Do you think that the bible is against gays?

[Hdier]

I always thought that this was stupid, as most of the examples are misinterpreted (my opinion) or something similar (if anyone wants to give me an example to shoot down, please do). What do you all think of this?

[brewmaster]

I think its ridiculous, there are very few passages cited in support of modern chrisitanitiy's view of homosexuals. All of them are vague, and are the interpretations by ridiculous people. The bible is the greatest STORY ever told, nothing more. I find it hilarious that people use it as 'god's' infallible word.

I love INTeJer's (sorry if I spelled it wrong man) take on religion, that theists are 99.9% atheists. Believing that text has any validity moreso than any other written by man, whatsoever is mind-blowing.

[rocksteady]

the bible is probably the most edited book in history. As brewmaster said, i can't take anyone who quotes it seriously

[RoqueBear]

Really...? I mean, really really? Are you serious really? Is this even a real question or just your inner troll?

THE BIBLE!!!! Christianity's most holiest doctrine of faith or mind control.... It has been used throughout its entire history to justify discrimination against every single minority or diverse group ***THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN***

I don't mean this personally... but, if you should have any doubt in your mind... I am sorry you never had the opportunity to experience diversity and adversity in your life. Maybe I'm just too independent, but please consider some education, learning about perspectives and ideas of the worlds people...

If this came off too strong.. I apologize.. I'm tired...

[INTeJer]

I love INTeJer's (sorry if I spelled it wrong man) take on religion, that theists are 99.9% atheists.

Thanks man. Spelling is fine. And I agree with what you say on the bible and the people who "interpret".

[Hdier]

the bible is probably the most edited book in history. As brewmaster said, i can't take anyone who quotes it seriously

Which is percisely the reason why I don't look to the bible for help. I don't like the church either, because the church has caused so many problems, justifying their actions in the name of religion (and if national treasure was only true...). Also, their interpertations are way off.

Really...? I mean, really really? Are you serious really? Is this even a real question or just your inner troll?

THE BIBLE!!!! Christianity's most holiest doctrine of faith or mind control.... It has been used throughout its entire history to justify discrimination against every single minority or diverse group ***THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN***


What? Gay is the only prejudice I've ever heard of coming from the bible!

Anyways, I have no doubts that saying that the bible doesn't like gays is BS, I simply want your opinions on the subject.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Um... have you ever READ the bible? Fred Phelps' slogan "God Hates Fags" isn't a literal translation, but it's very close. No interpretation required.

Personally, though- I don't put much stock in the opinions of bronze-age goatherders.

[The 10th Plague]

Well, the bible indeed is against homosexual people (so it's a real discrimination book).

I'm not talking here about Sodom and Gomorra, because the section of Sodom wasn't destroyed for it's "homosexuality"; No, it was destroyed because all the men of the village wanted to RAPE the angel (forgot the name). Just look at what Lot said: "take one of my daughters, they're still virgins, but don't take my guests". (cruel sentence though; I think Lot himself should be turned into a salt-pilar, not his wife :p )

But I AM talking about the book of Leviticus; it really sais that homosexual acting should be punished with death:

Leviticus 20:13

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives..

This is pretty clear. I don't think this can be interpreted differently.

Leviticus contains many more of these "laws" in which people are bound to be killed. This is why I think the bible is a very bad book.

Oowh by the way: Leviticus 20 starts with "And God said to Moses:..." , so every "law" in Leviticus comes directly from God, according to the bible ofcourse (I am an Atheïst and just think the whole bible is just a fairy-tale)

[Hdier]

I was wondering when that would be brought up. The bible also talks about the stereotypes of the man being a provider, and the woman being the supporter (stay at home person). Plus, does something that clear occur more than once (in the bible)? If that is the only example, then the argument is very weak.

[The 10th Plague]

I was wondering when that would be brought up. The bible also talks about the stereotypes of the man being a provider, and the woman being the supporter (stay at home person). Plus, does something that clear occur more than once (in the bible)? If that is the only example, then the argument is very weak.

It comes up at least 2 times in Leviticus.

[banzai]

I do not think the Bible was ever meant to be used as a rulebook to judge people by... only one entity should be doing that. :P

However, it is a guideline to follow, and I do think it is fairly clear about homosexuality. It has no natural function and simply doesn't fit into the engineering of the world like a lot of what we consider right does. Whether it's chosen or not is moot, because there are plenty of other natural urges that still require our better judgement as humans to supress.

HOWEVER (and that is a big however) the problem is not homosexuality, but when people decide that it is any worse than their own plethora of sins.

"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)

To discriminate, or even just to compare sins, is to cast stones when we need to realize that we are all equally tainted and in need of forgiveness.


So I guess to sum it up... it's not that we need to pretend it isn't wrong so much as understand that a lot of things are wrong, we have all done them, and we all need redemption.

At least, I think that's the most logical explanation if you buy into the doctrine in the first place.

[Lights]

Old Testament: Yes
New Testament: No

[Henry]

I always thought that this was stupid, as most of the examples are misinterpreted (my opinion) or something similar (if anyone wants to give me an example to shoot down, please do). What do you all think of this?

Why do you care? Concerned about Zeus watching you lay with other men and then smiting thee with thunderbolts? That Thor will lay mash thy private bits for having another man touch them? Or that Yaweh will send thee into the belly of the whale?

Or are we just picking on the pathetic literalists?

[Mechanical Messiah]

Not sure I understand the point of this thread, either. Regardless, there's plenty of anti-gay stuff in both the old and new testaments. See here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The bible really is a fascinating book, and I reccomend that anybody with the time and attention span read it cover-to-cover... ESPECIALLY Christians (who usually only read cherry-picked verses from church). God's attitudes toward gays are barely the tip of the iceberg. You'll find god-sanctioned rape and genocide... God even promises to make parents (certain ones who piss him off) eat their own children.

Personally, I think Man created God in his own image... and the Bible reflects what a nasty bunch of primates we really can be.

[Lights]

Jesus never spoke on homosexuality and the new testament references are references back to the old testament. I won't deny that Paul had some serious problems with homosexuality.

[Mechanical Messiah]

From what I can tell, modern christianity is based more on the teachings of Paul than the teachings of Jesus.

[Tsuru]

I always thought that this was stupid, as most of the examples are misinterpreted (my opinion) or something similar (if anyone wants to give me an example to shoot down, please do). What do you all think of this?

The bible clearly says engaging in homosexual male sex is an abomination and said people should be put to death in aforementioned Leviticus verse.

Also, Batman's motive as a hero is clearly self-interest and revenge and never has interest in altruism and the desire to do good, as is made obvious in issue 3 page 12.

I'm also convinced that the Smurfs are asexual beings and that pappa smurf layed a bunch of eggs to originally populate the smurf village (as opposed to the crude fluid exchange that mammals use to replicate). You can see the spawning pits in the back of the smurf village on episode 20! :O

So... There may be a right answer to these questions, but the big picture is that it's just some book some guys wrote so that old school jews would behave themselves, it's just a comic book, and it's just a tv show. ;)

[blueback]

I think it's pretty clear that a literal interpretation of the Bible is impossible. The Bible was never written in English, and translators are often biased. For example, a couple of the key elements of the Christian story are that Jesus died on a cross and that Mary was still a virgin when she gave birth. However, the translations of the words "cross" and "virgin" are open to interpretation. The simple fact that people have been arguing over the translation of each since shortly after the Bible was written is proof enough that there is no correct answer.

"The English word cross is used to translate the original Greek word, transliterated as stauros, which actually means post or stake"

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"The Greek word parthenos carries a basic meaning of 'girl', hence it denotes 'virgin' only by implication. And in fact this word could also be used to refer to non-virgin women who weren't married."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Since the exact wording of the Bible is open to debate, and therefore the exact meaning is too, no one can say anything for sure about its message. It is possible to support some vague ideas, being kind to your neighbors, sacrificing animals, etc.

I think that actually works in the Church's favor. If the rules were written in stone (pun intended) then there would be no room for interpretation and no one would be able to accumulate power. If no one could establish a power base then they couldn't spread the word and/or conquer more territory. Without more land and more converts the Church wouldn't grow. If the Church didn't grow it would be pushed aside by a religion that did. Just like most of the pagan religions when monotheism was invented.

[ShaiGar]

I kind of like the story of Lilith the first feminist. She'd have stayed with him if he didn't treat her like an animal.

[Tarrick]

Jesus never spoke on homosexuality and the new testament references are references back to the old testament. I won't deny that Paul had some serious problems with homosexuality.

Jesus taught that we should love people and forgive them. But he also taught that once forgive, we should sin no more.

From what I can tell, modern Christianity is based more on the teachings of Paul than the teachings of Jesus.

Paul wrote many letters to many churches, each of which addressed specific issues within those churches and the problems they were having. Each one was tailored to the people, the culture and problems that they were having at that time.


Also, the bible's "rules", or whatever you call them, are for CHRISTIANS (or Jews in the case of the Torah). They are not for us to put on others, they are for us to follow as followers of Christ (for Christians at least). In 1st Corinthians (Chapter 5 if you want to read it) it states to cast out the immoral brother: If there is a church member that is not acting properly, and would not listen to his brothers or the elders of the church, they were to send him out so that people would understand that that is not something that is properly representative of the church.

As for the Old Testament, you must understand who those rules were written for in the first place. This was not for a large and stable society of millions. At that time the Israelites were a nomadic band of some thousands, and society like that could not absorb any kind of social unrest or non-conformity without endangering the rest of the nation. If there were and sort of schism, the whole nation of Israel could have been wiped off the map before they made it back to Canaan (modern Israel).

[Lights]

Jesus taught that we should love people and forgive them. But he also taught that once forgive, we should sin no more.

Comparing a story of a prostitute to the current situation with homosexuals isn't exactly fair or logical IMHO. Plus you insinuate that homosexuality is a sin, to which I don't see how it estranges me from God when I have never felt closer to God since accepting my sexuality. I think if the son of God, or God himself, or whatever you wish to believe, felt homosexuality was such an important issue, then he would have remarked on it. And yet Jesus did speak a great deal about charity and forgiveness, yet the Christians I know hardly practice those ideals. It has become a very hypocritical religion at best, marked by hatred and intolerance.

The verses on homosexuality in the Bible seem to reflect more on the times, and the Roman perspective of natural law, than in God's word. Unless God also believed in slavery and the subjugation of women. And even Paul conceded that the Bible should be used as a guide, with reason being the ultimate guide in human action. I reason that where there is love, there is God. And IMO, comparing the kind of homosexuality that existed back in those days, to the kind today where two consenting adults may wish to spend the rest of their lives together and dedicated toward starting a family, would be like comparing apples to oranges.

And no, that wasn't a fruit joke. ;)

[banzai]

^ I disagree... although there are lots of places where signs of the times were mentioned, they are worded differently and often without weight for or against.

If a woman did something bad as considered such by society "she was taken outside the city limits and stoned". However, this is different than "if a woman lays with another man besides her husband, she should be stoned". Some are observations and some are instructions.

Refer to my previous post... the focus with Jesus was a positive outlook, redemption. This does not make sins any less sinful, but simply not a focus.

That's why it's important not to mince words as to whether something is right or wrong... "so because we are all forgiven, it's ok to do [sinful deed]?" "erm... no", "but you said that sin wasn't important"... right, Jesus overcame sin, but that doesn't make it any less wrong.

I'm not sure how else to explain it.

[janonymous]

the bible is against sodomy and homosexuality...it's pure fact.

despite the fact, it's important to recognize that the bible contradicts itself within its own pages. it's also important to note that although the bible specifically and literally states that NO woman should be in a position of authority (as to teaching a man), protestants are regularly accepting woman as pastors...thus, people's interpretations of the bible are sensitive to cultural changes.

people often neglect the FACT that the bible was not written in a single flashing moment of divinity. it took time to scribe the pages. the bible as we see it today still has its different versions which sometimes contain different books. people have also written books that they felt were divinely inspired to be added into the bible, but the only reason those books were excluded was due to other people's judgment regarding the divinity in their message.

we should see that humans are flawed beings. despite being guided by the perfect hand of God, a broken pen is bound to spill some ink. i believe noticing that we are always flawed serves as an important reminder that we can and must always change...and change for the better.

if a homosexual sees his/her own sexuality as a flaw, he/she should know that he/she has the power to change.
if a heterosexual sees homosexuality as a flaw, the heterosexual should learn to not be abusively concerned about where a man chooses to consentingly insert his penis.

[The 10th Plague]

@ Grayscale

Why would homosexuality be a sin in the first place? All other sins are actions which are based on a choice by an individual. With homosexuality, this isn't the case: a person does NOT choose to be gay, or straight, or bi-sexual. A person just ís gay, straight, or bi. It's like being black or white. A homosexual is homosexual from is birth; homosexuality just manifest later than birth, it manifests itself during puberty, when hormones get active. Actually, a straight person cannot know if he/she's straight before reaching puberty. This is just the same with homosexuality; a person cannot know his sexuality before puberty.

So why would homosexuality be in sin in this modern world? I can imagine homosexuality being a sin in small community's as homosexuality does not bring any children, but I cannot see why homosexuality is a sin in modern society.

Let's put it this way: several verses in the Bible clearly reject homosexuality. As a homosexual, I get a bit angry when I read a line that says I should be killed, for something I can't change and didn't choose. And I think I'm not alone in my anger ;).

@ Lights

I totally agree with the first part of your post, but not with the second part. Ofcourse Roman culture had a great deal in forming Christianity as we know it, but the Bible was written in Israël and other parts of the Middle-East. The New Testament surely has a lot Roman influences, as it was "created" during the concil of Nicaea, but the Old Testament has not. So, the Old Testament (largely derived from the Jew Thora), and it's laws are not influenced by Roman culture. You can clearly see that when it comes to homosexuality. The Old Testament clearly rejects homosexuality, but Roman (and Greek) culture did NOT. In Roman and Greek culture, it was the most normal thing in the world to be homosexual - they even didn't have a word for it. In Ancient Greek society, it even was described as "the highest form of love possible". Also, many men had ,apart from their wife's, a boyfriend. (And a juicy fact: the Ancient Olympic Games were held naked, and it was pretty common for sporters to have an erection :p . ) Roman culture was derived for a large part from Greek culture, and so Roman culture also was open to homosexuality.

[Hdier]

So why would homosexuality be in sin in this modern world? I can imagine homosexuality being a sin in small community's as homosexuality does not bring any children, but I cannot see why homosexuality is a sin in modern society.

Dang, you beat me to it. I was going to point out that we have to many humans on Earth (just look at how many orphans their are!), and not only do homosexuals not produce children (generally), but we are more likely to adopt, giving more people loving parents to grow up with.

[banzai]

@ Grayscale

Why would homosexuality be a sin in the first place? All other sins are actions which are based on a choice by an individual. With homosexuality, this isn't the case: a person does NOT choose to be gay, or straight, or bi-sexual. A person just ís gay, straight, or bi. It's like being black or white. A homosexual is homosexual from is birth; homosexuality just manifest later than birth, it manifests itself during puberty, when hormones get active. Actually, a straight person cannot know if he/she's straight before reaching puberty. This is just the same with homosexuality; a person cannot know his sexuality before puberty.

So why would homosexuality be in sin in this modern world? I can imagine homosexuality being a sin in small community's as homosexuality does not bring any children, but I cannot see why homosexuality is a sin in modern society.

Let's put it this way: several verses in the Bible clearly reject homosexuality. As a homosexual, I get a bit angry when I read a line that says I should be killed, for something I can't change and didn't choose. And I think I'm not alone in my anger ;).

I need to stress yet again that although I won't bend on this, I do not mean to say so judgmentally, I just can't say something that I don't think is true.

I don't know if someone is born gay or not. I would guess that they aren't, because many have changed orientation throughout their life... I'd say it's like any other preference, chosen but built on a behavioral foundation that is likely a result of their surroundings in their life thus far. I like the color blue, although I choose blue over the other colors because I like it more, I have no idea why.

Either way, as I said before, whether it is or isn't is moot. We are all born into sin and I don't see why homosexuality would be any different from any other sins of flesh. If a man feels the need to steal, should it then be ok for him to do so because that is "just the way he is?", or should he use his human ability to choose to not do so? We are all sinful without God and that is why that although I will not mince words in regards to homosexuality, I can't condone any church that would approach it as a more severe sin than any other, simply because "church-folk" see it as a bit more off-the-wall than something like theft.

It's a touchy subject, obviously, because most people see homosexuals set apart and vouched for as a lifestyle... when I come in here and say that it is still wrong no matter how much society accepts it, it seems like an attack. Really, though, it's no different than me saying that sex outside of marriage is sinful, except for some reason that isn't seen as me putting someone down.

[stasis]

It's a touchy subject, obviously, because most people see homosexuals set apart and vouched for as a lifestyle... when I come in here and say that it is still wrong no matter how much society accepts it, it seems like an attack. Really, though, it's no different than me saying that sex outside of marriage is sinful, except for some reason that isn't seen as me putting someone down.
I think the reason is that "sex outside of marriage" isn't a type of person. It's not generally a fundamental component of a person's psycho-social identity, whereas sexual orientation (and, by extension, gender) is. And also, some people think sexual preference is an orientation people are born with; in which case, again quite unlike "sex outside of marriage," it is not something they've one day decided to become. You can argue that people are born into "sin" immediately enough, but I think it would be difficult to argue that people are born into "sex outside of marriage". If anything, that'd be an elective consequence of some other more basic sin.

As far as christian anti-homosexuality goes, I find your position to be amongst the most self-consistent. Still, I completely reject it.

[blueback]

We are all sinful without God .

Weeeeeell. . .I have to disagree. Sin only exists because of God, so it is more appropriate to say that we are all sinful BECAUSE of God. Without God there wouldn't be any sin.

So, I guess the question becomes, do you think that sin exists without God? Did God simply make us aware of the sin that existed before himself (you know what I mean) or did God define what was sin at some point after attaining conciousness?

[Hdier]

Weeeeeell. . .I have to disagree. Sin only exists because of God, so it is more appropriate to say that we are all sinful BECAUSE of God. Without God there wouldn't be any sin.

No, their would be sin, just without the label attached to it.

Actually, now that I think about it, without God there would not be any humans so I suppose that their wouldn't be any sin.

[banzai]

I think the reason is that "sex outside of marriage" isn't a type of person. It's not generally a fundamental component of a person's psycho-social identity, whereas sexual orientation (and, by extension, gender) is. And also, some people think sexual preference is an orientation people are born with; in which case, again quite unlike "sex outside of marriage," it is not something they've one day decided to become. You can argue that people are born into "sin" immediately enough, but I think it would be difficult to argue that people are born into "sex outside of marriage". If anything, that'd be an elective consequence of some other more basic sin.

As far as Christian anti-homosexuality goes, I find your position to be amongst the most self-consistent. Still, I completely reject it.

Ah, but perhaps that is because many churches have lumped the act itself with the lifestyle and even many of it's mannerisms.

However, I myself am only comparing it to sex outside of marriage (or any other sin) in the sense of the very act itself, in which case it really isn't any different than any other sin in that we choose. The lifestyle is built from the mindset, not the single act in and of itself.

I have met many men and women who I consider righteous who've come from a background heavy in drugs and prison life... and the difference between me and a lot of "church-folk" (pretentious ones anyways) is that I do not see the ripped clothing, tattoos, colorful vocabulary, or general attitude as sinful. It is possible to identify a certain way and still choose between right and wrong.

I'd even go so far to say that I am not concerned with sinful acts past what they say about the place of someone's heart. If someone's heart is in the right place with God, then I think that's awesome... it's just difficult to get here when someone is being disobedient.

It's a very convoluted matter, I understand... too many misguided Christians (or people claiming to be) have spent too long judging people through their own eyes instead of seeing other people as God sees them, and that has left a lot of unnecessary wounds.

* Grayscale added to this post, 6 minutes and 25 seconds later...

Weeeeeell. . .I have to disagree. Sin only exists because of God, so it is more appropriate to say that we are all sinful BECAUSE of God. Without God there wouldn't be any sin.

So, I guess the question becomes, do you think that sin exists without God? Did God simply make us aware of the sin that existed before himself (you know what I mean) or did God define what was sin at some point after attaining conciousness?

I wouldn't say we're sinful because of God, I'd say that with the existence of God also comes the concept of right and wrong, the ultimate being of course representing right, almost by definition.

The choice to disobey (at least, as far as the Bible says) was heralded upon us by Adam and Eve. God cannot interfere with this choice out of principal... what meaning is there to someone doing the right thing if they had no choice?

I can't prove one way or another, and I'd hope people can get past this simplicity and understand that a lot of what I say is built upon the assumption that you believe in God, which you may not. Without God, there is no higher meaning to anything and no point in this discussion...

To answer your second question, God is above the concept of time, existing infinitely into the past and future...

[Lights]

Roman culture was derived for a large part from Greek culture, and so Roman culture also was open to homosexuality.

I hate to disagree with you, but the large part of what I have read of Roman history is different from what you suggest. Early Rome did have a great deal of bisexuality and even bestiality, but that was pretty exclusive to the upper class. It was considerably different than the Greeks in the lower classes in the sense that they didn't celebrate sex at all (but they did glorify violence) and the result was stigmas against homosexuality and bisexuality. This is largely due to the belief perpetrated by early philosophers such as Aristotle that homosexuality was a disorder perpetrated by pedestry. A belief that still resonates in the modern world with pedophilia. When Christianity came around, it forged the Romans together in a movement to eradicate homosexuality and bisexuality from Rome. This is something I have studied in great detail.

* Lights added to this post, 10 minutes and 12 seconds later...

...

So ultimately, the church's argument against homosexuality hinges on the belief that it is a choice or at least a preference that is only influenced by biological factors.

That argument seems strange to me when I read that the church often considers homosexual behavior to be the result of a developmental disorder resulting from lacking a father figure or molestation. If that were the case then it wouldn't really be a choice.

You might argue that there is therapy to help those who choose it, but even research done by advocates for reparative therapy (Ex-gay research of Exodus) suggests that the success of such is limited to making those who identify as "purely gay" into "less gay" or "bisexual". Whereas those who are already "less gay" or "bisexual" make little change despite how much effort and faith they put into changing.

And science has proven many hormonal influences that lead to homosexuality before birth, so asking an individual who was born in such a way to fight against their natural attractions would be similar to asking a heterosexual to give up sex or find the same sex attractive.

This leads me to two conclusions. Either man diddled with the Bible or God fucked this one up.

[banzai]

So ultimately, the church's argument against homosexuality hinges on the belief that it is a choice or at least a preference that is only influenced by biological factors.

That argument seems strange to me when I read that the church often considers homosexual behavior to be the result of a developmental disorder resulting from lacking a father figure or molestation. If that were the case then it wouldn't really be a choice.

You might argue that there is therapy to help those who choose it, but even research done by advocates for reparative therapy (Ex-gay research of Exodus) suggests that the success of such is limited to making those who identify as "purely gay" into "less gay" or "bisexual". Whereas those who are already "less gay" or "bisexual" make little change despite how much effort and faith they put into changing.

And science has proven many hormonal influences that lead to homosexuality before birth, so asking an individual who was born in such a way to fight against their natural attractions would be similar to asking a heterosexual to give up sex or find the same sex attractive.

This leads me to two conclusions. Either man diddled with the Bible or God fucked this one up.


First off, to refer to the opinion of so many people is dangerous... all I can vouch for is my intepretation, too churches miss a few details for me to readily clump my outlook with theirs.

What I am saying (and this isn't really an opinion) is that the mentality aside, the act itself is a choice, the urge is not. I don't really see the point of trying to figure out where the urges come from when the issue is whether or not someone acts on them.

This is what I am saying. I know a lot of people from "sinful" backgrounds who still reflect a lot of the lifestyle mannerisms... still have the mentality of wanting to abuse drugs and alcohol, but they choose not to.

And with that said, I do not see any difference between this and any other sin. Why would anyone do any other sin unless they wanted to? It doesn't matter if it's something your born with, something you develop, or just a whim, what they all have in common is the choice to do or not to do... the choice to obey our own selfish desires or to obey God. That doesn't mean that someone needs to try to change the ways they think without helping it, or to change the way they dress or speak, or any of that stuff, because that isn't intrinsically disobedient... but in the very act itself, everyone can choose.

Again, I also think it is important to point out that that although there is much discussion on this, it is only important to the extent of reflecting where one's heart is with God. If one really loves God then that is all that matters, everything else will come out of that.

[Tsuru]

Personally I'm not very keen on being told that I'm a sinner but am something to be tolerated because the rest of humanity is just as rotten in different ways. It's something of an underhanded sentiment in my eyes. *shrug*

I think the crux of the matter is, that there is little or no genuine/objective rationale for why homosexual sex is fundamentally immoral in nature in the first place.

Practically every ethical system (except for relativistic ones) give explanations for why stealing and killing and lesser destructive behaviors (conning people, being a big jerk, ect) are wrong. They destroy/worsen life, violate people's rights, destabilize the necessary environment for living peacefully and productively, ect.

The only ammunition against homosexuality is scripture. Or a flimsy darwinistic attack at most (bad strategy for replication). I think it's important in the cultural dialogue on the issue to never grant the basic premise that homosexuals are sinners in the first place, even if the tone of it is completely benign.

[Lights]

First off, to refer to the opinion of so many people is dangerous... all I can vouch for is my intepretation, too churches miss a few details for me to readily clump my outlook with theirs.

I think it's a fair assumption since that has been the official doctrine of most churches. The Catholic Church takes the same position as you in declaring homosexual behavior, not homosexuality, as the sin.

What I am saying (and this isn't really an opinion) is that the mentality aside, the act itself is a choice, the urge is not. I don't really see the point of trying to figure out where the urges come from when the issue is whether or not someone acts on them.

This is what I am saying. I know a lot of people from "sinful" backgrounds who still reflect a lot of the lifestyle mannerisms... still have the mentality of wanting to abuse drugs and alcohol, but they choose not to.

Comparing something you were born with or may have had forced upon you is not comparable to drugs and alcohol, which were choices individuals made and consequences they have to live with. To live your life deprived of sex, one of the greatest pleasures of life, simply because a book says so with no objective reasoning behind it, is a hard case to sell.

In addition to that, God was very clear on many points such as "Thou shall not kill" and yet capital punishment and military campaigns for the safety and security of the free world, are excluded from that rule. I could name off 9 other such rules that have been reinterpreted to allow exceptions to behavior in the modern era. And the commandments seem to be quite contradictory to what God emphasizes in earlier portions of the Bible. Why must God contradict himself? Or could another hand have played a part?

And with that said, I do not see any difference between this and any other sin. Why would anyone do any other sin unless they wanted to? It doesn't matter if it's something your born with, something you develop, or just a whim, what they all have in common is the choice to do or not to do... the choice to obey our own selfish desires or to obey God. That doesn't mean that someone needs to try to change the ways they think without helping it, or to change the way they dress or speak, or any of that stuff, because that isn't intrinsically disobedient... but in the very act itself, everyone can choose.

I simply don't see as many Christians gung ho to stop heterosexual kids from having sex before marriage, enforcing fidelity in marriage, or fighting the spread of addictive drugs as I see out there voicing anti gay sentiment. This leads me to believe that Christians generally believe that homosexual behavior is a far worse sin than a violation of many of other traditional values they hold dear. In fact, I wonder what kind of country we would live in if half the people who are protesting the gay movement put their energy into making the world a better place to live?

Again, I also think it is important to point out that that although there is much discussion on this, it is only important to the extent of reflecting where one's heart is with God. If one really loves God then that is all that matters, everything else will come out of that.

No, if we are doing a strict interpretation of the Bible, then the conclusion is that because I follow through on a behavior, not of my choosing, in order to have the same happiness that any other person deserves, then I'm going to hell.

[The 10th Plague]

Practically every ethical system (except for relativistic ones) give explanations for why stealing and killing and lesser destructive behaviors (conning people, being a big jerk, ect) are wrong. They destroy/worsen life, violate people's rights, destabilize the necessary environment for living peacefully and productively, ect.

The only ammunition against homosexuality is scripture. Or a flimsy darwinistic attack at most (bad strategy for replication). I think it's important in the cultural dialogue on the issue to never grant the basic premise that homosexuals are sinners in the first place, even if the tone of it is completely benign.

Exactly! It is clear why stealing/killing and other forms of aggressive actions are valued as immoral and "bad"; they harm other people. Homosexuality does not harm anybody or whatsoever. Of course, there are certain groups of homosexuals who do harm people (in "normal" aggressive actions, and sexual actions), but there are no more "harmful" homosexual groups than there are harmful heterosexual groups. With just being homosexual, or doing homosexual actions, a person does not harm anyone. So why, than, is it to be considered as a sin?

I'll give you an example: When two men love eachother, and care for eachother, that's just beautiful and good. So why would that be sinful?

[Lights]

Exactly! It is clear why stealing/killing and other forms of aggressive actions are valued as immoral and "bad"; they harm other people. Homosexuality does not harm anybody or whatsoever. Of course, there are certain groups of homosexuals who do harm people (in "normal" aggressive actions, and sexual actions), but there are no more "harmful" homosexual groups than there are harmful heterosexual groups. With just being homosexual, or doing homosexual actions, a person does not harm anyone. So why, than, is it to be considered as a sin?

I'll give you an example: When two men love eachother, and care for eachother, that's just beautiful and good. So why would that be sinful?

There are a few arguments.

HIV is still spread mostly between men. (Although that doesn't really apply to lesbians who practice the safest sex and gay men are spreading the disease at substantially lower rates each year while heterosexuals are spreading the disease at substantially higher rates each year.)
Anal sex is associated with all sorts of health problems and complications such as increased risk of prostate cancer. (Once again, not applying to lesbians, and there are health complications for women associated with having vaginal sex.)
Anal sex is also the easiest means of spreading most STDs. (But that applies for both straight and gay couples)
And homosexuals who choose to act on their urges make themselves susceptible to a hostile environment. (Although I don't know whether it is really fair to blame homosexuals for religious intolerance and homophobia)

[banzai]

Comparing something you were born with or may have had forced upon you is not comparable to drugs and alcohol, which were choices individuals made and consequences they have to live with.

I was not comparing the two in this instance... just pointing out the difference between the mannerisms developed and the act itself.

In addition to that, God was very clear on many points such as "Thou shall not kill" and yet capital punishment and military campaigns for the safety and security of the free world, are excluded from that rule.

I do not think the Bible contradicts itself directly. For your example, murder, or killing for selfish intension, is different than any given form of killing. Regardless, there are people who dedicate their entire lives to studying the intricacies of the Bible and to try and pretend any of us know as much as they is kinda silly.

This leads me to believe that Christians generally believe that homosexual behavior is a far worse sin than a violation of many of other traditional values they hold dear.

Many do. See my previous posts... I can understand why homosexuals feel so slighted by a religious "we're perfect and you're tainted" mudslinging--this problem is with people vastly misinterpreting what eternal forgiveness is about. We are all unworthy, not just heterosexuals. In fact, to have to make such a distinction on a consistent basis is bothersome to me... it should be common sense, homosexuality is no "worse" a sin than any other, the mere existence of sin makes us unfit for God's presence. I don't even think homosexuality is so severe, I think a lot of why people speak of it as such is only because it's a bit more taboo than other sinful behavior.

In fact, that attitude pisses me off. How dare any human suggest, essentially, that someone has done something so bad that God can't forgive them? One just needs to remember that these are tiny, tiny people, and God is much bigger than that.

No, if we are doing a strict interpretation of the Bible, then the conclusion is that because I follow through on a behavior, not of my choosing, in order to have the same happiness that any other person deserves, then I'm going to hell.

Yours is a common attitude of those who have been slighted by "religious". Again, it is important to remember that these people are just people. They will talk only of punishment and penalties, in such a way that they can seem better, an exception to damnation.

You can't assume that the focus of these people is what God's focus is. He wants to have a relationship with you and is willing to forgive (You, me, everyone) if they'll ask. I've seen enough people go through this to know that if they'll pursue this, it will change you. God is so much better at healing us than we could ever be anyways. That's why that although I don't like to mince words about what I think is sinful and what isn't, I think people place too much importance on it. God is much bigger than sin and I don't think he loses any sleep over it. ;D

So why would that be sinful?

We are only now starting to find some surprising scientific reasoning to back things that God told people to do thousands of years ago... up till that, trust is needed.

There are a few arguments.

HIV is still spread mostly between men. (Although that doesn't really apply to lesbians who practice the safest sex and gay men are spreading the disease at substantially lower rates each year while heterosexuals are spreading the disease at substantially higher rates each year.)
Anal sex is associated with all sorts of health problems and complications such as increased risk of prostate cancer. (Once again, not applying to lesbians, and there are health complications for women associated with having vaginal sex.)
Anal sex is also the easiest means of spreading most STDs. (But that applies for both straight and gay couples)

I think it's important to look at the reasons that have surfaced behind more than just homosexuality. Take sex outside of marriage for one... if only an entire generation would follow that guideline, STDs would be eradicated entirely.

[The 10th Plague]

There are a few arguments.

HIV is still spread mostly between men. (Although that doesn't really apply to lesbians who practice the safest sex and gay men are spreading the disease at substantially lower rates each year while heterosexuals are spreading the disease at substantially higher rates each year.)
Anal sex is associated with all sorts of health problems and complications such as increased risk of prostate cancer. (Once again, not applying to lesbians, and there are health complications for women associated with having vaginal sex.)
Anal sex is also the easiest means of spreading most STDs. (But that applies for both straight and gay couples)
And homosexuals who choose to act on their urges make themselves susceptible to a hostile environment. (Although I don't know whether it is really fair to blame homosexuals for religious intolerance and homophobia)

Hmm.. I've always heard that anal sex does not increase risk on prostate cancer, but even helps to prevent it :huh: So I've done a bit google-ing, and the results I get that no link between anal sex and prostate cancer has been found (click (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), click (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), search query (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But indeed, anal sex ofcourse is a pretty easy way to spread STD's, but this also is the case with heterosexuals.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I fail to see why The Bible is relevent to morality at all. We're talking about a book that includes the following:

A talking snake

A talking donkey

A unicorn

dragons

A god who can't defeat "chariots of iron"

angels/devils

a man living in the belly of a fish

And it gets worse. God ordered his followers to commit genocide multiple times. In at least one case, there's god-sanctioned rape of the women left over from the genocide. But that's ok- 'cause God doesn't mind rape. In fact, according to the bible, if an unbetrothed virgin is raped... then she has to marry her rapist.

God killed every firstborn child in Egypt just to stroke his own ego. He drowned damn near every child and baby kitten on earth. He threatened to force parents to eat their own children. I could go on... but this is just a few highlights off the top of my head.

Why would any of you CARE what such a book (or such a God) says about homosexuality?

[banzai]

Yeah, also, if you highlight certain letters, you can find a secret code!

Lol.

[blueback]

Grayscale: I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed by the way you're handling your end of the conversation. You've been polite and humorous, which is something I don't expect from people who explain their beliefs. Additionally, your arguments all make sense to me. They're based on things I don't agree with, but at least you are aware and non-defensive.





blueback added to this post, 3 minutes and 38 seconds later...


Take sex outside of marriage for one... if only an entire generation would follow that guideline, STDs would be eradicated entirely.

Maybe. . .but what would be the point of living? I mean, if you have to spend eternity either burning in a lake of fire or strumming a harp on a cloud you might was well enjoy your time on Earth.

[banzai]

Grayscale: I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed by the way you're handling your end of the conversation. You've been polite and humorous, which is something I don't expect from people who explain their beliefs. Additionally, your arguments all make sense to me. They're based on things I don't agree with, but at least you are aware and non-defensive.

Maybe. . .but what would be the point of living? I mean, if you have to spend eternity either burning in a lake of fire or strumming a harp on a cloud you might was well enjoy your time on Earth.

I appreciate that... I do have somewhat of a unique outlook on the matter, being both a heavy critic (of everything) as well as someone who's seen many ill-intentioned and mis-guided Christians, and a few who have a good attitude but don't quite have the mental capacity to explain how it all works out even under heavy scrutiny (at least so far as I have seen).

Maybe. . .but what would be the point of living? I mean, if you have to spend eternity either burning in a lake of fire or strumming a harp on a cloud you might was well enjoy your time on Earth.

Well... I can't really say for sure, since it will never happen, but I think if everyone followed God's rules, we'd live a much happier life (albeit a more wholesome form of happiness than what we're used to).

Regardless, what I was pointing out was that although some of the guidelines don't make sense inherently, we are finding today a lot of surprising things and scientific backing. For example, there was direction to circumcise 8 days after a child was born... consequently this turned out to be the same duration chosen in modern medicine due to abnormally high prothrombin and vitamin K levels.

[Lights]

Regardless, what I was pointing out was that although some of the guidelines don't make sense inherently, we are finding today a lot of surprising things and scientific backing. For example, there was direction to circumcise 8 days after a child was born... consequently this turned out to be the same duration chosen in modern medicine due to abnormally high prothrombin and vitamin K levels.

I have no love for circumcision either, but that is a debate for another thread. ;)

I like your particular outlook on Christianity. Although I can't agree with you that being in a relationship with a man would be actively sinning or disobeying God, I do think you have the right attitude and outlook. You are honestly the first Christian I have encountered in years who practices the "judge not ye be judge" philosophy, and I find that admirable.

[Hdier]

Agreed, I have never met anyone who follows through with that philosophy. I attempt to, but the problem is that people disgust me with there lack of motivation, and selfishness and evil. If someone has good intentions, and is not just sitting around doing nothing when they want to do something, then I can generally follow it with a lot of willpower. Good job, Greyscale.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I think if everyone followed God's rules, we'd live a much happier life

Exactly which of the thousands of denominations of Christianity might define said rules? What about the contradictory ones?

Do you reckon those unbetrothed rape victims will have a much happier life while married to their rapists?

[banzai]

I'm not going to bother trying to decipher whatever inanity you're trying to convey here, but I will remind you that I did say I do not think that will ever happen.

It is merely a supposition. Not only do I not think it will happen here on earth, I don't even think it is necessary, and I do not think determining exactly what we need to do would be nearly as much a challenge as getting everyone to do it in the first place. That doesn't even require conjecture, you can see that now.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Read Deuteronomy, Chapter 22, verses 25-29

One of "God's rules" is that when an unbetrothed virgin is raped, she must marry her rapist. You said that if everybody followed "God's rules", then we'd live a much happier life. Would that rape victim be happy being married to her rapist? Seems unlikely to me.

There are hundreds and possibly thousands of different sects of Christianity (depending on how one defines "sect"). By definition, they all disagree with each other to some point on exaclty what "God's rules" are. I don't understand how the idea that folks should follow "God's rules" is even a useful concept when you personally (by definition) disagree with millions of other christians on exactly what "God's rules" are.

I suppose what you mean is this:

"I think if everyone followed My Rules, we'd live a much happier life"

[banzai]

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor, 27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

In those times, it was considered shameful to lose your virginity before marriage, and if a woman was "deflowered", then I'd imagine she would have a hard time finding someone willing to marry her, feed her family, etc. As described above, when a man rapes a virgin, he is at fault for this consequence and amends it by paying the bride's price and marrying her. You are mistaken in applying the modern thinking that a woman today would never marry someone who raped her, but back then that would have been better than him leaving her out to dry.

Obviously this doesn't apply now because a woman has plenty of options regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, and the exception wouldn't be a subject of complain for the victim here.

Only pointing this out to respond to your question, I already explained myself in regards to my previous comment and it does not need revision.

It is merely a supposition. Not only do I not think it will happen here on earth, I don't even think it is necessary, and I do not think determining exactly what we need to do would be nearly as much a challenge as getting everyone to do it in the first place. That doesn't even require conjecture, you can see that now.

[Mechanical Messiah]

You appear to be saying that "God's rules" need to be read in the context of the culture/society in which they were written... and applied nowadays in terms of our current culture/society. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

But if that is in fact what you're saying... then why would God's judgement of gays be any different? Gays are clearly more accepted in modern times, and there's no real reason to stone them. So if you're going to throw out the 'marriage-by-rape' rule... then why would you not throw out the "gays deserve to die" rule for essentially the same reasons?

[banzai]

No, I am saying that your example is illegitimate. I even think it would work in modern times... although the victim in this case would probably opt out... probably would not have chosen to do so when that scripture was written.

This is because the circumstances have changed--not because society has altered what it considers right and wrong, which would be a terrible reason. A God of infinite knowledge shouldn't be right at one point then "up for alternative interpretation" because what was decided was unpopular. There is a difference between understanding the value of what is said and applying that value to a situation, and interpreting something differently so it conforms to our own selfish desires.

Anyways, I am not contriving anything about "God's rules" as I've said several times now, a phrase you are taking too literally anyways.

[Mechanical Messiah]

You're using a different version of the Bronze-Age Goatherder legends than I am:

Deuteronomy
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I don't see an "opt-out" here. Funny how changing a few minor words can, by implication, change "god's rules". Would the rape victim be happier if she followed this particular King James versions of "god's rules"... where no "opt-out" is implied? Or does her happiness lie in the more convenient modern translation of "god's rules"?

What about "god's rule" where a woman who is raped in the city, and does not cry out, must be killed along with her rapist? Reckon we'd all be happier if we still applied that rule?

Here's one of "god's rules" that is not specifically stated... but you'd best heed it anyways: Don't make fun of prophets. God sent two bears to kill 42 children for making fun of Elijah (2 Kings, chapter 2, verses 23-24). I do agree that we'll all be happier if children aren't being ripped up by bears for disobeying this particular implied "god's rule".

What about those times when God commands you to do something... but performs a Jedi-mindtrick, 'hardens your heart', and prevents you from following said command? He did it lots of times in the old testament, and still does it according to the new testament. Hmmm... maybe he's doing it right now. Tricky feller, that Jehovah.

[danalaina]

I always thought that this was stupid, as most of the examples are misinterpreted (my opinion) or something similar (if anyone wants to give me an example to shoot down, please do). What do you all think of this?

a bit of hearsay, for what it's worth.

a friend of mine belongs to a very orthodox Jewish family who studies the Torah (Old Testament) in the Aramaic (supposedly the original language). he told me once that the passage that's most often cited as Biblical evidence condemning homosexuality (the one that says a man lying with another man is an abomination) is poorly translated.

he says the Aramaic word that's being translated as "abomination" could just as easily be translated to mean "unproductive."

now, there are those who will tell you that the only viable Biblically-supported reason for sex is procreation, and therefore, any unproductive sex is sinful. i suppose it comes down to your own interpretation of things.

my own take on things is that if any sort of "sinning" is really possible, judging some other guy for what he's doing when it's harming nobody else probably ranks right up there.





danalaina added to this post, 4 minutes and 6 seconds later...

Really, though, it's no different than me saying that sex outside of marriage is sinful, except for some reason that isn't seen as me putting someone down.

I think the reason is that "sex outside of marriage" isn't a type of person.

i think it is a type of person, though. it just happens to be a type of person who gets to make the rules. ;)

[Hdier]

No, I am saying that your example is illegitimate. I even think it would work in modern times... although the victim in this case would probably opt out... probably would not have chosen to do so when that scripture was written.

This is because the circumstances have changed--not because society has altered what it considers right and wrong, which would be a terrible reason. A God of infinite knowledge shouldn't be right at one point then "up for alternative interpretation" because what was decided was unpopular. There is a difference between understanding the value of what is said and applying that value to a situation, and interpreting something differently so it conforms to our own selfish desires.

Anyways, I am not contriving anything about "God's rules" as I've said several times now, a phrase you are taking too literally anyways.

You are almost correct. However, right now we have to many people, and we are 'producing' more than losing. The world is flooded with humans, and we are all suffering because of it. If someone is gay, they are unproductive in that they do not create babies--but right now, creating more people is the last thing we want to do! (Disclaimer: I am not saying that we should stop 'making' babies, just that we need to slow it down) Homosexuals are actually helping the world and humanity by their lack of 'production'.

I am only speaking in general, as I am well aware that people might not admit they are gay, thereby causing the possibility of creating children, and homosexuals can still donate sperm etc., but as I said I am only speaking in general.

[Lights]

@Grayscale

What seems so strange to me is there was no word or idea for "homosexuality" in Hebrew, Aramaic, or even Greek texts. Back in those days, people assumed men felt sexual attraction to women, and men may just have sex with someone of the same gender. So if there wasn't even a concept of sexual orientation why does that word even exists in the English bible?

Why is it that Christians believe that the Bible is infallible, especially when it has been translated so much? Why is it that they are so sure, that even after it has been translated, and possibly lost much of its original meaning, that each verse truly invokes God's intentions? How can we be willing to literally interpret something that has changed human hands so many times and that we have to say, "well maybe back in those times" in order to justify it for modern thought.

Ultimately, who are we trusting more when we put our absolute faith in the Bible, God or the translators?

[banzai]

You're using a different version of the Bronze-Age Goatherder legends than I am:

Deuteronomy
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

I don't see an "opt-out" here. Funny how changing a few minor words can, by implication, change "god's rules". Would the rape victim be happier if she followed this particular King James versions of "god's rules"... where no "opt-out" is implied? Or does her happiness lie in the more convenient modern translation of "god's rules"?

What about "god's rule" where a woman who is raped in the city, and does not cry out, must be killed along with her rapist? Reckon we'd all be happier if we still applied that rule?

Here's one of "god's rules" that is not specifically stated...

Uhh, there is no "opt out" implied, it's common sense. Let's put it into terms of stealing-

If (in that time) man A steals an object from man B, thus causing man B to be that much poorer, man A is obligated to repay man B. If in modern times, that which man A stole would not be beneficial upon replacement to man B, then it would make sense that man B could refuse it.

Anyways, done here, I could respond to every single verse you have, but seeing as you so drastically misinterpreted the first I can see what I'll find in the rest, and I'm no scholar anyways. What I can say is that if there really was such atrocities as you claim in the most read book in history, I'm sure there'd be a stink about them. I can make crazy claims with only thread-bare semblance to reality too, but I prefer not to.

As it stands, I believe the Bible has been bullet-proof, at least in regards to things that aren't either up for reasonable differences in interpretation. People have spent far, far more time studying it than you or I on both sides of the fence, so I will leave that discussion up to them.

You are almost correct. However, right now we have to many people, and we are 'producing' more than losing. The world is flooded with humans, and we are all suffering because of it. If someone is gay, they are unproductive in that they do not create babies--but right now, creating more people is the last thing we want to do! (Disclaimer: I am not saying that we should stop 'making' babies, just that we need to slow it down) Homosexuals are actually helping the world and humanity by their lack of 'production'.

I am only speaking in general, as I am well aware that people might not admit they are gay, thereby causing the possibility of creating children, and homosexuals can still donate sperm etc., but as I said I am only speaking in general.

I fear that I am making too big of a point of something that is not so important for me to stress on others, but I do want to answer your statement: like said previously, I do not think the values God put forth are going to change due to circumstances (the values themselves). It's sinning against God to the detriment of another vs. simply sinning against God. Something could be only the latter, but is still sin nonetheless.

@Grayscale

What seems so strange to me is there was no word or idea for "homosexuality" in Hebrew, Aramaic, or even Greek texts. Back in those days, people assumed men felt sexual attraction to women, and men may just have sex with someone of the same gender. So if there wasn't even a concept of sexual orientation why does that word even exists in the English bible?

Why is it that Christians believe that the Bible is infallible, especially when it has been translated so much? Why is it that they are so sure, that even after it has been translated, and possibly lost much of its original meaning, that each verse truly invokes God's intentions? How can we be willing to literally interpret something that has changed human hands so many times and that we have to say, "well maybe back in those times" in order to justify it for modern thought.

Ultimately, who are we trusting more when we put our absolute faith in the Bible, God or the translators?

I think you'll find that it is no wonder that so many Biblical theologians spend time learning the oldest versions of the Bible available. Unfortunately for this argument, though, the translations themselves are quite meticulous (as they should be for the most read book in the world). Either way, in any sort of translation-related dispute there is always the possibility to read much older versions if you are capable of understanding the language.

It's a matter of how much personal research someone wants to do and make their own conclusions. I would like to point out, though, that because there is no word for homosexual in the old language doesn't mean that another word was used. A story that might interest you in this regard is Sodom and Gomorrah. Modern translations use "sodomite", I believe, but if I'm not mistaken this is derived from homosexuality and paraphilia.

I think I should bow out of this discussion at this point... last thing I will say is that I can give you input, and so can many others, but ultimately each person is responsible for their own actions... however important it is to you will determine how much you want to research the topic, ultimately you are the only one who can decide what you believe. :thumbsup:

[Mechanical Messiah]

Uhh, there is no "opt out" implied, it's common sense. Let's put it into terms of stealing-

If (in that time) man A steals an object from man B, thus causing man B to be that much poorer, man A is obligated to repay man B. If in modern times, that which man A stole would not be beneficial upon replacement to man B, then it would make sense that man B could refuse it.

Anyways, done here, I could respond to every single verse you have, but seeing as you so drastically misinterpreted the first I can see what I'll find in the rest, and I'm no scholar anyways. What I can say is that if there really was such atrocities as you claim in the most read book in history, I'm sure there'd be a stink about them. I can make crazy claims with only thread-bare semblance to reality too, but I prefer not to.

As it stands, I believe the Bible has been bullet-proof, at least in regards to things that aren't either up for reasonable differences in interpretation. People have spent far, far more time studying it than you or I on both sides of the fence, so I will leave that discussion up to them.

I don't see any leeway for "common sense" in a law that says what "SHALL" be done. But I'm sure you can come up with a "common sense" reason for your God to murder children. He did it lots of times in the old testment. LOTS of times.

I see that you clearly have not read the book that you claim to base your faith on. That's a shame... but ignorance certainly IS the easiest path to godliness. Much easier than trying to reconcile a "loving" God with all his nasty deeds.

But since you've essentially accused me of lying about what your Bible says... I'll post the appropriate verses- unedited and unabridged. Make up your own mind. Or just don't bother to read them- it's worked for you thusfar.


God sends two bears to tear up 42 children because they made fun of a bald prophet:

2 Kings
2:22 So the waters were healed unto this day, according to the saying of Elisha which he spake.
2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
2:25 And he went from thence to mount Carmel, and from thence he returned to Samaria.

If a woman is raped in the city (where there are people to hear) and does not cry out... then both she and her rapist shall be killed:


Deuteronomy
22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her
22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.


The story is Pharoah is a long one... it'd take several pages to post it all in context. So here's the important verses- feel free to do your own bible study if you feel that I'm being deceptive:

Exodus 4:21
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

Exodus 7:3
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt.

Exodus 7:13
And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

Exodus 10:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:

Exodus 10:20
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

Exodus 10:27
But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.

Exodus 11:10
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go out of his land.

Exodus 14:4
And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD.

Exodus 14:8
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel

Exodus 14:17
I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour.

But wait! Jehovah doesn't just harden the hearts of Egyptians. He does it to whomever he feels like it (hmmm... maybe he's doing it to me right now...)

Romans
9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Now, one may ask WHY God would intentionally harden somebody's heart? One can clearly see in several of the previously posted verses regarding Pharoah that God's main purpose is to stroke his ego. According to Paul, though, He also wants to damn some people:

Proverbs 16:4
The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

John 12:40
He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned.

Like I said earlier... that Jehovah is a TRICKY ba$tard.

Folks, I swear to God that none of this is posted out of context. I've provided all the chapter & verse information that anybody could ask for should someone want to do their own reading and see if I've missed something.

But finally, getting back to the topic at hand: by now we've all seen the verses in Leviticus where Gawd feels that a sausage-fest is an abomination. To put it in context, here's another abomination:

Deuteronomy
22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

So all you gals who dare to wear pants... you're hell-bound just like those gays that God hates so much. Don't like the rules? Sorry... I'm just the messenger. Take it up with God.

[blueback]

Mechanical Messiah: You don't have to take the subject so personally. There are a lot of people in the world who don't like the idea that everything is open to debate. They want something involatile to hold on to and they will find it somewhere, whether it exists there or not.

Yes, the Bible contradicts itself. No, the believers don't care.

That's the way faith has worked since humans first prayed for rain. It's not going to change so getting frustrated over it will only raise your blood pressure for no useful reason.

The problem, IMHO, is that humans are mostly animals. The thing that makes us better than animals is our rational mind, but it is usually out-voted by everything else inside of us. Animals run on instinct, which is a reactionary decision making system. Animals don't have an imagination, or the ability to synthesize ideas, so they can only respond to their environment (they can't control it). Because responding instinctively "feels" right it is easy to do. It takes a lot of discipline to step away from our instincts and act rationally. After all, logic necessitates responsibility. You can't blame someone for obeying their instinct, but you can blame them for carrying out a rationally considered action. For example, the legal system makes a special distinction between a person who murders in cold blood and a person who murders in the heat of a passion that would have overcome any normal person.

If this sounds like an insult to those who have faith, it isn't. I'm simply saying that faith is less functional than logic. It doesn't matter how confident you are that your car will run without gas, it won't. Faith will not fill your tank. Logic, on the other hand, will help you to figure out how to get your car moving. Every year since the Renaissance religion has lost ground to science. Science works, religion doesn't. You can have a life that is full of faith, and be very happy with it, but you have to maintain a minimum use of logic. A person's survival doesn't hinge on whether or not they recognize the contradictions in the Bible, so they are free to belive what they want on that subject. However, a person's survival depends directly on how much water they drink, so they are not free to belive that they don't need water.

This is a contradiction that has always existed inside humans. I don't think it is going to go away, at least not soon enough for me to see it. Most people believe that faith is better than logic, and that belief prevents them from being convinced otherwise. It's not worth getting upset over, that would be like getting frustrated at gravity, it's just something that has to be accepted.

[banzai]

If this sounds like an insult to those who have faith, it isn't. I'm simply saying that faith is less functional than logic. It doesn't matter how confident you are that your car will run without gas, it won't. Faith will not fill your tank. Logic, on the other hand, will help you to figure out how to get your car moving. Every year since the Renaissance religion has lost ground to science. Science works, religion doesn't. You can have a life that is full of faith, and be very happy with it, but you have to maintain a minimum use of logic. A person's survival doesn't hinge on whether or not they recognize the contradictions in the Bible, so they are free to belive what they want on that subject. However, a person's survival depends directly on how much water they drink, so they are not free to belive that they don't need water

I don't think the two are exclusive of each other and I have yet to see any proof to prove otherwise.

I do understand this viewpoint though... considering religious just love to use faith as a fix-it-all... when things don't go right, it was "God's will". Riiight. That practically defines it as completely illogical right there...

Well, I don't think abusing the terminology for our own uses necessarily illegitimates it. I also do not think God is so uncreative that the only way he interacts through the world is with... happenings unexplainable by physics and such.

[blueback]

I don't think the two are exclusive of each other and I have yet to see any proof to prove otherwise.

Well, I don't think abusing the terminology for our own uses necessarily illegitimates it.

So. . .are you going to expand on that? I just provided proof of how the two are exclusive, you must not agree with me. What points do you disagree on? Where is your proof that they are not exclusive?

Yes, abusing the terminology "illegitimates" it. If you can't use the words the way they are defined then none of your conclusions are worth considering. That would be like trusting the advice of an auto mechanic who thought that it was "legitimate" to put gasoline into the radiator.

[banzai]

So. . .are you going to expand on that? I just provided proof of how the two are exclusive, you must not agree with me. What points do you disagree on? Where is your proof that they are not exclusive?

Yes, abusing the terminology "illegitimates" it. If you can't use the words the way they are defined then none of your conclusions are worth considering. That would be like trusting the advice of an auto mechanic who thought that it was "legitimate" to put gasoline into the radiator.

You didn't exactly provide proof that logic and faith are exclusive so much as examples and motivation behind why the latter is misused. And, like I said earlier, I can understand this because I think a lot of people radically misuse the concept of faith. It isn't an explanation, or a way to contort God into what we want (or try), it's trust, and the truest form of that should have no expectations.

That doesn't illegitimate it, though. A better analogy would be to say that although you may discredit the opinion of an auto mechanic who thinks gasoline goes in a radiator, that doesn't mean gasoline doesn't exist or wouldn't work correctly in the gas tank. Are we talking about the auto mechanic or the gasoline here? Frankly, I don't think you can illegitimate it because it is simply an ideal attitude that shapes our behavior, not something like gasoline that accomplishes something spectacular in and of itself. And, perhaps that's your misinterpretation (in my opinion) of the word but to a further extent, the misunderstanding of everyone who uses faith in the manner you often see them using it.

Again, I don't think God necessarily works through "magic" much (if at all) as compared to everyday occurrences. Why would he need to? It should be no surprise that my car would grind to a halt if I don't fill it with gasoline. "But God, I had faith that you would make my car run!" seems like the tail is trying to wag the dog here. More like "God, I see that you have not caused my car to continue running, perhaps I should not be such a dumbass".

I really can't understand the God vs. science. If God exists (which is the real question) then science is simply the reverse-engineering of everything that God created. If God exists, then God would be the biggest proponent of science. Religion, on the other hand, is what humanity has done with the concept of Gods' existence, and consequently prone to all sort of problems.

[blueback]

You didn't exactly provide proof that logic and faith are exclusive so much as examples and motivation behind why the latter is misused.


Okay
Logic: The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events (American Heritage Dictionary)
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence (American Heritage Dictionary)

There. Words have exact definitions and I do my best to use them accordingly. If you still don't think they are exclusive, please provide a an explanation as I have done.



I think a lot of people radically misuse the concept of faith. [...] it's trust, and the truest form of that should have no expectations.


Trust: Reliance on something in the future; hope (American Heritage Dictionary)
Expectation: Eager anticipation (American Heritage Dictionary)

Why, exactly, do you think that trust doesn't involve expectation? Trust is one method of predicting the future.


A better analogy would be to say that although you may discredit the opinion of an auto mechanic who thinks gasoline goes in a radiator, that doesn't mean gasoline doesn't exist or wouldn't work correctly in the gas tank.


The point of my analogies was that cause and effect exist whether or not we want them too. Logic relies on a chain of cause and effect to predict the future, faith ignores the chain of cause and effect. You can't take the pieces of my analogy, rearrange them, and claim it is the same analogy. That is, actually, the exact same thing that believers do with reality.




Again, I don't think God necessarily works through "magic" much (if at all) as compared to everyday occurrences. Why would he need to?


Well, either every effect has a cause that can be measured, or God can interrupt the chain. Interrupting the chain of cause and effect is magic by another name. If the chain is never broken then there is no room for God to change things. You can't have it both ways.


It should be no surprise that my car would grind to a halt if I don't fill it with gasoline. "But God, I had faith that you would make my car run!" seems like the tail is trying to wag the dog here. More like "God, I see that you have not caused my car to continue running, perhaps I should not be such a dumbass".


"God, you haven't supplied free food to all the starving peopel in the world, maybe I should stop being such a dumbass." "God, you haven't told me what to do, maybe I should stop being such a dumbass." "God, you didn't create me with the strength to easily accomplish my goals, maybe I should stop being such a dumbass."

That is why it is called an analogy, because it is designed to shed light on subjects that are harder to see than gasoline. People who believe that God is "watching over them" are fine with me. People who believe that God told them to kill all the gays are not fine with me. Just like an auto mechanic who tried to put gasoline in my radiator wouldn't be fine with me. I wouldn't trust anything he said after that, just like I wouldn't trust anything the gay-killers said after that.




I really can't understand the God vs. science.


It's not God v. Science it's Religion v. Science. Science has nothing to say about God. By definition, science can't tell us whether or not God exists. However, the human construction of Religion around a belief in God is something that science can speak to.

[Jennywocky]

The Bible does not seem to distinguish between "homosexual orientation/identity" and "homosexual behavior."

It only clearly deals with homosexual behavior, the few times it is even mentioned.

Homosexual sex (two males -- females are not described) was punished with death for both participants.

In the New Testament, Paul seems to refer to same-sex sexual behavior as a product of idolatry and appeals to it being against the "natural order" and God's inherent design. (Romans 1) Paul is the only one to allude to it elsewhere, among a list of other things he considers immoral, but it is not clear if there is a context attached to the sexual act.

The Sodom/Gamorrah story is generally understood nowadays to be describing not homosexual activity but the brutalization (through gang rape) of strangers to the town, in order to humiliate and dominate them. Sexuality is not the issue, brutalization and a breaking of acceptable etiquette towards guests is. The "homosexual" aspect of that act is coincidental, rather than the focus. (Which ties later to the New Testament comment that Sodom and Gamorrah was destroyed for a lack of hospitality.)

Christians, whether they mean to or not, seem to "rank" things they consider sin. Some sins are treated as far worse and with more stigma than other sins. Homosexuality is one of those that has stigma attached. It receives more recrimination and attention -- even if the homosexual is in a monogamous relationship and an upstanding community member -- than other sins described in particular by Jesus as heinous. ("If you do not feed the hungry and give water to the poor and visit the abandoned, it is like you are shunning me as well, and you'll be cast from heaven" is the gist of his stance -- which I consider a very strong recrimination of Christians who don't show love to others.)

Christians who don't show everyday love to their neighbor are given a slap on the wrist; homosexuals who are exemplary are still pilloried by the faith. At the very least, there is an inequity here that needs to be resolved.

[banzai]

...

We could argue semantics, but I don't think you're wrong in that sense... I am trying to communicate meaning here, so I apologize if I'm not dictionary-verbatim.

The idea of faith may be illogical in and of itself, but if you have faith in God, and if God enacts his will through logically legitimate means (i.e., not something like allowing your car to run without gas). Is faith in God illogical? If logic/science and God are not exclusive, then how can faith in God be exclusive of logic/science? I trust that God, if he exists, has a good nature just like I trust science to be accurate. I'm not sure if American Heritage Dictionary would call that faith, but it is trust in some form. By "no expectations" I mean the specific things that people often try to will God into... "God I have faith that you will cause me to win the lottery".

My point with your analogy was that (at least I guessed?) your target was faith and not people. I don't see why we'd even discuss people as I think we can both agree they can't be looked to for much. I think your analogy was a good example of how people could lose credibility (and I'm not unfamiliar with this) not why faith was illegitimate.

Somehow I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. If you are saying that the blind, stupid "fix-it-all" assumption that people have often called faith (and perhaps this is the definition) is illogical, then I'm right there with you.

[Hdier]

In response to the 'logic v. religion' discussion, I believe that logic and religion do not need to be mutually exclusive (which is what I think Grayscale is saying; the conversation is a bit confusing right now; would each of you mind summarizing your points?), mostly because in me they are not mutually exclusive. I believe in God, but I don't think that just because you have faith that you will win a free car because of him doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact, I believe that the more advanced we become the less he will intervene, because we can do more on our own. I think that faith and logic can coexist, and that having faith that their is a God isn't the same as having faith that God will magically make everything you need/want appear. If I don't put gas in my tank, then I deserve to have my car break down for being a dumbass, and I shouldn't get any help from God.

[banzai]

In response to the 'logic v. religion' discussion, I believe that logic and religion do not need to be mutually exclusive (which is what I think Grayscale is saying; the conversation is a bit confusing right now; would each of you mind summarizing your points?), mostly because in me they are not mutually exclusive. I believe in God, but I don't think that just because you have faith that you will win a free car because of him doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact, I believe that the more advanced we become the less he will intervene, because we can do more on our own. I think that faith and logic can coexist, and that having faith that their is a God isn't the same as having faith that God will magically make everything you need/want appear. If I don't put gas in my tank, then I deserve to have my car break down for being a dumbass, and I shouldn't get any help from God.

Well, I'm being a bit muddy with my vocabulary, but I was saying that God and logic aren't mutually exclusive and it doesn't seem Blueback is disagreeing with that.

Religion, on the other hand, is the byproduct of what humanity has done with the idea of God, both good and bad, illogical and sometimes logical... can't really say much about religion, it's too broad a term to conclude much about anyways.

[blueback]

We could argue semantics, but I don't think you're wrong in that sense... I am trying to communicate meaning here, so I apologize if I'm not dictionary-verbatim.


Wow. I never expected an INTJ to tell me that definitions don't matter. How are you planning on "communicating meaning" if we don't agree on the definitions of the words we're using? You can't communicate anything if you leave your message vague. If you want to communicate something, fine. If you don't want to communicate something, fine. Just pick one.


The idea of faith may be illogical in and of itself, but if you have faith in God, and if God enacts his will through logically legitimate means [...] Is faith in God illogical?


Yes. If faith is illogical then faith is illogical. It's not like there are different kinds of faith, like faith-lite and nu-faith.

If God "enacts his will" in such a way as to break the chain of cause and effect then he is doing magic. However, if such an effect was measurable, like if prayer was answered predictably, then it would no longer be a matter of "faith in God" but rather a scientific explanation that God does in fact intervene in the natural order of the universe in response to prayer.

So, yes, faith in God is illogical. Faith is illogical. That's why there is a unique word for it.


I trust that God, if he exists, has a good nature just like I trust science to be accurate.


The difference is that you KNOW science works because you use it to survive on a daily basis. You BELIEVE God exists because it makes you feel better but doesn't have any effect on the actual events in your life. Saying you "believe" that science is accurate means that you need to expand your vocabulary.


I'm not sure if American Heritage Dictionary would call that faith, but it is trust in some form.


This is frustrating. Either you agree with the definition or you don't. It looks like you don't. Then present an alternate definition. I don't care if you get it from a reputable dictionary or not, make it up. Just type out a sentence that explains what you mean when you use the word. Don't leave the definition vague and expect me to read your mind.



I think your analogy was a good example of how people could lose credibility (and I'm not unfamiliar with this) not why faith was illegitimate.


Yes, it is an example of a situation in which you stop listening to a person because they have said something which is so absurd that nothing else they say can possibly be accurate.

The analogy fits religion because many religious people (people of faith) say things that are absurd and ruin their credibility with rational people. A person who says "God answered my prayer today" is saying "I'll just put that gas into the radiator." God doesn't answer prayer. The only times people claim that their prayers have been answered are in times where the cause is ambiguous. If it was an actual event there would be evidence of it. There never is, just like there's never evidence of leprechauns or unicorns. If someone tells me they say a unicorn I will stop listening to them, the same as if they tell me God answers their prayers or if they are going to put gasoline in the radiator.

Is this analogy making any sense yet?


Somehow I don't think we're disagreeing on anything. If you are saying that the blind, stupid "fix-it-all" assumption that people have often called faith (and perhaps this is the definition) is illogical, then I'm right there with you.

How can we know whether or not we disagree if you refuse to define the word? There's no such thing as a "maybe" definition. We can disagree on what the definition is, but then we'd at least have something concrete to work with.





blueback added to this post, 3 minutes and 54 seconds later...


I believe in God, but I don't think that just because you have faith that you will win a free car because of him doesn't mean that it will happen. In fact, I believe that the more advanced we become the less he will intervene, because we can do more on our own. I think that faith and logic can coexist,

So, if God's not giving people free cars, what is he doing? You believe he's "intervening" so what do you believe he's intervening in? By "intervene" I think you mean that he interrupts the chain of cause and effect. If God interrupts the chain of cause and effect (that he set in motion) then where is the evidence of his interference? There never is any evidence, so to believe it is happening anyway is illogical.

You can't say that something is logical when you have to believe in it. Belief means that you lack sufficient evidence to prove it. Therefore, faith and logic are mutually contradictory. They can coexist, but not within the mind of a rational person.





blueback added to this post, 2 minutes and 31 seconds later...

can't really say much about religion, it's too broad a term to conclude much about anyways.

No, it's not. It is very real and it is very practical. Just like you can start to see patterns in electrical power substations if you look at enough of them you can see patterns in religions if you look at enough of them.

You may not want too, and that's okay. But if that is the case then just say so, don't imply that no one can possibly say anything useful about the subject.

[banzai]

Hey Blueback, way back here behind the words, I'm the message someone is trying to communicate! You'll never see me if you are going to argue semantics and put zero effort into trying to grasp the concepts behind them. Words are just a means of communicating ideas, so you can either bitch and moan about how I am communicating or engage your brain a bit.

I would have never guessed an INTJ would have such a difficult time deducing meaning. I don't look up every word you write in the dictionary because I can grasp relatively well what you are trying to communicate, and I'm not going to spend all day checking everything I say to make sure it is the correct. This discussion just isn't worth it--which seems obvious now, considering we've come to writing posts with lots of words but very little meaning further. You haven't changed your argument, don't seem to understand mine, and I am unwilling to put further effort into communicating mine, so this is over.


Every time you get into a multi-quote, multi-page argument on the internet, a kitten gets turned into Teriyaki. :thumbsdown:

[Hdier]

Blueback: I don't think that God is intervening at all right now, I think that he is fairly dormant in his activity in this world.

Also, I agree with Grayscale in that at this point you are simply arguing semantics. You don't need to have exact definitions of every word the majority of the time, as long as you can understand what the other person is trying to communicate.


Mmmmm...Teryaki Kitten. Yum.

[blueback]

I am trying to communicate meaning here, so I apologize if I'm not dictionary-verbatim.


Well, I'm being a bit muddy with my vocabulary,

so you can either bitch and moan about how I am communicating or engage your brain a bit.

I'm not going to spend all day checking everything I say to make sure it is the correct. :

You can get yourself into a tizzy if you really want, but it's not going to make you sound right. In fact, what it's going to do is make you sound irrational because rational people don't get upset when their ideas are questioned.

It's disappointing that you lost that patient confidence in your beliefs I originally complimented you for. I suppose it is harder to maintain when you are being questioned by someone who can point out all the contradictions in your ideas. But don't think that insulting me is going to make me feel bad.

You must think that communication is independant of the method of communicating. I'd explain, but I don't think it will be worth the effort. If you were the slightest bit interested in understanding how meaning is encoded and decoded through language then you never would have written those things I quoted.

So, you know, at the end of the day you think I'm an asshole and I think you are happy living with muddled thoughts. I'll just keep looking for someone who respects rationality as much as I do. There's no hard feelings on my end. Good luck out there and remember not to trust anyone who tells you to put gas into your radiator.





blueback added to this post, 13 minutes and 17 seconds later...

You don't need to have exact definitions of every word the majority of the time, as long as you can understand what the other person is trying to communicate.


You're right. Most people get through their day just fine without carrying a dictionary around with them. Of course, there is no such thing as a contradiction. If you think you've found one, then one or more of your assumptions is wrong.

In this case, I'll do you the honor of helping you out.

1) This discussion is a very specific activity. The stuff we say on this message board, with respect to debating an idea, is not "a majority of the time." This is actually a small minority of the time.

2) The ideas we are discussing are very complicated. They involve a lot of contextual information that is difficult to convey. Therefore, a lot of what we "say" on this discussion board will be background information to support our points before we even get to a conclusion.

3) This board is about as limiting as an exchange of ideas can get and still be called communication. All we have is text in a box. So, when we think of something to communicate we first have to simlify it into words and then we have to strip away all the non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication is, by the way, never estimated at less than 50%. So by reducing our ideas to a string of characters in a box we are losing AT LEAST 50% of the message.

I am not interested in misunderstanding you.
If I assume that I have understood you, then there is a better than 50% chance I have misunderstood you.

If you aren't interested in discussing ideas, and would rather talk about kittens, then don't get involved in threads with titles like "do you think the bible is against gays". Your ideas WILL be questioned and, if you defend them, you will be asked to expand on points that you expressed unclearly.

I know, but I honestly don't understand, why you are questioning the investigation of ideas as unnecessary when you are participating in a thread that exists to investigate ideas. That's like suiting up, climbing into a race car, and then complaining that all the other drivers are going so fast.

[banzai]

Blueback, it's not that I have lost any iota of confidence in what I am saying, just that I no longer feel compelled to putting effort into communicating it. 9 times out of 10 I am able to communicate my thoughts to someone else with enough effort, but I am ok admitting that this is something I have difficulty with... I also understand, though, that it doesn't make me wrong.

I am not so much angry at you for not just nodding your head like most people do when I'm explaining something complicated to them (in such a quality I am not even satisfied with), but frustrated on your behalf because you seem unwilling to take a step outside of your own argument to grasp what I'm trying to say. I know, and I hope you do to, that although I have no obligation to be convinced of someone else's viewpoint, I still have a personal motivation in understanding anyways out of my obligation to gaining as much information as possible.

If this is the case, then I am sorry for you, if it is not, then I am sorry that I could not have done a better job communicating. Either way I just don't see a point in continuing. If I think of a better way to put it, then I'll be sure to bring it up, right now I cannot.

[blueback]

Blueback, it's not that I have lost any iota of confidence in what I am saying, just that I no longer feel compelled to putting effort into communicating it. [...] Either way I just don't see a point in continuing. If I think of a better way to put it, then I'll be sure to bring it up, right now I cannot.

I'll tell you why I love communicating, because it forces me to clarify my ideas.

All sorts of things can "make sense" inside my head as long as I never have to turn them into something concrete. Words aren't tangible, but they are more concrete than thoughts.

So, if I have an idea that I find I CAN'T put into words I reevaluate it. After all, words are more concrete than thoughts and actions are more concrete than words. So the first step in acting on a thought is to be able to explain it. Thoughts -> Words -> Actions

What good is a philosophy you can't act on? Before you can act, you have to be able to speak, otherwise you are just stumbling around in the dark.

Why did you think I put so much effort into making sure my ideas were well explained and supported? I did it because I had to to prove I could. If I just claimed I could explain myself, but never did it, then I'd never be really sure of myself.

The second step is receiving feedback on my words. That is what you, and everyone else on this board, is for. It is hard to get feedback, however, when the person you're communicating with refuses to agree on ground rules. You don't want to express your own ideas fully, address my ideas, or even agree on a definition of a word we each claim the other is using improperly. So, what exactly do you want to talk about?

Were you looking for more people to just agree with you if you sounded confident but too deep for anyone to understand you?

[banzai]

No, in fact I enjoy people disagreeing with me for nearly the same reason you enjoy communicating--it helps me learn to convey my ideas into something solid.

Let me try and put it this way...

I think that, if there is a God, that he can be trusted. I also think that I am capable of figuring things out with the tools I've been given... my brain and a set of guidelines to aid in the thought process of determining right and wrong (the Bible). I loosely coin this as faith, which it seems is technically incorrect, but regardless you can see why I do not find faith and logic exclusive. If God is perfect in the logical sense(i.e., the two are synonymous) then God and logic aren't exclusive of each other and faith in logic and faith in God ought to be one and the same.

Other people have displayed what I consider to be blind trust which they let determine their actions in a manner that is often detrimental. Although I think they are well-intentioned, I suspect they get most if not all of their indication of what to do and what to trust will happen comes from themselves.

The difference between the way I see it and the way they see it is that I know it is highly unlikely that I will ever have an absolute indication of God, his disposition, or what he wants me to do (while I'm alive anyways) so I can only trust logic... and that, if God exists, His will and work in the world is so flawless that any of my logic would never contradict it. If God exists I do not think he would have any reason to fear logic or my use of it.

I think that sums up what I think of it fairly well... and maybe you can see why it is a bit convoluted to me. Faith in a perfectly logical God can be illogical if that only means that you are superimposing what you believe to be God and putting faith in that. In the absence of knowing for sure, I can only have faith in the possibility and in my own ability to reason.

[Antares]

What? Gay is the only prejudice I've ever heard of coming from the bible!

Anyways, I have no doubts that saying that the bible doesn't like gays is BS, I simply want your opinions on the subject.

Actually, it are prejudiced against those who are not Christians. In fact, some passages encourage the killing of friends and family who are of a different faith and it are prejudiced against women as well. It tells people how to sell your daughters... ugh...

I don't think a lot of theists support the bible anymore, but I can't say I'm extremely knowledgeable in such areas.

[Hdier]

If you think you've found one, then one or more of your assumptions is wrong.


I know, but I honestly don't understand, why you are questioning the investigation of ideas as unnecessary when you are participating in a thread that exists to investigate ideas. That's like suiting up, climbing into a race car, and then complaining that all the other drivers are going so fast.

It's not that I don't want to investigate ideas, it's that I am getting frustrated because I feel like you are needlessly nitpicking.

Why do you say that a contradiction can't happen?

[Jennywocky]

This is interesting. A thread about whether the Bible is "against gays" -- and the majority of INTJ posts aren't even dealing with external (i.e., Biblical) data.

It's all about interior inductive and metaphorical analogy and conjecture... which by nature isn't anchored in S reality.

(I'm going to assume this is an Ni style thing?)

[blueback]

Why do you say that a contradiction can't happen?

Because they are impossible.
The present state of everything everywhere is the direct result of everything everywhere obeying certain rules for a long time. Sure, there's a lot of stuff and it's all over the place and it's been bouncing around for a long time. . .but the rules have never changed.

For the same reason that matter and engergy can't be created or destroyed, and no two pieces of matter can occupy the same place at the same time, and nature just keeps chugging along no matter how much we wish it wouldn't. . .no contradictions can exist.

The whole history of science has been a struggle to expose contradictions in thinking and reconcile them with the natural world. That is why as soon as someone pointed a telescope at the stars they overturned the idea that the earth is the center of the universe. It was a contradiction in thinking and all we had to do as study enough evidence to realize it.

Another example would be the fundamental attribution error. People usually make the mistake of attributing their own actions to their environment but attributing other people's actions to their personality. It is a contradiction to say that you cut someone off because you are in a hurry but that they cut you off because they are an asshole. The contradiction doesn't exist in nature, you are both obeying the dictates of your environment, the contradiction exists inside the mind because of a lack of clear understanding.

A theological example would be that the Bible says magic is possible while the accumulated evidence of all science says that it is impossible. The contradiction doesn't actually exist. People can't make majic possible just by wishing it into existence or impossible by wishing it out of existence. The truth is out there no matter how clearly we see it. If there is a contradiction it is in the assumptions we are making, not in nature.

[stasis]

Ah, but perhaps that is because many churches have lumped the act itself with the lifestyle and even many of it's mannerisms.

However, I myself am only comparing it to sex outside of marriage (or any other sin) in the sense of the very act itself, in which case it really isn't any different than any other sin in that we choose. The lifestyle is built from the mindset, not the single act in and of itself.
I understand what you're saying about the sin of the acts themselves apart from the people who feel an inclination to commit the acts. I was only meaning to respond to what you said about the one being perceived as an attack; you said "for some reason", which suggested that you did not understand why (or, perhaps more l