The Bible accepts homosexuality!

Originally posted by bbarr
But nobody is talking about always having the same set to consider. Do you not understand that one person can be generally nicer than another, yet both can have free will? If you do understand this, then what are you arguing against (because you're sure not arguing against anything I've actually said!)?

sorry it took so long to answer (not that long really but i see the others have been prolific)


depends what you mean by "nicer". if you mean one is not capable of being evil, that tampers with free will. if you mean one is not capable of thinking evil things, that tampers with free will and reason(how one makes decisions). if none of the above, it is pointless to interfere.

perhaps you are trying to say that god should have made you less grumpy and more like your sister, who's warm personality makes it EASIER to make the right decisions. In this case you might be right, god COULD have made life easier for us. No volcanoes, no droughts, no carnivorous animals, all humans warm and fuzzy to one another. the deviants (that that even with warm and fuzzy feelings still chose evil) would have been fewer. i had a similar discussion with twhite in which i claimed that this way, humanity would have not have reason to come down from the trees and invent fire. What do you think about that?

God also could have made life tougher for us. yet he didn't. I call this world fair. Not to soft that humanity doesn't need to progress, not to hellish either. We can shape it (through work) mostly anyway we like it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry, I'm talking about niceness as a personality trait. I'm not talking about whatever silly, made-up notion you're employing. In the actual world, Zahlanzi, some people are generally nicer than others. And this manifests in their deliberations and actions. And the nicer people are still free. Now stop. Breathe. Read this post again until you get it. B ...[text shortened]... this very obvious and simple point, you'll realize how frickin' stupid your comparison is.

i wonder what it is that makes people on this forum (and in debates forums in general) resort to abuse. is it a need to be right in spite of a person you never know? to climb in the social ladder of the RHP spirituality forum? to what end?


also, why the need to be right in a subjective matter that would not make the other change his stance anyway (not through abuse anywhoo). to me, this forum should be about expressing one's opinion and maybe countering another's (in a polite manner). i find it hard to be polite to sumydid for example, thought this exchange would be more pleasant.

bbarr,

We'll do this dialectically, for the sake of clarity.

My first question: At any point in the Bible does God either order the killing of young children, or kill young children Himself? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

After reviewing what "dialectically" means, I hope you do not expect me to answer every post of yours with only a "yes" or a "no". In your last post, I also have put some questions to you. If the dialogue can run both ways, I don't mind.

I gave you a YES. There are some instances where God commanded that the infants be killed along with the parants. I indicated that that apparently was not always the case. And I pointed out that to the fair minded reader, it could be enquired WHY it was not always the case. In fact considerable mercy was displayed in the prophetic instructions in other portions of the Bible, ie. with Nineveh in the book of Jonah.

You have not replied yet. But let me speak to the severe cases that you use to level the "horrific" charge against God's character. The most severe cases occur, I think, in the judgment of certain Canaanite societies. Without a doubt there was what could reasonably be called "slaughter" commanded in a few cases.

Two things come to mind to the more objective student of the Bible:

1.) God had told Abraham centries before the conquest of Canaan that it was not yet time to judge the Amorites because their iniquity had not developed to the level in which slaughter was justified:

"But as for you [Abraham], you will go to your fathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age. And in the fourth generation they will come here again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." (Genesis 15:15,16)

The phrase "the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete" means that the people have not gotten BAD ENOUGH yet. The downward decline of their society needs another 400 years before such a "horrific" judgment carried out under general Joshua is justified in God's eyes.

It should be noted that even after 400 years when the "army of Jehovah" comes out of Egypt in that fourth generation, He added an ADDITIONAL 40 years in which the Hebrews wandered in the wilderness preparing to enter Canaan.

EDIT: In other words God gave the people 440 years to repent of their ways or disperse their centers or for the conscience struck to leave those societies. It was the hardest of the hard that were left when Joshua entered Canaan. Admittedly, that would not include babies.


2.) The fact of the matter is that God is the giver of man's life. And God alone has the authority and position to take man's life away. Any other taking of man's life is delegated or deputy authority in nature.

God alone as the Creator and Giver of life to every living thing has the right to remove that life, and that even of babies.

It should be apparent to the unbigoted, unprejudiced reader of the Bible that God surely did not exercise that divine right at a whim, or frequently, or loosely. But in some instances He did exercise that authority to take the life which He gave.

It is logical to me that in the full scope of the revelation of God's character, these harsh incidents would be included with the many many more dealings which revealed His mercy, longsuffering, patience, and redemptive salvation.

ps. For your sake I am trying to make more use of traditional paragraphs. Let's not get distracted with style too much. This is the Internet.

Originally posted by jaywill
bbarr,

We'll do this dialectically, for the sake of clarity.

My first question: At any point in the Bible does God either order the killing of young children, or kill young children Himself? This is a 'yes' or 'no' question.

After reviewing what "dialectically" means, I hope you do not expect me to answer every post of yours w ...[text shortened]... t's not get distracted with style too much. This is the Internet.

The expected response to this by some athiest like bbarr might be "But I don't believe God exists."

But if the athiest wants to refer to Scripture to make his charge of the "horrific God" I have the right to respond from Scripture to examine the charge.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ok, but there is no lying and no one is hurt through consensul sex/love.

I am not talking about adultery , which clearly harms others ,(most of the time)

Fantasizing about adultery is neither here nor there. Again, we are not talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, which does not harm anyone.

Please note the difference between actions that hurt others and actions that dont.

Fantasizing about adultery is neither here nor there. Again, we are not talking about adultery, we are talking about homosexuality, which does not harm anyone.

Please note the difference between actions that hurt others and actions that dont.

The issue of the thought life is not always easy. Some evil thoughts are injected into men's minds by evil spiritual forces. Not all of the evil thoughts that fly through our minds really originate from us.

It is impossible probably, for the unbeliever to realize this. And he may either rebelliously embrace such thoughts with pride (since he seems unable to resist them) or feel over guilty for thinking them.

The experienced Christian however, learns that not all evil thoughts orginated from himself. And he can refuse to accept responsibility for some of these evil thoughts. A saying was once - "You cannot stop a bird from flying over your head. But you can stop him from making a nest in your hair."

The meaning to the Christians is that you cannot avoid that some evil thoughts will fly before your mind. You can however prevent them from lodging there and in your heart.

But Jesus did say that a man is defiled by what comes out of his heart. Jesus said "evil reasonings" issue out of the heart and defile the man. So God expects that the words of our mouth and the meditation of our hearts would be acceptable to Him.

And the Proverb shows that the thought life must be guarded because it will eventually enfluence the behavior:

"Can a man take fire into his bosom and his clothes not be burned?"

Letting Jesus Christ into your heart is the beginning of letting Him come into all the inward parts of your thought life - gradually, very gently. In this way transformation in the soul takes place.

The point in all of this post is that the thought life of the follower of Jesus also must come under the control of the Holy Spirit. And the paradox is that the more control of the Holy Spirit, the more self control.

That is the wonderful paradox. One of the fruits of the Holy Spirit is definitely "self control".

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes, one basic point I wanted to be shown directly is this: (although it has been inferred by many posts already) , There isa HUGE difference between sins like murder,theft,etc. (sins that hurt other people )and so called sins that only affect the individual making those decisions.
How Rajk or anyone else for that matter can lump homosexual activity ...[text shortened]... r.
This is ridiculous thinking in my book, not to mention that prohibition has never worked.

Thankfully, God decides what constitues a sin Karoly, not Rajk or anyone else. There are many many sins in which no one is hurt, in the way you describe, but they are sins nevertheless. In fact the most grevious of sins, is blasphemy. Is anyone hurt when blasphemy is comitted?

Since when the criteria for a sin is only when some other person is hurt. That whole idea is utter nonsense in the eyes of Christianity. Why are you applying your personal rules to Christians? It is foolish to try to do that.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Thankfully, God decides what constitues a sin Karoly, not Rajk or anyone else. There are many many sins in which no one is hurt, in the way you describe, but they are sins nevertheless. In fact the most grevious of sins, is blasphemy. Is anyone hurt when blasphemy is comitted?

Since when the criteria for a sin is only when some other person is hurt ...[text shortened]... ity. Why are you applying your personal rules to Christians? It is foolish to try to do that.

Thankfully, God decides what constitues a sin Karoly, not Rajk or anyone else.
Erm no...it is the humans who invented sin and invented Bible-"God" that decided what constitutes a sin.
The word itself, being centred around a fictional construct, is without tangible meaning; indeed "to sin" is merely to do what an imaginary entity would supposedly dislike if it were a thing that existed. Moreover, any intersection between the set of sins and the set of immoral acts is merely coincidental.

Originally posted by sumydid
ka,

A broken promise to God is one of the most aggregious sins a Christian can commit; and yet, no one is hurt by it. Right?

A lie where no one is hurt, is no big deal to some people, but it's a big deal to Christians.

Adultery, if never discovered and never ending in a broken family, is a big deal to Christians.

Jesus said just fantasizing abou ...[text shortened]... ieve it is wrong to commit a lot of different actions, whether anyone is directly hurt or not.

That's because fundamentalist zealots like yourself have a twisted perspective on life and an unfathomable ordering of priorities.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Thankfully, God decides what constitues a sin Karoly, not Rajk or anyone else.
Erm no...it is the humans who invented sin and invented Bible-"God" that decided what constitutes a sin.
The word itself, being centred around a fictional construct, is without tangible meaning; indeed "to sin" is merely to do what an imaginary entity would supposedly dis ...[text shortened]... any intersection between the set of sins and the set of immoral acts is merely coincidental.[/b]

Psa_53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Psa_53:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

Yes, a human wrote that...so what!? 😕

Originally posted by jaywill
The expected response to this by some athiest like bbarr might be "But I don't believe God exists."

But if the athiest wants to refer to Scripture to make his charge of the "horrific God" I have the right to respond [b]from Scripture to examine the charge.[/b]

Sorry, it's been a very busy day here. I'll respond to all this in little bit, after I cook dinner. And of course I don't mind you using scripture to defend your views. My contention is that God, the character described in the Bible, is morally monstrous; that he is horrific. If there is exculpatory evidence in the Bible, then of course it's reasonable to present it. What won't fly, however, is pure question-begging. If I give a set of reasons that support the conclusion "God is horrific", and your counter-arguments essentially rely on the assumption that God, by definition, cannot be horrific (regardless of what he does), then that is simply question-begging, and in any case is a unjustified departure from the clear meaning of the term 'horrific'. More later...

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]As far as your first point, I carefully read bbarr's comments and he did not specifically mention 'by design' that I recall, plus he put a moral clause in his argument where I argued from a purely scientific viewpoint.

So basically you are committing the fundamental error of the naturalistic fallacy.[/b]

No. I'm committing no fallacy.

I'm saying the anus--more directly, the prostate--is not designed to be a sexual organ. You and presumably the others, contend that the prostate/anus is, and was designed to be, a sexual organ.

That's the crux of the entire debate of design.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i wonder what it is that makes people on this forum (and in debates forums in general) resort to abuse.

That's rich coming from someone who has lashed out with insults and namecalling multiple times, in just this thread alone.

Originally posted by sumydid
No. I'm committing no fallacy.

I'm saying the anus--more directly, the prostate--is not designed to be a sexual organ. You and presumably the others, contend that the prostate/anus is, and was designed to be, a sexual organ.

That's the crux of the entire debate of design.

I'm saying the anus--more directly, the prostate--is not designed to be a sexual organ. You and presumably the others, contend that the prostate/anus is, and was designed to be, a sexual organ.

I don't believe that any part of my body was 'designed'. Now you can catalogue various facts of my body but I do not see why that should entail any normative value. You could show, for example, that anal sex has health risks. You might be right. But why should that matter to me? I might simply respond that I don't care about said health risks. Design is something that you impute.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I'm saying the anus--more directly, the prostate--is not designed to be a sexual organ. You and presumably the others, contend that the prostate/anus is, and was designed to be, a sexual organ.

I don't believe that any part of my body was 'designed'. Now you can catalogue various facts of my body but I do not see why that should entail any ...[text shortened]... pond that I don't care about said health risks. Design is something that you impute.[/b]

True dat.

We could spin off into a debate on how the human body--if not designed--randomly morphed into what it is... but that's something else entirely.

I think we've exhausted the subject. I walk away having learned some things, and I was clearly unable to win anyone over to my point of view. The odds of that were astronomically low anyway, but nevertheless, I accept it.

Thanks.