10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Bad wolfit was written by over forty individuals from many different backgrounds, some simple manual workers, others vastly wealthy and opulent Kings, over a period of about 1,500 years. the first portion was written in Hebrew and in some cases Aramaic and is excellently preserved, by such copyists as the Masoretes who scrupulously numbered every letter and made sure it tallied up, page by page. the second portion, the so called New testament, was composed in Greek, the first versions translated from Hebrew, the so called Septuagint. there are also a huge number of extant fragments and parchments, which we can compare to discern the original intent. yes there have been interpolations, but these are easily discernible and can be marked as such.
Quite honestly I'm not bible person, I have one somewhere though, I'll dig it up if I can find it and I'll read up on Genesis tomorrow and then get back to you on how clear I think it is. Or otherwise you can post a link to it directly.
edit: I doubt its got Genesis actually, its just got the new testement and psalms...
Who wrote the bible then? I hea ...[text shortened]... in all instances and consistently, over time and many translations, original meaning is lost.
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobso you shall simply pick and choose which pattern of behaviour suits your preference and state that it is natural, well that begs believe! the two are completely incomparable, for what is good for animals, may be disastrous for humans. why don't you for example go around marking out your territory noobster by peeing on garden walls less another noobster shall come along and try to take away your girlfriend at rutting season!
If a behaviour pattern is found in the natural world, then i would call that natural. Hardly Disney Land logic as you call it, just plain common sense.
So there are no comparisons between animal and human behaviour? Is that your position?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm not sure what to make of this.
What premises do you think I hold other than "any indictment against homosexuality by Jesus must be inferred" which you seem to agree with?
I apologise, it seems I have read more into your posts than is warranted. I think we basically agree, any indictment or endorsement must be inferred as Jesus didn't spell it out.
It seems as if you are saying that the arguments of two opposing sides can both be valid "given their premises". Isn't the validity of one side's argument dependent on the validity of their premises?
I'm using 'valid' to mean that there are no errors of reasoning in the argument that connects the premises to the conclusion. People might disagree on which premises are true, and that isn't always something that can be resolved via reason.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you continue to confuse the term 'natural' with 'morally acceptable'?
so you shall simply pick and choose which pattern of behaviour suits your preference and state that it is natural, well that begs believe! the two are completely incomparable, for what is good for animals, may be disastrous for humans. why don't you for example go around marking out your territory noobster by peeing on garden walls less another noobster shall come along and try to take away your girlfriend at rutting season!
Suppose some animals habitually eat rival's babies. We can ask some questions about this scenario.
Q. Is this behaviour natural?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it moral?
A. As animals are not moral agents it is neither moral nor immoral.
Q. Can we infer what humans should do directly from animal behaviour?
A. No, but animal behaviour can inform us when we consider the issues. For example, if somebody argues that a human behaviour is unnatural despite said behaviour being exhibited by our closest primate relatives, we can conclude that the burden of evidence is on them to convince us that they aren't talking nonsense.
I think you are talking nonsense. Please stop it.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNow Robbie, you seem has difficulties with definitions...
animals also hunt down and eat their rivals babies, is that also natural ? no , then your logic is Disney land! yes, then it is also natural for humans? no, then you cannot equate animal behaviour with human behaviour, it is a flawed and ludicrous argument.
Natural, as "in nature", or as "in human morals"?
We agree that there are homosexuality in nature, then it must be nature. If humans are not natural, then it doesn't matter if homosexuality is natural or not, it's just moral, nad natural or not is totally besides the point.
So I ask you: Are animals natural? Are humans natural? Are animals and humans a creation of god?
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSort out your definitions , then come back and we'll continue this discussion. Because at the moment it's pointless with you spouting the utter garbage you are at the moment.
so you shall simply pick and choose which pattern of behaviour suits your preference and state that it is natural, well that begs believe! the two are completely incomparable, for what is good for animals, may be disastrous for humans. why don't you for example go around marking out your territory noobster by peeing on garden walls less another noobster shall come along and try to take away your girlfriend at rutting season!
10 Aug 09
So, anyway, when people claim that according to Christianity homosexuality is a sin and
homosexuals will burn in hell for it, they're putting words in Jesus' mouth, since Jesus never explicitly
said so? That means my original post is correct, right?
Oh, the poor buggers. I bet they meant well. Not!
10 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieJesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6). He also indicated that it was indestructible: "Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" (Matthew 5:18). Notice that he mentions even the words and letters!
So, anyway, when people claim that according to Christianity homosexuality is a sin and
homosexuals will burn in hell for it, they're putting words in Jesus' mouth, since Jesus never explicitly
said so? That means my original post is correct, right?
Oh, the poor buggers. I bet they meant well. Not!
When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3). Examples could be multiplied to demonstrate that Jesus was conversant with the Old Testament and its content. He quoted from it often and He trusted it totally.
I put this back on page 3 and I do not think there was a response to it. The Old testament is clear on homosexuality and this is Jesus view on the Old testament.So,there is no need for Jesus to rehash the subject of homosexuality.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe girls are well excused -what one could really expect out of a mere spare rib?
A funny thing about this debate, homosexuality is a sin or not, is that only male homosexuality is mentionned in the OT. Lesbianism is never mentionned and therefore totally okay by the fundamentalists (?).
😵
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasRom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
A funny thing about this debate, homosexuality is a sin or not, is that only male homosexuality is mentionned in the OT. Lesbianism is never mentionned and therefore totally okay by the fundamentalists (?).
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by JigtieAs your debate with Conrau K illustrates, the inference can be argued either way. So this latest post of yours simply amounts to a victory claim.
So, anyway, when people claim that according to Christianity homosexuality is a sin and
homosexuals will burn in hell for it, they're putting words in Jesus' mouth, since Jesus never explicitly
said so? That means my original post is correct, right?
Oh, the poor buggers. I bet they meant well. Not!
I think there is general agreement that Jesus didn't spell it out, but one side says this is because he didn't have to given the context and the other says that it is a sign that he was fine with it. I regard it as a stalemate.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by black beetleYou are more right than you think. In a feminist point of view, the bible are read the way that women as non-important. So if homo is good or not, women is excluded, becasue female sexuality doesn't exist.
The girls are well excused -what one could really expect out of a mere spare rib?
😵
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by Lord SharkFair enough. However, whatever you infer, if you claim that Jesus condoned/condemned
As your debate with Conrau K illustrates, the inference can be argued either way. So this latest post of yours simply amounts to a victory claim.
I think there is general agreement that Jesus didn't spell it out, but one side says this is because he didn't have to given the context and the other says that it is a sign that he was fine with it. I regard it as a stalemate.
homosexuality, you put words in his mouth. He never said this or the other.
What's the divine penalty for lying in the name of Jesus, I wonder.
10 Aug 09
Originally posted by JigtieSo exactly why are you so desperate for Christ not to have said anything about homosexuality being a sin?
Fair enough. However, whatever you infer, if you claim that Jesus condoned/condemned
homosexuality, you put words in his mouth. He never said this or the other.
What's the divine penalty for lying in the name of Jesus, I wonder.