Leviticus and Homo's

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm afraid you cannot really escape "self opinion land" either. If you have decided that your best tack is to just be some kind of intellectual slave to whatever it is some book tells you; then that bespeaks an opinion as well. Some opinions are well-formed and backed by good reasons, though, whereas others are not. Yours is not only lacking in conside ...[text shortened]... the following reasons:..." that would be one thing. But you have no actual argument.

The fear of an illusionary devil is holding him back.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I'm afraid you cannot really escape "self opinion land" either. If you have decided that your best tack is to just be some kind of intellectual slave to whatever it is some book tells you; then that bespeaks an opinion as well. Some opinions are well-formed and backed by good reasons, though, whereas others are not. Yours is not only lacking in conside ...[text shortened]... the following reasons:..." that would be one thing. But you have no actual argument.

A wise man would never consider that as an option:

Proverbs 3:5 (New King James Version)
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding."


I have no desire to be a part of this.

Isaiah 57:20 (New King James Version):
"But the wicked are like the troubled sea,
When it cannot rest,
Whose waters cast up mire and dirt."


This is where I put my faith on, not mans ideas and philosophies which change every ten minutes:

Matthew 4:4 (New King James Version)
But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”[a]

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The fear of an illusionary devil is holding him back.

I don't fear the Devil, but I respect how powerfull he is and cunning. Like the part where he's got ones like yourself into believeing he doesn't exist.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (New King James Version)
" And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light."

Originally posted by galveston75
I don't fear the Devil, but I respect how powerfull he is and cunning. Like the part where he's got ones like yourself into believeing he doesn't exist.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (New King James Version)
" And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light."

Or like the part where he co-opts the teachings of Jesus and the OT 'prophets' into a myriad of 'christian' religions which each insist they own the truth, thus setting otherwise good-meaning people at each other's throats for thousands of years?

"And no wonder! etc..."

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Or like the part where he co-opts the teachings of Jesus and the OT 'prophets' into a myriad of 'christian' religions which each insist they own the truth, thus setting otherwise good-meaning people at each other's throats for thousands of years?

"And no wonder! etc..."

You seriously have a point there... From God and his son there is no confusion but it's for sure Satan and man has done a number on religions. That goes back to the scriptures that say only a few would get thru the narrow gate and that not all that call upon the name of the LORD will be saved. Lots of religions out there that don't do things right and hence are not blessed or approved by God.

Originally posted by galveston75
You seriously have a point there... From God and his son there is no confusion but it's for sure Satan and man has done a number on religions. That goes back to the scriptures that say only a few would get thru the narrow gate and that not all that call upon the name of the LORD will be saved. Lots of religions out there that don't do things right and hence are not blessed or approved by God.

He doesn't have that great a point. He has an excuse, an exaggeration, and a monsterous double standard.

Denominations may squabble over non-essential doctrines. They are not all "at each other's throats".

And I bet the poster has a keen interest in other things in which there are debates and disagreements. It doesn't stop him from following those matters with keen interest and personal participation.

Originally posted by galveston75
A wise man would never consider that as an option:

Proverbs 3:5 (New King James Version)
"Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding."


I have no desire to be a part of this.

Isaiah 57:20 (New King James Version):
"But the wicked are like the troubled sea,
When it cannot rest,
Whose w n shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”[a]

I feel sorry for you. You're such an intellectual slave. To have so much mistrust toward your own cognitive faculties (toward your own supposedly God-given faculties), it's a shame. So God gave you the faculties to think for yourself but then commanded that you exercise them only to the extent that you agree to submit to whatever He says? Yikes.

Originally posted by galveston75
I don't fear the Devil, but I respect how powerfull he is and cunning. Like the part where he's got ones like yourself into believeing he doesn't exist.

2 Corinthians 11:14 (New King James Version)
" And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light."

So how do you distinguish between Satan and Gods works/influence? If Satan disguises himself so well...
No, I just dont buy it. I believe its possible for people to think for themselves and not be influenced by Satan, who is just as hard to find as God.

How do I know an angel of light from Satan?
Your line of pontification sends us back hundreds of years! When it was up to the priests to determine whether someone talking in tounges was god-inspired or satan-inspired , when they were just probably scizophrenic for all they knew😛

Originally posted by jaywill
He doesn't have that great a point. He has an excuse, an exaggeration, and a monsterous double standard.

Denominations may squabble over non-essential doctrines. They are not all "at each other's throats".

And I bet the poster has a keen interest in other things in which there are debates and disagreements. It doesn't stop him from following those matters with keen interest and personal participation.

Denominations may squabble over non-essential doctrines. They are not all "at each other's throats".

Mmm, after you with those rose-tinted glasses please.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I feel sorry for you. You're such an intellectual slave. To have so much mistrust toward your own cognitive faculties (toward your own supposedly God-given faculties), it's a shame. So God gave you the faculties to think for yourself but then commanded that you exercise them only to the extent that you agree to submit to whatever He says? Yikes.

And you're an intellectual island?

When Scripture is being quoted, the meanings and intents are not the superficial renderings you insist. For instance, when the word LORD is used, it is pregnant, teeming and overflowing with meaning, not the least of which is the understood principle of God's position as Creator of all reality. Beyond that, there enters into the consideration God's character, i.e., the aspects of His love, purity, absolute integrity, etc., etc., and etc..

It is not the blinkered mental state you paint it to be, a type of "Well, [blank] said it, so I agree." Not that such a passive stance would serve the one so unarmed poorly: whether a person haphazardly stumbles upon the truth or employs critical thinking in all their decisions, the results of faith are the same.

I agree (somewhat) that it seems to be preferred that a person ought to do their absolute best in making these types of decisions, and I believe Christianity more than withstands such honest critical thinking. That being said, a person doesn't become saved as a result of their reasoning ability; they are saved by the modicum of faith they place in the Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, they will likely feel a little better, a little more confident in their ability to defend their decision both in their own minds as well as in open debate with others, but I doubt that those who refrain from subjecting their faith to searing intellectual acid tests really lose all that much sleep.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And you're an intellectual island?

When Scripture is being quoted, the meanings and intents are not the superficial renderings you insist. For instance, when the word LORD is used, it is pregnant, teeming and overflowing with meaning, not the least of which is the understood principle of God's position as Creator of all reality. Beyond that, there ent subjecting their faith to searing intellectual acid tests really lose all that much sleep.

I am not "insisting on superficial renderings" here. I am simply telling galveston75 what I think about his approach. His approach is intellectually irresponsible and shameful (and, beyond that, no one has just cause to take him very seriously here because he has no actual argument on these topics). He admits to a default position of mistrust of his own faculties, and he actually just implied that a wise person just submits to the written word (presumably regardless if he probes its justificatory merits or investigates whether or not it has any good reasons to actually recommend it). In case you missed our exchange, I recommended to galveston75 that he "'go out on [his] own' and consider reasons for/against and come to some honest conclusion that represents [his] own intellectual property", and he responded that this is never a live option for a wise person. But that seems woefully and terribly misguided. A person does not demonstrate wisdom by just uncritically hitching himself to some ideas handed down to him. To demonstrate wisdom, a person should have some contact with the underlying reasons that confer justificatory status on his courses of actions and things that he endorses. If faith means just uncritically swallowing some stuff handed down to you (the actual merits of which you either don't understand or don't try to understand and have no motivation to understand or cannot understand), then what exactly is so good about faith? And why would an uber-smart god value this sort of faith?

whether a person haphazardly stumbles upon the truth or employs critical thinking in all their decisions, the results of faith are the same.

I agree (somewhat) that it seems to be preferred that a person ought to do their absolute best in making these types of decisions, and I believe Christianity more than withstands such honest critical thinking.

Okay, then what exactly is the problem here? See, you and galvo are not on the same page here. You're telling me that if a person thinks for himself and subjects his faith to some manner of intellectual rigor, his faith will stand the test; and that this is ultimately preferred and healthy (or at least it seems to you that this is preferred). If that is true, then I should have no reason to accept galveston75's insistence that wise men don't think for themselves and have no motivation to undertake such critical thought.

Originally posted by galveston75
If your view is different then God's as is stated in the Bible then that's your decision.

Yet we are commanded to judge not and we shall not be judged. We are also commanded to love one another (even homosexuals). If you would act any differently in welcoming a homosexual into your Church, then I have to wonder how a Church who believes in and follows Jesus Christ can be so un-Christ like.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I am not "insisting on superficial renderings" here. I am simply telling galveston75 what I think about his approach. His approach is intellectually irresponsible and shameful (and, beyond that, no one has just cause to take him very seriously here because he has no actual argument on these topics). He admits to a default position of mistrust of his ow ...[text shortened]... don't think for themselves and have no motivation to undertake such critical thought.

I think you're near the track, if not completely on it yet.

(and, beyond that, no one has just cause to take him very seriously here because he has no actual argument on these topics).
Well, given the subjective nature of what passes as spirituality these days, he can no more be dismissed than any one else found herein. Just the other day, I was reading in the newspaper an article extolling the supposed spirituality of gardening. I'm just saying.

He admits to a default position of mistrust of his own faculties,
And how is that any different than the countless scientists who insist that the more they discover, the more they realize how little they know?
I think a healthy distrust of our thinking is the impetus behind the various scientific methods, really. Test, re-test, test again, right?

A person does not demonstrate wisdom by just uncritically hitching himself to some ideas handed down to him. To demonstrate wisdom, a person should have some contact with the underlying reasons that confer justificatory status on his courses of actions and things that he endorses.
That's kind of what I was getting at when I spoke of the encyclopedic weight of the word LORD. Most Christians who espouse "It's written, I believe it, that settles it" aren't literally doing just that: if such were the case, they'd be beholden to EVERYTHING that was written down, regardless of the source. I think a better description of their (my) belief is "Since it has been established that God has said it, and I have come to accept the absolute goodness of God, I believe and follow it--- regardless of what my intuition may confer otherwise."

You're telling me that if a person thinks for himself and subjects his faith to some manner of intellectual rigor, his faith will stand the test; and that this is ultimately preferred and healthy (or at least it seems to you that this is preferred).
Not really. I, like you, prefer intellectual pursuits, am competitive in the same, disciplining myself in order to withstand adversarial play. That is why I said it seems preferable, owing to the emotional support it could possibly relay to those so inclined. Honest to God (ha-ha!), I could stop examining my faith this minute and never feel a qualm again if I lived a million years, so convinced I am of its steadfastness. But, truthfully, it's kind of fun for me still, so I persist.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I feel sorry for you. You're such an intellectual slave. To have so much mistrust toward your own cognitive faculties (toward your own supposedly God-given faculties), it's a shame. So God gave you the faculties to think for yourself but then commanded that you exercise them only to the extent that you agree to submit to whatever He says? Yikes.

Lol...This is truely entertaining. I am appreciating these comments from a few of you as I am even more convienced beyond a doubt of the power of Satan and how far humans as a whole have lost the insight and connection we once had with God.

1 John 5:19. "We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."

1Tim 3: 2-5. : For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness,  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,  having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away. 

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I think you're near the track, if not completely on it yet.

[b](and, beyond that, no one has just cause to take him very seriously here because he has no actual argument on these topics).
Well, given the subjective nature of what passes as spirituality these days, he can no more be dismissed than any one else found herein. Just the other day, I wa ...[text shortened]... of its steadfastness. But, truthfully, it's kind of fun for me still, so I persist.[/b]

Well, given the subjective nature of what passes as spirituality these days, he can no more be dismissed than any one else found herein.

My comment was made in a particular context, the context of this thread. I was talking about his views on homosexuality, which is the subject underlying this particular thread. He has some strong opinion on the topic, but he has offered us no reasons to actually take him seriously here.

And how is that any different than the countless scientists who insist that the more they discover, the more they realize how little they know?

I would say it is completely different. Galveston75 is making a claim that we ought not think for ourselves and that we ought to mistrust the deliverances of our cognitive faculties and moral intuitions (I suppose excepting those deliverances that recommend trust in God's word to him, somehow he is willing to trust those). These scientists you mention aren't making that claim at all, and it is bizarre to me that you would interpret them as such. These scientists do not place such mistrust in their cognitive faculties: they are more than willing to put them to use in new ways to come to greater and greater discovery. It's just that, when one comes to greater and greater discovery, it is often the case that one also comes to stand in greater awareness of ignorance. That is largely because one comes to more and more questions that get raised and clamor for attention; one touches on and sees the trajectories of more and more intellectual pursuits; and one starts to see more clearly how vast the space is for new discovery. That is not a claim against the deliverances of, or trust in, our cognitive faculties; it is more a claim about coming to greater awareness of the vastness of the space of things still undiscovered or not yet explained. And, yes, maybe they also mean to refer to greater awareness of things they think we may never be able to explain, which touches on our own limitations. But, these scientists aren't saying, hey, let's just uncritically swallow everything that some book says because we ought not lean on our own understanding. They are more than willing to think for themselves and take their own faculties for test drives and lean on their own understanding, even if their experiences have brought them to greater awareness of how far we still have to go. I'd say they are not even remotely the same.