07 Nov 11
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyFine, I'll try to dredge something up that is less embarrassing for believers than their typical drivel. Am I taking as a premise that homosexuality is contrary to divine law?
Maybe fanciful musing on my part, bbar, but simply thought it might prove instructive, at least for yours truly, for you to take on the role of arguing the merits of a position you clearly never held. My ears will remain open.
About the only argument I could make with any degree of conviction to set aside customary garden variety christian views rega ...[text shortened]... way; moving on. I'd challenge any christian to argue objectively against any of these
gb
08 Nov 11
4 edits
Originally posted by bbarrI fear for our flammable souls (presumably regenerated by Bible-"God" ) that will burn for ever and ever and... and ever and ever and ... and ever and... in a lake of fire lovingly created by this bearded retard in the sky. Moreover wailing and gnashing our teeth (I assume there's a dentist on hand to keep them from falling out of our "soul-mouths" ) in this theatre of eternal torture is the price we "justly" pay for reasoning in the manner that Bible-"God" created us that it doesn't exist (and of course the action of two naked people in a magic garden full of naughty apples and a talking snake).
Unbelievers go to Hell? Right, because the world is straight out of a J.R.R. Tolkien novel. Get a grip. It's an historical accident you literalists aren't hospitalized for schizophrenic delusions.
That this really is the crap that RJHinds and his ilk subscribes too is a constant source of bewilderment 😕
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Agerg2 Kings 2:24. We're supposed to take moral instruction from this book? Some children mock a prophet for being bald, and in return God sends a pair of she-bears to maul them? Yes, this is the loving God. It's insanity.
I fear for our flammable souls (presumably regenerated by Bible-"God" ) that will burn for ever and ever and... and ever and ever and ... and ever and... in a lake of fire lovingly created by this bearded retard in the sky. Moreover wailing and gnashing our teeth (I assume there's a dentist on hand to keep them from falling out of our "soul-mouths"😉 in ...[text shortened]... e crap that RJHinds and his ilk subscribes too is a constant source of bewilderment 🙄
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrYou seem to dislike some of the things God did in the OT, and from what I
2 Kings 2:24. We're supposed to take moral instruction from this book? Some children mock a prophet for being bald, and in return God sends a pair of she-bears to maul them? Yes, this is the loving God. It's insanity.
gather dislike the idea of God sending people to Hell too?
Kelly
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt's not that I "dislike" the idea, Kelly. I think the idea is monstrous, and God's OT behavior is monstrous, which is why I think there is no scriptural reason to think God is anything other than capricious; alternately callous and dreadful. Which is to say that He can't be described as loving, or worthy of worship. These are just some of the contradictions that render belief in God impossible for me. And it's also why I think the use of scripture in arguments about morality is totally wrong-headed. Look, did Jesus or Paul ever come out and clearly and explicitly condemn slavery? Did they ever come out and clearly and explicitly claim that women should be treated with equality? No and no. These are things you folk infer from scripture, despite the contrary scriptural evidence, because you know that slavery and sexism are wrong. It's all just a muddle with Christian ethics. You take the stuff you want, and you jettison the stuff you don't. So it's not like Christians just read their ethics out of the Bible. Christians could dispense with the prohibitions against homosexuality in the same way they no longer think of slavery as permitted (and you know you scriptural experts would be able to find a Biblical basis for this...) It's all ad hoc, post hoc reasoning. Your prejudices are in the driver's seat, and your rationales are riding shotgun pretending to drive.
You seem to dislike some of the things God did in the OT, and from what I
gather dislike the idea of God sending people to Hell too?
Kelly
08 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarr
"Underestimate the wisdom of God"? I'm an atheist! You might as well accuse me of underestimating the beauty of unicorns. But, in any case, if you don't see the need for non-scriptural arguments against homosexuality, it's fine by me. But you realize, of course, that this is just further reason to think that your notion of 'sin' is irrelevant; a barbaric a g, especially in the political domain. You have a book that says some stuff. So what?
"Underestimate the wisdom of God"? I'm an atheist!
So what ?
You seem to be arguing that we poor Christians need the help of philosophical reasonings to aid our commission to spread the Gospel.
Your concern is touching but the wisdom embodied in the Bible itself is quite sufficient.
You might as well accuse me of underestimating the beauty of unicorns.
You can be an atheist and still underestimate the wisdom of the God whom you do not believe exists.
You speak as an atheist. I am not speaking for you. I speak as a Christian theist. And I say you underestimate the wisdom of God in Scripture.
I'm speaking from a theists' point of view, based on the reality of God's existence.
It is not the church which needs the secular philosophy for assistance in spreading the Gospel. It is the atheists who have been left clueless with no hint of why they exist.
You need the church of Christ to tell you the good news of God's existence and salvation.
But, in any case, if you don't see the need for non-scriptural arguments against homosexuality, it's fine by me.
It will have to be so because you haven't demonstrated any.
But you realize, of course, that this is just further reason to think that your notion of 'sin' is irrelevant; a barbaric anachronism at best.
I have to "realize" your opinion ?? Don't think so.
Besides, how do I know that tomorrow kidnapping, incest, child pornography, beastiality, will [not] also be deemed "barbaric anachronisms" as well ?
I don't think moral cowardice is tolerance. I think first you find a person with convictions which are strong. Then having done so, you can determine how tolerant they are with people who think differently.
Drifting along with the strong current in a apathetic or worst cowardly way, is not true tolerance.
I can accept the Bible's warning about judgment upon homosexuality and still recognize the homosexual as a precious being created in the image of God and for whom Jesus shed the same redemptive blood, as He shed for me.
I can recognize, biblically, that homosexuality is mentioned quite unsensationally along with other errors, which would include even the sin of dividing the church into denominations.
So as the Christian is appalled at homosexuality, there is every reason to believe he also should be appalled at the practice of denominating Christians into different kinds of "churches".
The perspective of the Bible is very healthy in the New Testament. And our Bible does not end with the destruction of Sodom in Genesis 19. It goes on to the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus for ALL sinners.
It is in no way conceptually connected to the notion 'immoral'. Which is fine, but it also means that nobody should take your views seriously when it comes to discussion of right and wrong, especially in the political domain. You have a book that says some stuff. So what?
I am not particularly advocating for the "political domain".
As for the kingdom of God, you have some humanist philosophers who argue some stuff. So what ?
I'm pretty sure you still haven't received a clue about where you came from or why you are here in the world, if not other than by some accident. Why shouldn't anything go for you ?
There is no accounting to any ultimate government or judgement. What else have your philosophers given you except the expectation to melt comfortably back into the dust of the earth crimes and all ?
We have a loving Creator, a Redeemer, and eternal kingdom, and a sure victory as well as a Model of proper humanity who is available to us to live through.
08 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidThe majority of men get disturbed by things that (some of them) secretly are curious about, whether they are concious of it or not. But you probably wont but that, I bet.
Well, the two of you are welcome to waller in your false conclusions. It seems the both of you have a penchant for lumping everyone together and interchanging what each says and attributing it to whomever it conveniences you at the time.
And that is the very definition of bigotry and prejudice.
All I ever said is that the act of anal penetration bothe about that beyond defending myself. And now that I've done it, I'll bid you ado.
08 Nov 11
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRespectfully, RJ, nothing is accomplished without the excercise of human free will. Granted, it may sometimes be heart rending when close family members and trusted friends reject the gift to their own peril but crocodile tears change nothing in the divine order and timetable of events. Christ's last words to his disciples at the crucifixion were, "Feed my sheep." He told the repentant criminal (repent in the koine means to change your mind) "Today you'll be with me in paradise." What words did He have for the other hardened criminal? Zippo. Nada. Not a word to a an already dead man whose soul is now in a reserved compartment of Hades awaiting transfer to the Lake of Fire. Of course we witness to those who express interest. Beyond that we leave the matter in his hands. Point is that since Christ never exhibited the emotional behavior of some bleeding heart wuss or wimp, where do we get off excusing such behavior within the royal famly of the church universal which one day will become the Bride of Christ?
So you just want to let all unbelievers remain in their unbelief and go to hell.
Okay. But I believe they should be taught the truth so they might believe
and be saved. Okay?
gb
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Respectfully, RJ, nothing is accomplished without the excercise of human free will. Granted, it may sometimes be heart rending when close family members and trusted friends reject the gift to their own peril but crocodile tears change nothing in the divine order and timetable of events. Christ's last words to his disciples at the crucifixion were, "Feed ...[text shortened]... e royal famly of the church universal which one day will become the Bride of Christ?
gb
Christ's last words to his disciples at the crucifixion were, "Feed my sheep."
Just a note:
That was said after His resurrection (John 21:15-25)
08 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillRemembered the injunction to have been given at the same time he gave JohnChrist's last words to his disciples at the crucifixion were, "Feed my sheep."
Just a note:
That was said after His resurrection [b](John 21:15-25) [/b]
charge to care for his mother. Apparently I was in error. Thanks, Jay.
08 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillYes, that is exactly what I'm arguing. You claim the wisdom embodied in the Bible is sufficient. But sufficient for whom? For those who begin from a position of doubt with regard to the Bible, you'll need something extra-biblical to serve as a foundation of reason and argument. If your arguments are solely Biblical, then your arguments will be question-begging.
"Underestimate the wisdom of God"? I'm an atheist!
So what ?
You seem to be arguing that we poor Christians need the help of philosophical reasonings to aid our commission to spread the Gospel.
Your concern is touching but the wisdom embodied in the Bible itself is quite sufficient.
[quote]
You might as well accuse s a Model of proper humanity who is available to us to live through.
And, no, as a conceptual matter I cannot underestimate the wisdom of God. That's because I make no estimation as to the wisdom of God. That's because there is no such entity. You ask me to estimate the beauty of unicorns. I respond that there are no unicorns.
Atheists have no clue as to why they exist? I've talked to my parents, I know exactly why I exist. And I know exactly why my existence is important and why my life has meaning. And this doesn't derive from some silly fictional gaseous vertebrate in the sky. It derives from the choices I make, the values I have, and the nourishing relationships I've cultivated.
But why should I be tolerant? Your God is horrific, and your "moral" views are absurd. You have nothing to recommend them except for scripture. I have arguments that cut across differing, but sane, ethical frameworks (you know, the ones that don't take magic and zombie saviors seriously).
But, again, all this is fine with me, as long as you don't seek to impose your nonsense on other people in the political domain. If you want to canvass the world giving people food and medicine in order to convert them, since your reasons and arguments are obviously insufficient, more power to you! I prefer to just render aid, but that's because I don't want to add epistemic insult to bodily injury. But as long as you keep yourself out of the bedrooms and doctors' offices of citizens, then believe whatever fantasy novel suits you. Tolkien isn't bad, actually.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Remembered the injunction to have been given at the same time he gave John
charge to care for his mother. Apparently I was in error. Thanks, Jay.
Remembered the injunction to have been given at the same time he gave John
charge to care for his mother. Apparently I was in error. Thanks, Jay.
LOL. For years I thought it was the baby John the Baptist whose mouth was opened and praised God at birth rather than his father.
08 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarr"Am I taking as a premise that homosexuality is contrary to divine law?"
Fine, I'll try to dredge something up that is less embarrassing for believers than their typical drivel. Am I taking as a premise that homosexuality is contrary to divine law?
Not necessarily. Sort of think it through again for the first time. You know, examine it as you would a chess position. Treat it as evidentiary discovery, if you please. Whatever merits you unearth, in a position you clearly never held, will work for me.
Bob