind people when they try to say that being Gay or any other sin is what keeps you from going to heaven.
Thanks I'm working on Jeff's and Tina's comments at this time, should have something for you next Saturday.
Adam
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:30:24 GMT -5
tina 78 11-16-2004 05:31 PM ET (US) Sweet Adam, I appreciate your stressing salvation, and I completely understand your point. But I'm not sure most of us think you think homosexuals will go to hell. Some Christians view this as a sin, but all Christians sin, so there you go. So maybe we should ask. Does anyone reading this blog think think that homosexuals will go to hell? I think most us know you are the kind of kind Christian that believes all are sinners, but can be saved in spite of this. I've thought this was a discussion about is acting on homosexual desires sinful, hence is their marrying sinful. But you bring up a good point. We should have asked this to begin with, as there very well may be readers who believe homosexuals are going to hell, no matter what. So, we'll wait & see if anyone does believe this. Thank you, Adam, for your continuing lovely patience & desire to talk! tina Jeffrey McBride 77 11-15-2004 01:23 AM ET (US) Sleepy time. Thanks for an interesting weekend guys. Our board is 1/4 as long as the New Testament. Seriously, it's about 45,000 words.
Good night. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:30:44 GMT -5
Justin McBride 79 11-16-2004 10:56 PM ET (US) Well, Tina, I for one don't believe in any afterlife to speak of, so I don't really feel that any human is necessarily hellbound. As for Mandy, she's right here next to me, and when I just asked her if she thinks homosexuals are destined for hell, she rolled her eyes and said no. So, that's two for two in our house. -------------- Earlier today, there was an email or two floating around that dealt with today's Boondocks comic strip (for a few more hours you can see it at www.ucomics.com/boondocks, but afterwards you'll be able to see it at www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2004/11/16/). It's pretty funny. It brings up another germaine topic, the death penalty. Eventually the death penalty will turn up in this forum. That's a good thing, 'cos it oughta. And why stop there? Social services, reproductive issues, war, etc., all should be addressed on board called "Christian Politics." Now I don't want to leap into these by any means if it means stopping this particular discussion. But be forewarned: They're coming. Regardless of the side(s) we're on, we'll all need strong and sound arguments to promote a lively dialog. So start dusting off your premises. And by all means, beat the rush; find your supportive links now! -------------- By the way, where's Tyler? Where's Don? Where's, well, everybody?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:31:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:31:25 GMT -5
Orville (Halford) 81 11-18-2004 10:44 AM ET (US) Justin,
I'll gladly be Orville, and not just on this board...you've given me a new identity and I'm running with it!
"My God may not differ from your science, because I don't know exactly what you mean by your claim to it. But I can speak to what I know about science in general, and its relation to the God I worship. In simplest terms, I'd say that God appears to be the fundamental force in the universe, not a way to catalog and understand either the fundamental forces in the universe or the universe itself, which is how I'd define science. In those terms, I'd say that science cannot be a god, because science is merely a methodology--given, the most powerful one we have. I have the utmost faith in science. Since it's necessarily rooted in observation, and I believe observation is the way we can understand God, I am fully committed to furthering science, and placing the results of scientific discovery into less-than-academic applications as often as possible. It should, in my mind, increase awareness of God." Justin, a few posts ago
Right on. Science is but a process/method for knowing whereas religion seems to be not a process of knowing, but a means of . The primary distinction between science and religion as I see it is this: science, by definition, is self-correcting, whereas religion is self-perpetuating. The scientific process enables us to pose educated guesses and then test them for correctness; when our guesses are wrong, we’re forced to question the premises/theories on which they were originally asked. Mind you, I can continue wrongly hypothesizing all day long, but, if the data ain’t there, I’m left with lousy guesses that don’t seem to play out in reality. Contrast this with religion—belief based on faith—which can never be tested in a meaningful way, and if it could, I’m not convinced there are many religious folk that would be interested in doing so. The notion of god’s will or providence is a prime example: if I want the job and don’t get it, it must have been god’s will. If I want the job and do get it, it must have been god’s will. By this reasoning, ANYTHING that happens is consistent with god’s will, making this an untestable tenet (or, according to many, perfectly testable—it always turns out the same way!). While this brief tirade doesn’t address any questions posed, per se, I feel compelled to point out how I view science, since Justin mentioned that he was unclear as to what I was actually claiming (thanks for pointing this out, by the way).
"As to the answering of prayers, that's another one I have no real hard and fast answer for, partially because of what prayer means to me, and partially because of my poor understanding of the universe. As a human, I feel a strong desire to look for answers, and I find them ALL THE TIME. I feel that prayer is one of the best ways for me to align my consciousness to what I would define as the proper vantage point to witness the greatness of God. So, prayer helps me find answers... not really sure how, but it does." Justin, same few posts ago
I’m still not clear on this one. You mentioned in a previous post that you often don’t know where god ends and you begin (something to that effect). When I consider that sentiment coupled with the one above, I’m still not certain that when you “look for answers and…find them ALL THE TIME” that this has anything to do with god. Seems to me you’re an unusually reflective individual who may be finding answers because you care enough about the questions you ask to spend serious time/effort contemplating them. For example, I too spend a good deal of time deliberating (what I think are important) questions and answers and, like you, I find answers all the time. Whereas you claim that “prayer is one of the best ways to…align conciousness”, I would argue the same may be true of reflection without any sense of prayer, per se (this may be a semantic issue, although your assumption of god’s existence suggests otherwise). I ask this for my own clarification—I’m trying to understand the distinction between our (yours and mine) beliefs. It seems we draw similar conclusions, but one of us believes that god is integral in the process and the other doesn’t. Am I deluding myself to think that I can understand without god? And, to heed the scientist in me, is this in any way knowable (in a testable sense)?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:31:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:32:04 GMT -5
tina 83 11-18-2004 12:44 PM ET (US) Orville (Halford), I want to stress that it scares me to go down this path. I love this man, as he is my husband, but I want us all to put our 2 cents in before Justin immediately answers this. This seems like something for a different post, but the rest of you may not agree. Here is my take: If we begin discussing what our views on ‘is there a god or not & what is your definition of god’ may become confused with the topic that is being discussed on this particular board: homosexuality & the Bible. I say this for an important reason. We would probably acknowledge that Adam is a fundamentalist Christian. I’m sure he would agree with this. Would his knowledge of our stance on god lesson the validity of our statements? Adam has stressed continually in this posts that people are sinners, but a sinner/believer must be aware that his/her testimony would go under fire if these sinful acts were to continue. Though he is speaking Biblically about ‘bringing others to Christ’, it may be a good message. Would any of us unduly influence the others if we state our beliefs on god? Would someone who is a fundamentalist, for example, immediately dismiss any discussion by thinking, “Well, they aren’t in the Lord, anyway, so I cannot trust what they say.” Or vice-versa. Can non-believers rationally accept the ideas of an obvious believer in God? I don’t want any preconceived notions that come along with labeling to divert the discussion at hand. All I ask is that we at least think about this, & Justin, feel free to respond to Halford, but please reflect a bit before answering. Thank you, tina
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:32:39 GMT -5
tina 84 11-18-2004 01:33 PM ET (US) Jeff, in response to your decision a while back on the Bible & homosexuality. 1) I said that if Jesus abolished the laws of the OT, then what is written in Leviticus is beside the point.
2) I said that in the few times homosexuality is referenced, homosexuality is of a different type than the marital-love we are seeing from homosexuals today. Again I will refer you to Rom. 1:18-32. Yes, I have never disagreed that Paul, hence the Bible, said it was ‘bad.’ For me, this has never been in contention. But culturally things were different in these days. As Paul points out in Rom. 1:22&23, we’re talking about folks (Romans) who believed in gods that we now call ‘mythology’. Their life-styles were different then, a cultural issue. Paul may have used language like that used in Leviticus – go check out Leviticus. We are talking about a section of the Bible focused on Baal. And escaping Egyptians. Go check out how they worshipped also.
I have never questioned if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, I’m questioning the cultural definitions of the time. Paul was a Roman. He lived in the heart of deity worship for Minerva, Apollo, Jupiter, all sorts of wood gods, water gods, etc. Read how this worshipping worked. I think the Bible is a book of guidance on people who dealt with these certain cultural issues. Again, I will stress, the parts where homosexuality is discussed in the NT was by Paul who was writing letters to various churches who were dealing with certain issues important to their church. E.g., I Cor. 14:33-35 “For God is not a God of disorder, but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” Okay, historically in Corinth, their services were in disorder. Women were interrupting those who were teaching, preaching, or praying to ask questions. Paul was instructing these women to shut-up & quit interrupting. Instead, ask their husbands later since men were educated. In I Cor. 11:3-5 speaks of women praying & prophesizing. Since there is prophesizing involved, this means women were allowed to speak in church. They just were not to interrupt. A cultural issue for this church.
So, Jeffrey, my claim has always been that these things were cultural relevancies not up-to-the-time in our day & age. Jesus never once spoke of this. Jesus spoke of changing the Jewish folks & their religious practices. Paul spoke of changing the Gentiles & their religious practices. That’s why so much of I Cor. is about eating at Idol feasts. Also, though I am loathe to say this, maybe we need to speak about what we feel the differences between sin & morality are. I’ve read several things you have written about this subject, & have never offered opposition. I knew it would open a whole can of worms I wasn’t ready to debate. And maybe it’s not a good idea to talk about it as everyone’s views on ‘is there a god or not’ would become clear. But, maybe this discussion has lost its steam until this is resolved. Or maybe it’s time to drop this horse & jump on a whole other topic? ... tina
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:33:07 GMT -5
Adam Hull 85 11-21-2004 10:18 PM ET (US) This is in comment to Post 30. sorry for taking so long.
Continuing the project of making a literal interpretation of the Bible implausible, I offer you these 10 problems for literalists all drawn from the book of Exodus. There are more problems in that book that we could talk about, and certainly more if we broaden our scope to include the rest of the Bible.
Jeff
1. The first sign that you are getting old… Exodus 2:18 Reuel was the father-in-law of Moses. Exodus 3:1 Sorry, his name was Jethro. Numbers 10:29, Judges 4:11No, no, no Hobab. Yeah, that’s the ticket. And Reuel was Moses’ grandfather-in-law. Still looking at these verses, and yes it does seem to have some problems, but if I am correct in the inerrancy of the bible then this will explain its self through more study. Just need to study more maybe look at the culture at the time in how they referred to their fathers.
2. Do as I say not as I…say? Or that morality stuff only applies to people we like. Exodus 3:20-22, Deuteronomy 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to rob the Egyptians. Exodus 20:15, 17, Leviticus 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.
You may Note: in verses that talk about this plundering that it is their due/wages for their time in slavery or as others have done unto them. God is their protector he gives and takes away. So this is not the same as stealing from someone that doesn’t or never did belong to them. Ezekiel 39:10 pg. 755 in my NAS
3. Hard times for the Chosen Ones Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt. 1 Kings 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time.
I don’t see the point your trying to make, as best I can see both references are correct in the numbers given. Now as for there only being 7000 fighting men instead of the 600,000 or more. Well God usually prefers for the people to rely on him for the victory instead of their own strength of number, so that they know that it was through God that they gain the victory so they could not boast in their own strength. I’m sure more study will reveal where the rest of the Israelites where hiding.
4. God never changes: He just has different feelings at different times toward different people… Exodus 15:3, 17:16, Numbers 25:4, 32:14, Isaiah 42:13 God is a god of war: fierce and angry. Moses’s song about God as a warrior, God has judged the Amalekites from generation to generation for their actions against God’s people. No other Gods before me for I am a Jealous God, the Jewish people really shouldn’t temp his anger after all they did see what he did to Egypt. As I understand God the bible describes his different aspects. Such as he is a God of love and mercy, but also a Righteousness and Justice. So no God never changes, but he does have more than one aspect to him. Romans 15:33, 2 Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1 John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace. Yes God is Love due to his actions not just his words.
5. I’ll do it myself! Not. Exodus 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary). Galatians 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary). Remember Moses broke the first set of stone tablet and God chose to write the second set with his own hand. Exodus 34, this may be where your getting confused.
6. Suffer the little children… Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, Isaiah 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for their parent's sins. In Ex 20:5 God is talking about those who hate him and refuse to turn from their ways. Note: In Numbers 14 and 15 God shows us a picture of what Jesus is like where the people are turned away and spurn God, but that through his mercy and love he will make an allowance for us. Also if you read all of vs14 you see that though he pardens them from being destroyed right then and there, they still must answer for what they have done. Lots of Judgement from God dealing with those who hate him, but for those who love and follow him they will enjoy rewards.
Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins. Note: Deu 24:16 God is giving his people directions on dealing with sins that each person should be judged separately (only God can know if a generation will continue to follow in their father’s foot steps and thus has the power and right to judge them so completely), this is not the same as when God Judges people or even whole nations of people who have turned away from him. Again in Ezekiel 18:19-20 God speaks of how if a wicked man turns away from his ways and turns to God he can be saved. Thus when God judges the Amalekites he new that they and their children would never turn away from their wicked ways and that they would cause his chosen people to stumble and turn a way from God if they were allowed to remain.
7. Thou shalt not kill, unless I tell you to! Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20, Romans 13:9, James 2:11 God prohibits killing. (Exodus 23:7 God expressly prohibits the killing of the innocent.) Genesis 22:2 God tells Abraham to kill his son. As you already know God was testing Abraham, God had already promised Abraham to make a great nation of his son Isaac. So Abraham must have believed that God would bring his son back to life or something, because he believed in God’s promises. Note: the commandment of not to kill (see Exodus 21:12) goes into more detail.
Exodus 32:27, Deuteronomy 7:2, 13:15, 20:1-18 God orders killing. In Exodus the Jews had turn against God and built and Idol, Moses called to the people to decide if they where for God or not. Those that where not where slain. This is Judgement on people who refused to turn away from their sins. Also note that even the ones who had turned back to God would still be judged but later. In Deuteronomy 7:2 again he has Judged these people and knows they will not turn to God and if they remain they will turn his people away from him and then he would Judge the Jews just as harshly. Deuteronomy 13:15 deals with those trying to turn the jews from the true God, Remember on of God’s commandments is “have no other Gods before me”. God makes it quit clear that he is a jealous God.
2 Kings 19:35 An angel of the Lord slaughters 185,000 men in the night, a genocide on the Assyrians. Note: This genocide you seem so upset about again deals with people going against his chosen people and that these people follow false Gods. After all God is their protector. Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 7:2, Joshua 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, 30-39, Judges 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1 Samuel 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children. Note: your definition of innocent doesn’t account for these people having spent Generations turning away from God and serving false gods instead. Thus he judged these people. 8. Prostitution is a learning experience. Not sure what you mean. Exodus 20:14 God prohibits adultery. No surprise here after all in Gen 24 and Matt 19:4-6 marriage is a sacred thing and should not be defiled. Hosea 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry." As for Hosea his marriage is symbolic and God is making a point and is using this as a way to punish and point out Israel’s unfaithfulness. Cause Israel has turned away from him yet again.
9. A Scout is trustworthy… Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie. Numbers 14:26-35 God breaks his promise. I know, I know: The Israelites had been bad, but a promise is a promise. I don’t see a broken promise, as God judges the Jews from age 20 and older. So he still keeps his promise to the nation. What I see here is don’t make God mad, unless your just stupid.
1 Kings 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception. As I read in 1kings18 the prophets that are deceived are following false Gods. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear, however, that deception is involved.) The people that are being deluded are those who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness. Come on Jeff I know your smarter than this and that your well read so what’s your point in this comment, when I know you already have the answer??
10. Goodly Evil Exodus 34:6-7, Joshua 24:19, 1 Chronicles 16:34 God is faithful, holy and good. Isaiah 45:6-7, Lamentations 3:1-21 (especially the “made my teeth grind on gravel” bit. Ouch!), Amos 3:6 God is responsible for evil. Isaiah The word calamity here is God dealing with evildoers as you see in Isaiah 31:2. Lamentations 3:22-32-66 please explain to me what is evil?? I see God’s discipline on those who turn away from him. A God’s discipline though harsh is not evil, for a parent who loves their child will discipline them and those who hate their child will not. As for Amos you will note that God is punishing his people for their iniquities as it sayes in Amos 3:2.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:33:29 GMT -5
Adam Hull 86 11-21-2004 11:34 PM ET (US) A partial response to post Jeff #31 My idea is that if you will not be convinced by outside evidence or the kind of philosophical arguments that I have tried to give, then another way to budge you is with internal inconsistency in the Bible. Is this an effective line of argument? That is, would you ever, faced with inexplicable inconsistency, give up the literal interpretation? Or is it that the case that it doesn’t matter how the world is or what the Bible says, your faith is what it is? I think we could go on for many days giving lists like the one I did last night. Here are some more: www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...contradictions.htmlHuman vs. ghostly impregnation ACT 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; See Jesus’ earthly father’s linage in Matt 1:1-17 from Abraham to Joseph Jesus’ stepfather. The of Jesus through his mother Mary genealogy from God to Joseph who is the son inlaw to Eli or Heli Mary’s father. Luke 3:23-38 (yes, I do see a different name used for Joseph’s father in both genealogies, note in Matt it sayes begat or born to and in Luke it just sayes the son of) in my Scofield reference: He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called "son of Heli" ("son" is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was "son of Heli" because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David. MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. If you read the Bible you would know that the human side it talks of is Mary and that her linage can be traced back to King David as seen above. See Matt 22:41-45, I’ll look at some more of these List of Biblical Contradictions, but come on Jeff even your better than this, maybe you should look these websites over a little more carefully. If this is all you have for sites on Biblical Contradictions, then maybe you should reconsider which side your on.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:33:54 GMT -5
Amanda McBride 87 11-30-2004 09:44 AM ET (US) www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/sames...age/marriage2.shtmlOutline of the arguments for and against AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Those against same-sex marriage rely on some of these secular arguments: homosexual acts are immoral marriage is a fundamental and unchangeable institution marriage is traditionally between persons of opposite sex if same-sex marriages are recognised then bigamous, polygamous, incestuous marriages and marriages with animals must be recognised same-sex couples can't have children society has an interest in promoting marriage as the environment for procreation and child-rearing same-sex parenting is less good for children than the parenting found in traditional family units same-sex parenting may bias children towards a homosexual life-style same-sex relationships are less stable and less faithful than opposite-sex relationships same-sex relationships are open to greater health risks allowing same-sex marriages will damage the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage Religious people can use all these arguments but have some more to offer: marriage is defined by scripture and tradition as involving a man and a woman marriage between one man and one woman is a religious sacrament IN FAVOUR OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Those in favour of allowing same-sex marriages argue that: banning same-sex marriage discriminates against gays and lesbians legalising same-sex marriage doesn't hurt heterosexuals same-sex marriages would benefit societies in the same way that heterosexual marriages do same-sex marriages would benefit individuals in the same way that heterosexual marriages do same-sex marriage would benefit children involved allowing same-sex marriages could benefit the institution of marriage banning same-sex marriage restricts freedom of choice banning same-sex marriages labels gays and lesbians as second-class citizens banning same-sex marriage mixes Church and State in an illegitimate way
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:34:15 GMT -5
tina 88 12-02-2004 08:08 PM ET (US) Adam, I am amazed at your response to Jeff. For each of his points you gave a case by case point explaining how the culture was at that time, or pinpointing what exactly was happening AT THE TIME. So I will take you back to the very first point I made. Homosexuality in the Bible over 2000 years ago is not the homosexuality in today's culture. So which is it, Adam? Are we to interpret the Bible literally and apply that to our lives today, not taking into account the culture of the time? Or do we take the culture into account and quit attempting to mandate today's culture by specifically based scripture?
Also, 1 thing I have liked about the discussion so far is that you, as well as everyone else, have been nice. However, you were rude & condescending to Jeff. If this is the type of exchange you wish to have, then I would say we're better off not writing. tina
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:35:07 GMT -5
Adam Hull 89 12-03-2004 02:48 PM ET (US) To Tina's comment # 88, yes you are correct that culture and time period must be taken in to account when doing a literally translation to be able to apply it's teachings to our daily lives in this day and time.
But you are wrong about the veiw of homosexuality in the Bible being different than today. I will gather verses to show my point. As for my comment to Jeff, I'm truely sorry that it came accross as rude and condescending, but I know Jeff is very knowledgeable in the matters of the bible and I still don't see what his points are in trying to prove that it is in accurate with the verse that he chose. So yes I do expect better of him as I expect better of myself and all around me, unless his comment was a ploy to inspire me to prove what I've been saying about the bible or to better understand what I mean by taking the literal translation of the Bible. Cause if a person just reads it, but doesn't study it in context to the time culture and geography and the people it was being written to, then yes it will apear to contradict it's self and have many inacrescys (sorry for my spelling) even to the point of being very confusing as to why certain comments where even put in the Bible. A small example would be we Jesus told his disciples to go and follow a man carrying water and he would lead them to a place that had room for the last supper. If you didn't know the culture and what was happening at the time, you would mess the fact that men didn't carry the water and this would make this man much easyer to find in a city brimimmg with people. As I said this is simplifieing the story leading to the last supper, but if a person didn't study, but only read then this would have little meaning to them.
And yes I've very much enjoyed that the comments have not become nasty and again I'm sorry that mine has presented this attitude. It was not my intention to do so, but if it is going to be a point for me to go through and disprove every possible inaccuracy or contradiction of the Bible then that is what I will start working on, but before trying to point out these inaccuracys maybe a person should do some bible study of there own as I'm sure I would get hammered if all I could say was Homosexuality is wrong and not give any decent verses or documents to hold up my veiw point.
So again I'm sorry to Jeff and all the other readers and I'll completly understand if anyone wishes me to stop writing or would like to issue me some guide lines for any future writings. I will complety comply as it does my cause no good to make enemys through my lack of a good attitude.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:35:33 GMT -5
Jeffrey McBride 90 12-03-2004 04:25 PM ET (US) The following is from MSNBC’s Hardball, where Chris Matthews recently cross-examined the Reverend Jerry Falwell. We’ve always known that Adam is more decent than the TV F-uglies who steal from little old ladies, now we have proof that he is smarter than them, too:
Matthews: Did you choose to be heterosexual?
Falwell: I did.
Matthews: You thought about it and you came up with that solution, that lifestyle?
Falwell: Well, put it this way, I was taught as a child that that's the right way to be.
Matthews: But did you feel an attraction toward women?
Falwell: Oh, of course.
Matthews: But when people are born and they find themselves having an attraction to somebody from the same sex, do you think that's a choice?
Falwell: I think you can experiment with any perversity and develop an appetite for it, just like you can food. […] I don't think anybody is born a bank robber […]
Matthews: How old were you when you chose to be heterosexual?
Falwell: Oh, I don't remember that.
Matthews: Well you must, because you say it's a big decision.
Falwell: Well, I – I started dating when I was about thirteen.
Matthews: And you had to decide between boys and girls. And you chose girls.
Falwell: Well, I never had to decide, I never thought … (laughter)
[McBride: Obviously]
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:35:51 GMT -5
Chris McKenzie 91 12-04-2004 12:56 PM ET (US) Edited by author 12-04-2004 12:58 PM And Bridget wonders what I have against marriage. Sheesh.
(and if that sounds nasty, I don't particularly care)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Dec 13, 2005 3:36:06 GMT -5
Chris McKenzie 92 12-15-2004 04:50 PM ET (US) I didn't mean to be a conversation killer. Jesus Christ. Literally. 8^)
|
|