|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 10:09:56 GMT -5
I believe the love between David and Jonathan went beyond human/sexual love... That really wasn't the question. Was their relationship sensual, I believe is what was being asked.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 10:20:19 GMT -5
OK. We know about your situation. Why couldn't David and Jonathan have been lovers? How you treat your relatives is one thing but how you treat non-relatives is different. Not always is it how we treat our relatives being one thing but how we treat non-relatives is. There are siblings who start their homosexual lifestyle with their same sex siblings. You mean there are people who had incestuous homosexual relations? Do you know the nexus of their particular lifestyle?And when you say 'homosexual relationships' you really mean they have physical sexual relations with someone of the same sex?It would, assuming there was consent given. But that does not make it a homosexual relationship.You certainly could make a lot of them but using the current definitions will you serve well. When you equate incestuous homosexual abuse in a family to the start of a homosexual lifestyle, looking at all the parts of the situation would be a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 10:23:52 GMT -5
I have much better eyesight these days, so my actual fear of being snake bit is minimal for I can actually see them better. Although to be totally honest, I feel that any good snake is a dead snake! Just how I feel about snakes! And this is how you feel after all the rodents, insects, slugs, etc. that they eat for you!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 13:12:02 GMT -5
That really wasn't the question. Was their relationship sensual, I believe is what was being asked. My answer is NO, sensual relationship between David and Jonathan. It was more of a brotherly, true friendship/love. David married to King Saul's oldest daughter that make him a brother-in-law to Jonathan. Question: "What was the relationship between David and Jonathan?" Answer: We know from 1 Samuel 18:1 that Jonathan loved David. Second Samuel 1:26 records David’s lament after Jonathan’s death, in which he said that his love for Jonathan was more wonderful than the love of a woman. Some use these two passages to suggest a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. This interpretation, however, should be rejected for at least three reasons. First, the Hebrew word for “love” used here is not the typical word used for sexual activity. This word for “love” has clear political and diplomatic connotations (see 1 Samuel 16:21 and 1 Kings 5:1). 'ahab - to love - human love for another, includes family, and sexual. Which dictionary are you using? This is the same word ('ahab) that was used to describe Michal’s love for David. Sounds sexual to me. Right - it was a fair comparison. Sexual relationships. Wow - a biblical contradiction. That would be a first! I think 'good friends' just might be understating it. 1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded.This sounds like a couple in love who are being kept apart and have to see each other by sneaking about. And what do people do when they are alone? Sounds like they exceed!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 10, 2014 13:42:34 GMT -5
Ok. Are you suggesting then that homosexuals should choose not to become sexually active? Matt10 No, I am not suggesting any such thing. I just think sometimes people give into their lusts too quickly, maybe myself included! But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 10, 2014 13:45:18 GMT -5
OK. We know about your situation. Why couldn't David and Jonathan have been lovers? How you treat your relatives is one thing but how you treat non-relatives is different. Not always is it how we treat our relatives being one thing but how we treat non-relatives is. There are siblings who start their homosexual lifestyle with their same sex siblings. There are fathers, uncles, cousins, grandfathers who enter into homosexual relations with their relatives....and of course if those relatives are not of legal age that would be considered CSA, but if of legal age it would be called consensual sex. There are just so many if's and's or but's about the whole issues of sexuality that perhaps one can't begin to cover all of them! Yes, and that's more properly referred to as child sexual abuse, of sexual predator. Mature consenting homosexuality is not abuse, assault, or incest -- any more than a mature consenting heterosexual relationship has anything to do with having sex with one's sister.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 14:03:49 GMT -5
No, I am not suggesting any such thing. I just think sometimes people give into their lusts too quickly, maybe myself included! But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health. Are you thinking biological imperatives? survival competition reproduction group forming territorialism quality of life-seeking Of course, a few years ago someone published a paper claiming female promiscuity was a biological imperative. It was well supported research!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2014 14:40:13 GMT -5
But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health. Religions interest in sex regulation has always simply been as a cheaper kind of control mechanism -- that as Jesus pointed out is extremely flexible as it can in principle be used to condemn anyone at subjective will. (Jesus reminder that sexual impropriety in the heart' was equally offensive as impropriety in any other way ... contra the spirit of Christ "let he that is without sin throw the first rock!! This makes condemnation on the basis of consensual adult sexuality a counter-Christian exercise in both hypocrisy and in self-righteousness,
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jun 10, 2014 19:24:55 GMT -5
No, I am not suggesting any such thing. I just think sometimes people give into their lusts too quickly, maybe myself included! But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health. I suppose what I'm trying to say is moderation in all things is perhaps the best....now consider putting sex on the same level of need as thirst and hunger some people would kill themselves trying to follow that up with sex, etc....say like when shopping somebody gets very thirsting so they either buy a drink or they hunt up the water fountain, or if they're hungry they hurry up and go to some hamburger or other fast food joint or they settle for a candy bar or ready made snack food. But if one gets a bit needy sexwise, are we going to see that needy person start laying this or that person down for a quicky? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Sex has its' time and place whereas there are other body needs that are felt more often and have a rightful need of prior consideration! I mean I don't think anyone has died because they couldn't get sex, but they sure have died without food or water.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 10, 2014 21:31:47 GMT -5
Thanks for your input Dennis. I don't know why He would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle. I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore! -ph- This course of action seems like sticking your head in the sand. Wouldn't it ne a better course of action, in the long run, to try and figure it out? Perhaps reevaluate the subject based on something a little more current than 2,000+ year old stories based on a very limited understanding of the problem. rational- If I wanted to "Stick my head in the sand," I wouldn't be posting these questions and I certainly would not be starting to question the legitimacy of the contents within the "Holy Bible!" It would be much easier to "Stick my head in the sand," but just not my thing. As you said, "Reevaluating the subject based on something a little more current than 2,000+ year old stories based on a very limited understanding of the problem," could give a different insight on it; However, I am currently evaluating it from a biblical/religious view. -ph-
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 10, 2014 21:46:05 GMT -5
........................................................................................................................................................................................................ What is really absurd is to suggest making up a god to fit a person's own druthers and thats not any more a god than when people did that in the bible and really shows a cynical bent. Maybe not as cynical as comes across but the constant drumbeat for spreading the gospel of religious anti-religion or touting the virtues of bowing down before oneself as the supreme deity or employing the very methods one likes to pin on others seem nearly as bad and although that may not be how some here interact or think in RL I know others that really do hold tightly to that kind of anti-religion with hypocrisy and reactionary fanaticism and talking around questions and excusing stuff and arguing from conclusions with skills that'd do any worker or priest proud. Blandie, I still don't understand what you are referring to by these terms: "the gospel of religious anti-religion" or the term "anti-religion"
What is it that mean by "anti-religion?"
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 10, 2014 22:17:13 GMT -5
But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health. Are you thinking biological imperatives? survival competition reproduction group forming territorialism quality of life-seeking Of course, a few years ago someone published a paper claiming female promiscuity was a biological imperative. It was well supported research! In the big picture of things, I can understand why that could be so.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 10, 2014 22:49:50 GMT -5
But you're sounding like select people should refrain from their lusts all together. Our lusts are given to us to be acted upon because nature demands it -- there are three of them: thirst, hunger, and sex. Religions interfere with all three of them, and never in the interest of people's health. I suppose what I'm trying to say is moderation in all things is perhaps the best....now consider putting sex on the same level of need as thirst and hunger some people would kill themselves trying to follow that up with sex, etc....say like when shopping somebody gets very thirsting so they either buy a drink or they hunt up the water fountain, or if they're hungry they hurry up and go to some hamburger or other fast food joint or they settle for a candy bar or ready made snack food. But if one gets a bit needy sexwise, are we going to see that needy person start laying this or that person down for a quicky? Sounds silly, doesn't it? Sex has its' time and place whereas there are other body needs that are felt more often and have a rightful need of prior consideration! I mean I don't think anyone has died because they couldn't get sex, but they sure have died without food or water. I'm not talking about dying because of lack of sex. I'm talking about what is necessary for the continuation of the species, and how Mother Nature guarantees that she will control that. That is why the hunger/thirst/lust for sex is a primal instinct, in all living things. And to keep us alive long enough to reproduce we've been created with frequently ferocious appetites for food and drink. Mother Nature is not about us personally or about morals or intelligence -- it's about the mechanisms of the universe, and we are just little pawns in Mother Nature's bigger plan.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 10, 2014 22:59:47 GMT -5
That really wasn't the question. Was their relationship sensual, I believe is what was being asked. My answer is NO, sensual relationship between David and Jonathan. It was more of a brotherly, true friendship/love. David married to King Saul's oldest daughter that make him a brother-in-law to Jonathan.How can one assume that when David wasn't known for his strict Christian morality anyway? He was a voyeur and an adulterer, and when he became impotent he had young women come to his bed to encourage him, but nothing worked. Poor fellow.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 23:21:52 GMT -5
I suppose what I'm trying to say is moderation in all things is perhaps the best....now consider putting sex on the same level of need as thirst and hunger some people would kill themselves trying to follow that up with sex, etc....say like when shopping somebody gets very thirsting so they either buy a drink or they hunt up the water fountain, or if they're hungry they hurry up and go to some hamburger or other fast food joint or they settle for a candy bar or ready made snack food. But if one gets a bit needy sexwise, are we going to see that needy person start laying this or that person down for a quicky? Sounds silly, doesn't it? It only sounds silly because you are viewing it through the eyes of society. Do you see other animals waiting to have sex? You rarely see dogs saying "Let's wait until we get home."This is what people are taught. Just like "Don't go when the light is RED."It isn't the individual that whose survival is in question but the entire species.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 10, 2014 23:29:23 GMT -5
This course of action seems like sticking your head in the sand. Wouldn't it ne a better course of action, in the long run, to try and figure it out? Perhaps reevaluate the subject based on something a little more current than 2,000+ year old stories based on a very limited understanding of the problem. rational- If I wanted to "Stick my head in the sand," I wouldn't be posting these questions and I certainly would not be starting to question the legitimacy of the contents within the "Holy Bible!" It would be much easier to "Stick my head in the sand," but just not my thing. As you said, "Reevaluating the subject based on something a little more current than 2,000+ year old stories based on a very limited understanding of the problem," could give a different insight on it; However, I am currently evaluating it from a biblical/religious view. -ph- As I read your post I would say that if you didn't want to stick your head in the sand you would not say "I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore!", essentially giving up any hope of understanding. Seeking answers if how problems are solved. Looking at a problem and saying the answer will only be revealed after death is a defeatist attitude and benefits no one.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 10, 2014 23:50:52 GMT -5
rational- If I wanted to "Stick my head in the sand," I wouldn't be posting these questions and I certainly would not be starting to question the legitimacy of the contents within the "Holy Bible!" It would be much easier to "Stick my head in the sand," but just not my thing. As you said, "Reevaluating the subject based on something a little more current than 2,000+ year old stories based on a very limited understanding of the problem," could give a different insight on it; However, I am currently evaluating it from a biblical/religious view. -ph- As I read your post I would say that if you didn't want to stick your head in the sand you would not say "I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore!", essentially giving up any hope of understanding. Seeking answers if how problems are solved. Looking at a problem and saying the answer will only be revealed after death is a defeatist attitude and benefits no one. Let me "fix" that for you! I CURRENTLY don't get it, CURRENTLY no one has proof either way on the topic, CURRENTLY IN MY OPINION...it feels like we won't understand it until we are dead in which case it wouldn't matter any more. However, it CURRENTLY doesn't stop me from searching for answers, because I am not a "Stick your head in the sand" kind of person! Better? Do you ever post topic of your own, or just thrive off of dissecting every word others post? I'll have to check that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 11, 2014 0:40:14 GMT -5
As I read your post I would say that if you didn't want to stick your head in the sand you would not say "I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore!", essentially giving up any hope of understanding. Seeking answers if how problems are solved. Looking at a problem and saying the answer will only be revealed after death is a defeatist attitude and benefits no one. Let me "fix" that for you! I CURRENTLY don't get it, CURRENTLY no one has proof either way on the topic, CURRENTLY IN MY OPINION...it feels like we won't understand it until we are dead in which case it wouldn't matter any more. However, it CURRENTLY doesn't stop me from searching for answers, because I am not a "Stick your head in the sand" kind of person! Better? Do you ever post topic of your own, or just thrive off of dissecting every word others post? I'll have to check that. (You can check whether a person has started threads of their own by clicking on their avatar)
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 11, 2014 0:43:40 GMT -5
Let me "fix" that for you! I CURRENTLY don't get it, CURRENTLY no one has proof either way on the topic, CURRENTLY IN MY OPINION...it feels like we won't understand it until we are dead in which case it wouldn't matter any more. However, it CURRENTLY doesn't stop me from searching for answers, because I am not a "Stick your head in the sand" kind of person! Better? Do you ever post topic of your own, or just thrive off of dissecting every word others post? I'll have to check that. (You can check whether a person has started threads of their own by clicking on their avatar)Thanks dmmichgood, I just checked that a bit ago. Nice way to follow along
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 11, 2014 6:56:27 GMT -5
Let me "fix" that for you! I CURRENTLY don't get it, CURRENTLY no one has proof either way on the topic, CURRENTLY IN MY OPINION...it feels like we won't understand it until we are dead in which case it wouldn't matter any more. However, it CURRENTLY doesn't stop me from searching for answers, because I am not a "Stick your head in the sand" kind of person! Better? As far as how you feel about it, yes. As far as why some people seek relationships with others of the same sex, no. But you might want to consider that they are not 'given over' to their sexuality any more than you are 'given over' to being right or left handed or 'given over' to the fact that your knees bend in the direction they do (if they didn't, how would you be able to use a chair?).You should check. I don't post topics of my own. I think that from time to time people break into my account and start topics to cause confusion.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 11, 2014 11:26:11 GMT -5
That really wasn't the question. Was their relationship sensual, I believe is what was being asked. My answer is NO, sensual relationship between David and Jonathan. It was more of a brotherly, true friendship/love. David married to King Saul's oldest daughter that make him a brother-in-law to Jonathan. Question: "What was the relationship between David and Jonathan?" Answer: We know from 1 Samuel 18:1 that Jonathan loved David. Second Samuel 1:26 records David’s lament after Jonathan’s death, in which he said that his love for Jonathan was more wonderful than the love of a woman. Some use these two passages to suggest a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan. This interpretation, however, should be rejected for at least three reasons. First, the Hebrew word for “love” used here is not the typical word used for sexual activity. This word for “love” has clear political and diplomatic connotations (see 1 Samuel 16:21 and 1 Kings 5:1). Second, David’s comparison of his relationship with Jonathan with that of women is probably a reference to his experience with King Saul’s daughter. He was promised one of Saul’s daughters for killing Goliath. But Saul continued to add conditions upon this marriage with the underlying desire to have David killed in battle (1 Samuel 18:17, 25). The love David had received from Jonathan was greater than anything he could have received from Saul’s daughter. Third, the Bible clearly and consistently denounces homosexuality (Genesis 1:26-27; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:18-25). Extolling a homosexual love between David and Jonathan would be contradicting the prohibitions of it found throughout the Bible. The friendship between David and Jonathan was a covenantal relationship. In 1 Samuel 18:1-5, we read of David and Jonathan forming an agreement. In this agreement, Jonathan was to be second in command in David’s future reign, and David was to protect Jonathan’s family (1 Samuel 20:16-17, 42; 23:16-18).Obviously, these two men were also very good friends. In their relationship we can see at least three qualities of true friendship. First, they sacrificed for one another. In 1 Samuel 18:4, we read that Jonathan gave David his clothes and military garb. The significance of this gift was that Jonathan recognized that David would one day be king of Israel. Rather than being envious or jealous, Jonathan submitted to God’s will and sacrificed his own right to the throne. Second, in 1 Samuel 19:1-3, we read of Jonathan’s loyalty toward and defense of David. King Saul told his followers to kill David. Jonathan rebuked his father and recalled David’s faithfulness to him in killing Goliath. Finally, Jonathan and David were also free to express their emotions with one another. In 1 Samuel 20, we read of a plan concocted by Jonathan to reveal his father’s plans toward David. Jonathan was going to practice his archery. If he told his servant that the arrows he shot were to the side of the target, David was safe. If Jonathan told his servant that the arrows were beyond the target, David was to leave and not return. Jonathan told the servant that the arrows were beyond the target, meaning that David should flee. After releasing his servant, Jonathan found David and the two men cried together. Rather than being evidence for a homosexual relationship in the Bible, the account of David and Jonathan is an example of true biblical friendship. True friendship, according to the Bible, involves loyalty, sacrifice, compromise, and yes, emotional attachment. That is what we should learn from David and Jonathan. The idea that the only person in the Bible described as “a man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22), was a practicing homosexual (or bisexual) is ridiculous and has no true biblical basis.
www.gotquestions.org/David-and-Jonathan.htmlNathan ~ I agree with this apologist's rationale, too. After all, David had 1,000 wives to satisfy his sexual appetite besides. I personally feel they had a long established friendship which David valued very highly and nothing more. Although polygamy was accepted back in O.T. times, it appears that homosexuality was not according to the laws spelled out in Leviticus. Honestly, it seems that things like incest and rape were also very much tolerated under Jewish law and the woman often got punished when the man went free. For sure, the men wrote the rules back in time!!
However, that being said, homosexuality was also prevalent in leaders of the past, such as Alexander the Great, and it is also believed that Caesar was a bisexual himself, to name just a few.
www.angelfire.com/mi/wojtkiewicz/wojtkiewicz2.html
www.gay-art-history.org/gay-history/gay-literature/gay-history/famous-greek-homosexuals/famous-greek-homosexuals-boys-love.html
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jun 11, 2014 13:36:34 GMT -5
........................................................................................................................................................................................................ What is really absurd is to suggest making up a god to fit a person's own druthers and thats not any more a god than when people did that in the bible and really shows a cynical bent. Maybe not as cynical as comes across but the constant drumbeat for spreading the gospel of religious anti-religion or touting the virtues of bowing down before oneself as the supreme deity or employing the very methods one likes to pin on others seem nearly as bad and although that may not be how some here interact or think in RL I know others that really do hold tightly to that kind of anti-religion with hypocrisy and reactionary fanaticism and talking around questions and excusing stuff and arguing from conclusions with skills that'd do any worker or priest proud. Blandie, I still don't understand what you are referring to by these terms: "the gospel of religious anti-religion" or the term "anti-religion"
What is it that mean by "anti-religion?"Sorry dmmichgood, but I'm not constantly around here. I think maybe you understand anti-religion as its the opposite of pro-religion. I think that maybe you've also observed religious behavior in places like politics or devotion to certain ideals or fandom or nationalism or sports activities and so forth. In real life religion doesn't require belief in a god but just strong devotion to and faith in certain beliefs and conversely belief in a god does automatically make someone religious. Some entire religious sects are atheistic and some of the most religious people I've met have been fervently anti-religious. I was using religioiusly irreligious in the same sense as jesuitical behavior is flagged in people who aren't necessarily jesuits but who have the same fervor and employ what was seen to be the same modus operandi in circulating and supporting their belief system. Cherrypicking from the bible and imposing their rather modern traditions on the bible is what I have realized that the workers were actually doing and what is transmitted from that was a very twisted version of what the bible says instead of what it really says. I am often amazed at how often the friends - and people in other denominations too - who have been studying the book for a lifetime under that sort of direction will bring up things they know that are in there that aren't in there and also surprised that so much of what is in there has completely escaped their notice to the extent that they'll deny those things offhand. To me it doesn't matter whether it is a preacher doing the cherrypicking in support of their religion or an agnostic or atheist demagogue doing the cherrypicking to construct a case against the bible it is still an invalid and misleading way of looking at the bible or anything else. I understand that you think that the bible was just cooked up by some people for their own purposes and you are entitled to cook up your own view for your own purposes or rely on other people's cooked up views but to me that seems at best to be more of the same old corn flakes dressed up in new packaging.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 11, 2014 13:49:56 GMT -5
I believe David and Jonathan had such special male bond friendship. I had many special male friends workers in the work, whom I have a great respect and admiration but I have no sexual feelings for them. Did you strip and give them your clothes before you engaged in kissing? That does seem like a 'special' relationship. Does it matter if David and Jonathan shared an erotic moment or two? Or twelve? We know there have been homosexuals throughout history so the odds are that some historical figures were homosexual. Perhaps David wasn't but Jonathan was. Perhaps Paul was but was too up tight to mention it. Why does it matter that the people on record in the bible display human traits?
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 11, 2014 14:51:24 GMT -5
Let me "fix" that for you! I CURRENTLY don't get it, CURRENTLY no one has proof either way on the topic, CURRENTLY IN MY OPINION...it feels like we won't understand it until we are dead in which case it wouldn't matter any more. However, it CURRENTLY doesn't stop me from searching for answers, because I am not a "Stick your head in the sand" kind of person! Better? As far as how you feel about it, yes. As far as why some people seek relationships with others of the same sex, no. But you might want to consider that they are not 'given over' to their sexuality any more than you are 'given over' to being right or left handed or 'given over' to the fact that your knees bend in the direction they do (if they didn't, how would you be able to use a chair?).You should check. I don't post topics of my own. I think that from time to time people break into my account and start topics to cause confusion. If you would have carefully read what I have written in my previous posts, you would see that I am defending the point that gay's are NOT "given over" to that life style, and that they are born that way IMO! As far as "People breaking into your account to start topics to cause confusion,".... I am sure you are correct. I'm sure it's not you causing confusion and frustration.....right?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 11, 2014 15:20:16 GMT -5
Blandie, I still don't understand what you are referring to by these terms: "the gospel of religious anti-religion" or the term "anti-religion"
What is it that mean by "anti-religion?" Sorry dmmichgood, but I'm not constantly around here. I think maybe you understand anti-religion as its the opposite of pro-religion. I think that maybe you've also observed religious behavior in places like politics or devotion to certain ideals or fandom or nationalism or sports activities and so forth. In real life religion doesn't require belief in a god but just strong devotion to and faith in certain beliefs and conversely belief in a god does automatically make someone religious. Some entire religious sects are atheistic and some of the most religious people I've met have been fervently anti-religious. I was using religioiusly irreligious in the same sense as jesuitical behavior is flagged in people who aren't necessarily (J)esuits but who have the same fervor and employ what was seen to be the same modus operandi in circulating and supporting their belief system. Cherrypicking from the bible and imposing their rather modern traditions on the bible is what I have realized that the workers were actually doing and what is transmitted from that was a very twisted version of what the bible says instead of what it really says. I am often amazed at how often the friends - and people in other denominations too - who have been studying the book for a lifetime under that sort of direction will bring up things they know that are in there that aren't in there and also surprised that so much of what is in there has completely escaped their notice to the extent that they'll deny those things offhand. To me it doesn't matter whether it is a preacher doing the Jesuits in support of their religion or an agnostic or atheist demagogue doing the cherrypicking to construct a case against the bible it is still an invalid and misleading way of looking at the bible or anything else. I understand that you think that the bible was just cooked up by some people for their own purposes and you are entitled to cook up your own view for your own purposes or rely on other people's cooked up views but to me that seems at best to be more of the same old corn flakes dressed up in new packaging. Thank you for your explanation of what you meant. No, I didn't "understand anti-religion as its the opposite of pro-religion." I didn't know what you meant, that is why I asked.
Can you name any religion that you stated was a "religion (that) doesn't require belief in a god but just strong devotion to and faith in certain beliefs?"
Could you also, as you stated, name any "Some entire religious sects (that) are atheistic?"
Your rather liberal use of the word "cherrypicking" is interesting. Doesn't every Christian religion use certain parts of the bible to reinforce their particular beliefs?
YOU apparently use the posts here to form your own erronneous beliefs.
Because you obviously do not have the least understanding of what I think about the bible.
Yet you proclaim that you "understand that (I) think that the bible was just cooked up by some people for their own purposes." That I can "cook up your own view" or "rely on other people's cooked up views."
Would you please find the posts where I stated any of that sort?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2014 9:38:48 GMT -5
You should check. I don't post topics of my own. I think that from time to time people break into my account and start topics to cause confusion. If you would have carefully read what I have written in my previous posts, you would see that I am defending the point that gay's are NOT "given over" to that life style, and that they are born that way IMO![/quote] It was you post that contained the following: I don't know why He would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle. I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore!that led me to believe that you felt god did give 8,9,10,11 year old individuals to a homosexual lifestyle but you simply didn't understand why and probably wouldn't until after you died. So you are saying that god doesn't give 8,9,10,11 year old individuals to a homosexual lifestyle. I see. Hackers are a crafty and spiteful bunch! I have heard that they work for Satan. But I think it could be demonstrated that I do not start a lot of threads. Perhaps I have no original thoughts. Perhaps I am an AI program that was set in motion without the 'originality module' correctly installed and tested. Perhaps this is the testing ground - as a young AI program I am a mere toddler learning slowly from the examples posted. Maybe my parsing module needs to be fine-tuned.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 12, 2014 11:47:26 GMT -5
You should check. I don't post topics of my own. I think that from time to time people break into my account and start topics to cause confusion. If you would have carefully read what I have written in my previous posts, you would see that I am defending the point that gay's are NOT "given over" to that life style, and that they are born that way IMO! It was you post that contained the following: I don't know why He would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle. I just don't get it, guess we all won't understand until after we are dead. By then it won't matter anymore!that led me to believe that you felt god did give 8,9,10,11 year old individuals to a homosexual lifestyle but you simply didn't understand why and probably wouldn't until after you died. So you are saying that god doesn't give 8,9,10,11 year old individuals to a homosexual lifestyle. I see. Hackers are a crafty and spiteful bunch! I have heard that they work for Satan. But I think it could be demonstrated that I do not start a lot of threads. Perhaps I have no original thoughts. Perhaps I am an AI program that was set in motion without the 'originality module' correctly installed and tested. Perhaps this is the testing ground - as a young AI program I am a mere toddler learning slowly from the examples posted. Maybe my parsing module needs to be fine-tuned.
[/quote][/p]
Rational ~ From your profile page, it appears you have created around 100 threads since 2009. Not a great number over time on the Board (2007), but your postings are substantial (19,591 Posts) in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jun 12, 2014 11:50:50 GMT -5
@ dmmichgood There's some that are actively atheist and deny deity like Positivism or Raelians or some sects of Theravada Buddhism and there are many that are agnostic or embrace atheism like Unitarian Universalism and Taoism and elements of some mainstream churches. There are others but you can look them up. I never said that many forms of Christianity don't cherrypick - I agree they do - but that doesn't justify an anti-christian or anti-Biblicist from cherrypicking the bible to construct straw man arguments and thats not a valid way to stitch together or argue a thesis. Yet you proclaim that you "understand that (I) think that the bible was just cooked up by some people for their own purposes." That I can "cook up your own view" or "rely on other people's cooked up views." Would you please find the posts where I stated any of that sort?I'm not a mind reader and can only respond to what you've said whether or not your statements adequately convey what you believe. That statement is true, Blandi,- the problem is with people, however, it is people who created a god in their image, then wrote the bible in accordance with what they wanted to believe and then created a religion to worship the god that they had created!
|
|