|
Post by faune on Jun 12, 2014 11:58:45 GMT -5
@ dmmichgood There's some that are actively atheist and deny deity like 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 many 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! Blandie ~ I believe Dmmichgood may have a point here about how the Bible was created in the first place. However, religions came later as oral traditions were passed down and eventually written down due to competition from other religions at a particular time in history as a following became evident. Christianity basically resulted in similar fashion along with other religions due to scribes recording these beliefs and events and leaving a record for posterity of their core beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by blandie on Jun 12, 2014 12:16:33 GMT -5
Blandie ~ I believe Dmmichgood may have a point here about how the Bible was created in the first place. However, religions came later as oral traditions were passed down and eventually written down due to competition from other religions at a particular time in history as a following became evident. Christianity basically resulted in similar fashion along with other religions due to scribes recording these beliefs and events and leaving a record for posterity of their core beliefs. That is the refrain preached by the religiously anti-religious for the past century but the premises on which that view stands are far from proven and in some cases they are far from likely even. Unlike some other traditions the new testament for example was written within decades - not centuries - of the events it describes and we have fragments that show that they were around and they are quoted extensively by early post-biblical writers. The idea that the old testament was a post-exilic concoction containing elements of previous oral traditions has also been convincingly refuted by both external physical evidence of written fragments and internal evidence no matter that these are glossed over by the anti-biblicist crowd. You choose not to believe in the Judeo-Christian god or bibles then that is fine but drawn-out speculation based on thin or no evidence is not a foundation for attacking them and that starts to look more like fanatical faith as anything religion teaches.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 12, 2014 12:28:03 GMT -5
Blandie ~ I believe Dmmichgood may have a point here about how the Bible was created in the first place. However, religions came later as oral traditions were passed down and eventually written down due to competition from other religions at a particular time in history as a following became evident. Christianity basically resulted in similar fashion along with other religions due to scribes recording these beliefs and events and leaving a record for posterity of their core beliefs. That is the refrain preached by the religiously anti-religious for the past century but the premises on which that view stands are far from proven and in some cases they are far from likely even. Unlike some other traditions the new testament for example was written within decades - not centuries - of the events it describes and we have fragments that show that they were around and they are quoted extensively by early post-biblical writers. The idea that the old testament was a post-exilic concoction containing elements of previous oral traditions has also been convincingly refuted by both external physical evidence of written fragments and internal evidence no matter that these are glossed over by the anti-biblicist crowd. You choose not to believe in the Judeo-Christian god or bibles then that is fine but drawn-out speculation based on thin or no evidence is not a foundation for attacking them and that starts to look more like fanatical faith as anything religion teaches. Blandie ~ I may be a liberal Christian in some of my views, but I'm not irreligious. I just choose to be open-minded and realistic about things. I have studied this subject extensively over the past year and that's the opinion I have arrived at from my own research, as you can view in any of my threads relating to early Christianity. I create these threads to get input from others for comparison purposes. However, I would appreciate you providing us with some proof regarding your statement above in a link that could refute the suppositions of biblical scholars? I'm open to any new evidence to support this fact, if you choose to supply the same?
As far as the N.T. books are concerned, I don't doubt they were written within decades of one another. However, who can deny that the Church didn't add to their contents in the centuries that followed to back up their own teachings ~ especially on the origin of Hell-fire?
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/origin-of-hell-fire.php#.U5nqu01OXIU
carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 12, 2014 17:06:03 GMT -5
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. ;) Wow. 100 times some hacker posted using my name. I wonder if ProBoards has a security problem. Is it possible to sum up the the number of posts from other message boards, find out the total number of threads started and post those as well? Isn't it odd that there were no posts started between 2007 and 2009? It is like the 18.5 minute gap on the Nixon tapes?
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 12, 2014 17:21:26 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] Rational...I was quoting what Dennis Jacobsen had said about the bible,he said, "God gets blamed for lots of things. Do I believe GOD is the one to be blamed for them? No, personally I do not. In the bible it is recorded that God has given homosexuals over to that lifestyle. Personally, I believe what God has given people over to, God alone can redeem them even as God has redeemed me." I was defending gay's, saying...."I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." I said that because gays know at a very young age that they are gay (including my family member) and it makes no sense to me that God would give a child over to that lifestyle. I guess I should have hit the quote button when I replied to his post, so as not to create confusion! His post about that is the first one after my post starting the thread. -ph-
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 13, 2014 6:05:31 GMT -5
I was defending gay's, saying...."I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." I said that because gays know at a very young age that they are gay (including my family member) and it makes no sense to me that God would give a child over to that lifestyle. I guess I should have hit the quote button when I replied to his post, so as not to create confusion! His post about that is the first one after my post starting the thread. -ph- It is a parsing issue. The phrase "I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." could be read to imply that you believed god did but you didn't know why and would not find out why until after you were dead. "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" to me, implies Mary threw the ball.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 13, 2014 9:42:26 GMT -5
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. Wow. 100 times some hacker posted using my name. I wonder if ProBoards has a security problem. Is it possible to sum up the the number of posts from other message boards, find out the total number of threads started and post those as well? Isn't it odd that there were no posts started between 2007 and 2009? It is like the 18.5 minute gap on the Nixon tapes? Rational ~ Please forgive my teasing? I just couldn't resist having some fun with you over the posting issue. Honestly, I appreciate people like you on TMB who challenge our minds and broaden the discussions by your posts. It shows that somebody really reads our posts with a critical eye. That fact convinces me that you are more than a "tree surgeon" and perhaps a "teacher" by profession who encourages his students to think outside the box? As to the "gap" of two years between 2007 and 2009, it does seem to resemble something like the mystery behind the Nixon tapes. Perhaps TMB didn't keep records going back that far or you were a "reader" during that time in this Board's history?
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 13, 2014 10:26:05 GMT -5
So the synopsis (just a big, cool word that may not have any relevance, but was fun to type)of this entire thread is that some of you will not be swayed as long as your religious book and society agree. Society must condemn homosexuality and you are pleased. If a renowned worker ever tells you that homosexuality is supported, or at least not condemned, and that it is stated so in your book, you will change your mind. In other words, you believe what you are told by certain people - all others are evil and promote evil actions and thoughts.
Some people in this thread encourage thought (evil) and research (evil) outside (evil) of religion (godly). Others in this thread don't know what to think, who to believe, or where to start.
Start with nature (science - evil), believe what you see (evil), and think for yourself (evil) OR believe the workers (gods - comparable to priests in a certain church), DO NOT think for yourself (godly), and do not try to reinvent (evil) the wheel (bible) - nature and science are evil and are not true - only the 'good book' is true. Do not go outside, do not experience life, immerse yourself in the writings of some people from the 17th century, and live like they did. After all, they were obviously right in all things. Next time you venture into the streets, make sure to take your book with you and do as the law dictates - stone everyone just to be on the safe side. They are all evil (except for all of the 'friends').
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 13, 2014 10:49:49 GMT -5
So the synopsis (just a big, cool word that may not have any relevance, but was fun to type)of this entire thread is that some of you will not be swayed as long as your religious book and society agree. Society must condemn homosexuality and you are pleased. If a renowned worker ever tells you that homosexuality is supported, or at least not condemned, and that it is stated so in your book, you will change your mind. In other words, you believe what you are told by certain people - all others are evil and promote evil actions and thoughts. Some people in this thread encourage thought (evil) and research (evil) outside (evil) of religion (godly). Others in this thread don't know what to think, who to believe, or where to start. Start with nature (science - evil), believe what you see (evil), and think for yourself (evil) OR believe the workers (gods - comparable to priests in a certain church), DO NOT think for yourself (godly), and do not try to reinvent (evil) the wheel (bible) - nature and science are evil and are not true - only the 'good book' is true. Do not go outside, do not experience life, immerse yourself in the writings of some people from the 17th century, and live like they did. After all, they were obviously right in all things. Next time you venture into the streets, make sure to take your book with you and do as the law dictates - stone everyone just to be on the safe side. They are all evil (except for all of the 'friends'). Eyedeetentee ~ The Company supports rational thought ~ now that can be dangerous, I hope you know? You might discover something that rocks your boat or even sinks your ship by employing such a skill in your search for truth?
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 13, 2014 16:38:15 GMT -5
I was defending gay's, saying...."I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." I said that because gays know at a very young age that they are gay (including my family member) and it makes no sense to me that God would give a child over to that lifestyle. I guess I should have hit the quote button when I replied to his post, so as not to create confusion! His post about that is the first one after my post starting the thread. -ph- It is a parsing issue. The phrase "I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." could be read to imply that you believed god did but you didn't know why and would not find out why until after you were dead. "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" to me, implies Mary threw the ball. We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation!
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 13, 2014 21:29:00 GMT -5
Seems to me you are bashing gays. You know, the feminine homosexual was once referred to as a Mary. The ball represents Mary's anger toward society, the window, and is obviously used because of its slang use referring to a body part. I'd say Rational is homophobic. Yep, that's it.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 13, 2014 21:52:44 GMT -5
Seems to me you are bashing gays. You know, the feminine homosexual was once referred to as a Mary. The ball represents Mary's anger toward society, the window, and is obviously used because of its slang use referring to a body part. I'd say Rational is homophobic. Yep, that's it. So funny! Now that you mention it, I'm sure that is what he was IMPLYING .
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 13, 2014 22:28:29 GMT -5
It is a parsing issue. The phrase "I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." could be read to imply that you believed god did but you didn't know why and would not find out why until after you were dead. "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" to me, implies Mary threw the ball. We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation! But it is a good use of rhetorical questioning.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jun 14, 2014 2:54:29 GMT -5
It is a parsing issue. The phrase "I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." could be read to imply that you believed god did but you didn't know why and would not find out why until after you were dead. "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" to me, implies Mary threw the ball. We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation! My first thought for "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" was that it implied doubt on the part of the speaker...as if the speaker was thinking "I don't know why you would think Mary would throw the ball through the window".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 9:21:02 GMT -5
It is a parsing issue. The phrase "I don't know why God would give an 8,9,10,11 year old over to that lifestyle." could be read to imply that you believed god did but you didn't know why and would not find out why until after you were dead. "I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window" to me, implies Mary threw the ball. We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation! It sounds pretty straightforward to me. "I don't know why she would...." is completely different from "I don't know why she did....." I hear phrases like "I don't know why she would...." frequently and it never implies that the speaker figures she has already done it. It implies that the listener thinks she might do it or has done it and the speaker is stating that he/she does not believe she would do it or has done it because there is no known reason for why she would do it. Now that last sentence might be difficult to follow but I did it anyway and I don't know why I did but I would do it again!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jun 14, 2014 17:01:12 GMT -5
We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation! It sounds pretty straightforward to me. "I don't know why she would...." is completely different from "I don't know why she did....." I hear phrases like "I don't know why she would...." frequently and it never implies that the speaker figures she has already done it. It implies that the listener thinks she might do it or has done it and the speaker is stating that he/she does not believe she would do it or has done it because there is no known reason for why she would do it. Now that last sentence might be difficult to follow but I did it anyway and I don't know why I did but I would do it again! I have observed over the last two decades that the "subjunctive" has largely disappeared from American English. This creates ambiguity in communication.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 14, 2014 20:41:33 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.
Blandi, that won't wash! I ask you to find my posts concerning what I believe about the bible!
You say you aren't a "mind reader". How about just reading my POSTS ?
If you do , you would NOT be able to find anything to match our contorted statement 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."
Instead of listing the posts as I asked you to do, (because you can't) you just make another ridiculous statement.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jun 14, 2014 22:36:17 GMT -5
That is the refrain preached by the religiously anti-religious for the past century but the premises on which that view stands are far from proven and in some cases they are far from likely even. Unlike some other traditions the new testament for example was written within decades - not centuries - of the events it describes and we have fragments that show that they were around and they are quoted extensively by early post-biblical writers. The idea that the old testament was a post-exilic concoction containing elements of previous oral traditions has also been convincingly refuted by both external physical evidence of written fragments and internal evidence no matter that these are glossed over by the anti-biblicist crowd. You choose not to believe in the Judeo-Christian god or bibles then that is fine but drawn-out speculation based on thin or no evidence is not a foundation for attacking them and that starts to look more like fanatical faith as anything religion teaches. Blandie ~ I may be a liberal Christian in some of my views, but I'm not irreligious. I just choose to be open-minded and realistic about things. I have studied this subject extensively over the past year and that's the opinion I have arrived at from my own research, as you can view in any of my threads relating to early Christianity. I create these threads to get input from others for comparison purposes. However, I would appreciate you providing us with some proof regarding your statement above in a link that could refute the suppositions of biblical scholars? I'm open to any new evidence to support this fact, if you choose to supply the same?
As far as the N.T. books are concerned, I don't doubt they were written within decades of one another. However, who can deny that the Church didn't add to their contents in the centuries that followed to back up their own teachings ~ especially on the origin of Hell-fire?
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/origin-of-hell-fire.php#.U5nqu01OXIU
carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ
religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
Dmmichgood ~ ~ I feel Blandie may has gotten the two of us confused regarding the subject of our posts? Since I was the one who alluded to possible additions to the early gospel accounts at a later date to support the dogma of the Church, giving examples in my links above. However, anybody who would take the time to study the writings of these Early Church Fathers (ECF's) would discover for themselves that making additions to existing copies of the gospels was a tolerated practice along with many forgeries that circulated using the name of the apostles as the writers during the early days of Christianity, especially after it was legalized in the 4th century.
Towards the bottom of Page 1 of another thread of mine entitled "Lost Christianities," I discuss the different ECF's and their beliefs and how these teachings became incorporated within the Bible, especially in the area of Hell-fire. However, anybody interested in pursuing this topic further, can check out some of the recommended books by Bart Ehrman, a well known and respected historian and Bible scholar.
professing.proboards.com/thread/22116/lost-christianities?page=1 Dmmichgood shared...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 14, 2014 23:16:41 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! T hat statement of mine does not say that the bible was "cooked up" by people! Who do you think wrote the bible if it wasn't people? (Men in this case- other wise why did they keep using the masculine "he", "Him"etc,?)
What basis did they use to characterize the GOD of the Bible, if it wasn't themselves?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jun 14, 2014 23:50:52 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. Positivism, is a philosophy, and NOT a religion! confines itself to the data of experience and excludes a priori or metaphysical speculations.
Raelians are a UFO religion and does believe in a god or Gods and certainly isn't atheist in it's beliefs.
Theravada Buddhism, is one of the branches of Buddhism none of which considers themselves a "religion"
The Unitarian Universalism church certainly is not all atheist! (That one I know from experience)
You can't just put them all into one basket & and make a blanket statement!
Neither can one make a blanket statement that just because one is an atheist that we are "anti-" Christian or "anti-" Biblicist!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 15, 2014 18:26:01 GMT -5
We could continue in circles here, but I have better things to do than nit-pick at words that " COULD BE READ TO IMPLY" something different than what I explained. How I PHRASED it is perfectly fine in response to what Dennis wrote. Your "Mary throwing the ball" example would depend on the rest of the conversation....It could have been said, "What if Mary throws that ball through the window?" Other end of conversation...."I don't know why Mary would throw the ball through the window."....as if it would be a foolish thing for her to do. Totally depends on the full conversation! It sounds pretty straightforward to me. "I don't know why she would...." is completely different from "I don't know why she did....." Consider 'would' to be the past tense of will rather than a conditional verb indicating the results of an imagined event. I think it is what you infer rather than what the speaker implies. "I don't know why Rosemary Woods would delete 8 minutes from the tape." She did it.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 16, 2014 18:11:16 GMT -5
Where do I start with this? Hmmm, "The actions of the human animal alone" shakes my faith in mankind. Certain scriptures in the bible, and whether or not they are "Gods stance" on the given topic, shake my faith in religion and those that put Gods word down in writing (which ultimately is still mankind). Yes, of course I have read the Old Testament.....much of which doesn't reflect the God in the New Testament! Just another topic to explore there. So why wouldn't you just chalk this topic up with the others that you question whether or not the bible actually records "God's stance" on it? Why would anyone post questions/topics on the TMB, or even just come on here to read? In my opinion, many of the thread topics are posted by individuals so they could see what others had to say about the topic. Sometimes others have input/suggestions that are helpful and I'm thankful for that. Many times others are in similar situations, with the same concerns/questions that are good to discuss. And then of course there are those that just pick apart what others say, essentially being no help at all! -ph-
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jun 17, 2014 0:01:54 GMT -5
I would say it doesn't matter, but it seems odd that you of all people would run with one side of the argument and use select verses in the bible as your evidence. Being that you use a lack of cold hard facts to discount any statement others make. For bible believers the hard cold facts is the text of the bible. The record states what the men did. You can embellish it and spin it as you wish. Taking the text as written.... The proof I would ask is to show where the extra meaning comes from that is applied to change the story. The problem is that they did not have a source for the extra information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2014 9:11:17 GMT -5
Why would anyone post questions/topics on the TMB, or even just come on here to read? In my opinion, many of the thread topics are posted by individuals so they could see what others had to say about the topic. Sometimes others have input/suggestions that are helpful and I'm thankful for that. Many times others are in similar situations, with the same concerns/questions that are good to discuss. And then of course there are those that just pick apart what others say, essentially being no help at all! -ph- I agree, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky. From reading your posts it seems you have a lot of the same thoughts and questions that I do. I guess I was just trying to figure out why this is the one issue that shakes your faith. If you believe other faith-shaking atrocities recorded in the bible are just the result of men writing things that aren't necessarily true...why couldn't you have that same belief for the gay issue? I can't answer for PH, but from what I have observed with people who have had a "faith-shaking", it very frequently coincides with a personal experience which contradicts their concept of biblical "truths". I have seen this occur when someone close gets divorced, someone close comes out of the homosexual closet, someone close gets unjustly (but biblically justified) kicked out of church, and when someone close but highly principled changes their faith. These things, and more, cause some people to re-examine what they thought were bedrock truths and sometimes are really rocked by what they discover.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Jun 17, 2014 9:35:18 GMT -5
I agree, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky. From reading your posts it seems you have a lot of the same thoughts and questions that I do. I guess I was just trying to figure out why this is the one issue that shakes your faith. If you believe other faith-shaking atrocities recorded in the bible are just the result of men writing things that aren't necessarily true...why couldn't you have that same belief for the gay issue? I can't answer for PH, but from what I have observed with people who have had a "faith-shaking", it very frequently coincides with a personal experience which contradicts their concept of biblical "truths". I have seen this occur when someone close gets divorced, someone close comes out of the homosexual closet, someone close gets unjustly (but biblically justified) kicked out of church, and when someone close but highly principled changes their faith. These things, and more, cause some people to re-examine what they thought were bedrock truths and sometimes are really rocked by what they discover. Would there ever be a reason an earth-shaking experience come out of what the bible says in JOhn 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life."? Is that a biblical fact that is going to be conceptionally changed as a biblical "truth". I also noted that in JOhn's gospel it repeats almost those exact words several times...even in the first chapter, verse 12 it speaks about Jesus giving power to those who believe on his name to have power or privilege to be called the sons of God.
|
|
|
Post by eyedeetentee on Jun 17, 2014 10:16:16 GMT -5
I can answer for ph and would, except my feeding tube unhooked from my gills and I can't find it in all of this muck in which I am immersed. When I find it, I'll answer for her - we are all connected you know.
Sharon - How is it that Christians can add words to verses? If you truly live by that verse, John 3:16, how can you condemn homosexuals? That biblical 'fact' has already been changed by people like you; " . . . whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life, except for homosexuals who act on their love for each other." You and people like you have already changed the verbiage because you hate that which you do not understand. (Don't tell me you don't hate them; condemning someone to 'hell' is hating them.) Picking and choosing verses that fit your mood for the day is not how that book is supposed to work. People constantly accuse bible bashers for picking and choosing verses for argument. Who do you think taught them that? Bible thumpers have the corner on the market in that arena.
Either you believe that verse or you don't. It is a black and white matter. There is no gray area if you take the words for their meaning exactly as they are written. Whosoever - anyone, not whomever you choose. It does not say, " . . whosoever attends a specific church . . "
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 17, 2014 17:22:52 GMT -5
Why would anyone post questions/topics on the TMB, or even just come on here to read? In my opinion, many of the thread topics are posted by individuals so they could see what others had to say about the topic. Sometimes others have input/suggestions that are helpful and I'm thankful for that. Many times others are in similar situations, with the same concerns/questions that are good to discuss. And then of course there are those that just pick apart what others say, essentially being no help at all! -ph- I agree, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky. From reading your posts it seems you have a lot of the same thoughts and questions that I do. I guess I was just trying to figure out why this is the one issue that shakes your faith. If you believe other faith-shaking atrocities recorded in the bible are just the result of men writing things that aren't necessarily true...why couldn't you have that same belief for the gay issue? There are things written in the bible that I feel are horrible and barbaric, unfair, unbelievable....I could go on and on. Most of the things I see as being just human evilness, some of the things I wonder if they were actually "God's words," or tampered with as mans will not God's. However, the one thing that shakes my faith, "If" it were indeed all God's word untampered with is the question I started the thread with about gays.
|
|
|
Post by peacefulheart on Jun 17, 2014 17:39:16 GMT -5
I agree, and I didn't mean to come off as snarky. From reading your posts it seems you have a lot of the same thoughts and questions that I do. I guess I was just trying to figure out why this is the one issue that shakes your faith. If you believe other faith-shaking atrocities recorded in the bible are just the result of men writing things that aren't necessarily true...why couldn't you have that same belief for the gay issue? I can't answer for PH, but from what I have observed with people who have had a "faith-shaking", it very frequently coincides with a personal experience which contradicts their concept of biblical "truths". I have seen this occur when someone close gets divorced, someone close comes out of the homosexual closet, someone close gets unjustly (but biblically justified) kicked out of church, and when someone close but highly principled changes their faith. These things, and more, cause some people to re-examine what they thought were bedrock truths and sometimes are really rocked by what they discover. clearday, You are correct on this. It hit home for me on the topic of being gay, because of my family member. I had always wondered if it was a choice (in my ignorance) or if they were born that way, but never had asked any gay people that I knew (co-workers)...I thought it was a little too much 'In their business' to ask. When my family member told me they were gay, I started thinking about it more. I started asking other gays(that I became closer friends with) about how old they were when they realized they were gay. My conclusion on the topic, is that it is absolutely not a choice, therefore shaking my faith in the words of the bible on the topic.
|
|