- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by sumydidOriginally posted by sumydid
As the bible states, Jesus is Son of the living God, whom He calls "the Father" and whom called Him "my Son."
If we are to presume one way or the other, we should presume that Jesus sides with His Father on the issue of homosexual acts. If He for some reason wanted to refute His Father's teachings, He clearly would have made it a point to do so.
...[text shortened]... greater reward than many others who may not have faced such a strong temptation.
If we are to presume one way or the other, we should presume that Jesus sides with His Father on the issue of homosexual acts.
Give over.
Join the queue with all the other people who have exhausted their powers of exegetical prestidigitation in order to endorse the conclusion that they knew, deep down, was right. namely that homosexual acts are fine/sinful*.
*Delete as appropriate.
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf Jesus says: "Do x and y and you'll live for eternity in the house of God", doesn't that directly imply
I've never understood the fascination with this subject. Jesus never expressly condemns homosexuality. He never condemns witches or soothsayers either, to the best of my recollection, but that doesn't imply that He condoned these practices.
Jesus was about forgiveness. He told a woman who was a proven and admitted adulterer and fornicator "Neither do I ...[text shortened]... n does NOT "send people to hell" The lack of forgiveness of sin does. THAT is the point.
that whatever you are, whatever you do, however you do it, you are OK in the eyes of Jesus so long
as you don't go against x and y? Anyone who claims otherwise are putting words in the mouth of
Jesus.
Paradoxically amusing though, that Jesus never says: "Thou shalt not put words in my mouth".
Lord Shark? Yes, stalemate. 🙂
Originally posted by JigtieIf Jesus published an exhaustive manual on Avoiding Hell: Sins of Omission and Commission, it hasn't survived. Some of what he said seems clear on the face of it; much is open to interpretation. And since his utterances occur within a set of literary and historical contexts, his stances on a broad swathe of subjects must surely be open to conjecture.
If Jesus says: "Do x and y and you'll live for eternity in the house of God", doesn't that directly imply
that whatever you are, whatever you do, however you do it, you are OK in the eyes of Jesus so long
as you don't go against x and y? Anyone who claims otherwise are putting words in the mouth of
Jesus.
Paradoxically amusing though, that Jesus never says: "Thou shalt not put words in my mouth".
Lord Shark? Yes, stalemate. 🙂
Of course, you're not supposed to treat Der Bibel as a salutary codex; you're supposed to convert your ribcage into a dove-cote and let it be ...
Originally posted by Conrau KI see I made a slight mistake here. The actual biblical transaltion I meant to quote is:
[b]
C'mon. It's in the same form as other commandments. Also from Mathew 19:
No. It is not. If you refer back to the original Greek, you will see nothing of the form of a command. The word 'will leave behind' (katalepsei) is not in the imperative mood, nor in the subjunctive which sometimes functions hortatively. It is a simple future tense, indicat ...[text shortened]... He just seems permissive.
(I actually have posted against rape anyway.)[/b]
4 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female
5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.'
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by PinkFloydIf only it were simple. Sadly, we cannot generally choose what we believe. So it can't be the case, on your account, that our salvation depends on our moral integrity, since 'ought' implies 'can'.
Yes, and that is exactly what He does. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." Period. End of debate. Do it and live forever; don't and, well...don't. Simple.
Originally posted by Lord SharkI know that I can "choose what I believe". Fortunately for me, my church teaches that I don't choose my Savior; He chose me.
If only it were simple. Sadly, we cannot generally choose what we believe. So it can't be the case, on your account, that our salvation depends on our moral integrity, since 'ought' implies 'can'.
Originally posted by Lord Shark1. I know because I observe it. I could believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years olod. I could believe the moon to be made of green cheese. I "choose" to believe the former and not the latter due to my observations, from gathering information on the subject, and sometimes, just a gut feeling.
Originally posted by PinkFloyd
[b]I know that I can "choose what I believe".
How do you know that? Is it a whim of yours then? You were not compelled by the evidence? Oh dear...[/b]
2. No, it's no whim. I think that was covered under #1.
3. Evidence falls under gathering information and observation, which again, I covered in #1. There's really no argument here: I don't see how anyone could NOT believe whatever they choose to. They may believe in things that have no basis in facts, or in things that some find abhorrent. But the bottom line is we are all free to choose what we believe, and I've never met anyone who didn't agree with that ...until now perhaps?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by PinkFloydYes, until now. I don't think that in general we freely choose what to believe.
1. I know because I observe it. I could believe the earth to be 4.5 billion years olod. I could believe the moon to be made of green cheese. I "choose" to believe the former and not the latter due to my observations, from gathering information on the subject, and sometimes, just a gut feeling.
2. No, it's no whim. I think that was covered under #1. ...[text shortened]... at we believe, and I've never met anyone who didn't agree with that ...until now perhaps?
If it were true that you could freely choose what to believe, then if somebody came along and said 'I'll give you a thousand dollars if you believe that the moon is made of green cheese.', you would simply be able to alter your belief state and claim the money.
Except you couldn't, could you?
Originally posted by Lord SharkI wouldn't WANT to change my belief on such a "whim" as an offer of $$. I don't see your point.
Yes, until now. I don't think that in general we freely choose what to believe.
If it were true that you could freely choose what to believe, then if somebody came along and said 'I'll give you a thousand dollars if you believe that the moon is made of green cheese.', you would simply be able to alter your belief state and claim the money.
Except you couldn't, could you?
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by PinkFloydOk, I think I see your difficulty. Let me put it another way.
I wouldn't WANT to change my belief on such a "whim" as an offer of $$. I don't see your point.
Suppose Alice is about to be killed by a machine that is sensitive to your thoughts. The wicked experimenter informs you that if you choose to believe that zebras aren't animals but are in fact cleverly disguised animatronic mechanisms, the machine will register your belief and save her. Do you fancy her chances?
I hope that helps 🙂
Originally posted by Lord SharkTHAT I get. It's not the way I was approaching the dilemma, but I follow the logic. Fortunately, there is nothing that can truly know our beliefs (except God). I'm pleased that my chance of facing such a quandry is impossible.
Ok, I think I see your difficulty. Let me put it another way.
Suppose Alice is about to be killed by a machine that is sensitive to your thoughts. The wicked experimenter informs you that if you choose to believe that zebras aren't animals but are in fact cleverly disguised animatronic mechanisms, the machine will register your belief and save her. Do you fancy her chances?
I hope that helps 🙂
You have a good mind.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by PinkFloydYou are very kind to say so.
THAT I get. It's not the way I was approaching the dilemma, but I follow the logic. Fortunately, there is nothing that can truly know our beliefs (except God). I'm pleased that my chance of facing such a quandry is impossible.
You have a good mind.
So it seems to me that we are not free to choose what we believe. At best we are able to choose lines of enquiry according to our desires. For example, I have chosen to enquire as to whether there is a god, and my best guess so far, is this. I can't know if there is a god, but I have noticed that my perceived probability of god's existence is in inverse proportion to the specificity of the notion of god I am addressing at the time.
In other words, if you ask me if god exists, I'll respond by asking what you mean by 'god'. The more specific your definition becomes, the less likely it seems.
In all honesty, I don't think I can help that. If you know different, let me know 🙂
Originally posted by Lord SharkI think you seem to know yourself pretty well and I wouldn't presume to tell you that you are or are not free to believe whatever you choose.
You are very kind to say so.
So it seems to me that we are not free to choose what we believe. At best we are able to choose lines of enquiry according to our desires. For example, I have chosen to enquire as to whether there is a god, and my best guess so far, is this. I can't know if there is a god, but I have noticed that my perceived probability of ...[text shortened]... s.
In all honesty, I don't think I can help that. If you know different, let me know 🙂
I tend to see things in a much more black&white way. If one asks me "Do you believe in God?", asking for a definition of God wouldn't enter my mind. I'd say "yes", using my own definitions of God (and every other word in the question I suppose) and I would consider that to be a free choice.