|
Post by gadreel on Feb 22, 2023 19:07:49 GMT
hahahahahaa, ok so how about all the links I provided to show you that the claims you are making do not hold up to the truth? They were laughable. No serious biblical scholar takes those arguments seriously. Hmm interesting because I happen to know a number of serious biblical scholars. Can you tell me how you are involved in the church?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 22, 2023 23:49:44 GMT
I'm afraid he has a point gadreel , and you are indeed in the WRONG here. The Bible is NOT a book of love! It uses the word "love" to describe a perverted, disgusting, one-dimensional concept of tribalism - not actual love as you understand it. The type of love that Jesus advocates for is something that any rational mind would recognize as hatred. The book literally has him saying "Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me". Matthew 10:34-35“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “’a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—This is the same asshole who's advocate told slaves to "obey their masters" and obey the commandments (including those that involved stoning disobedient children and putting homosexuals to death). So you're just plain wrong! The type of love that Jesus was talking about was the "sucking his dick" kind of love. It was being a sycophant at the expense of your fellow man type of love. We can recognize that the Christians who picket with signs saying "God hates fags" are evil people, just like we can recognize the djorno is an evil person. But we're using secular standards of good and evil. He's using a biblical standard (which is evil). People like him actually believe that they are doing good because they don't know the difference between good an evil. Everything they learned about morality, they learned from a book written by anonymous, magic believing goat herders. Correct! That's exactly what he's doing because he's trying to offer some charity to Christianity which it doesn't deserve. It's an evil religion, and people ought to recognize it for what it is. Not try to sanitize it by pretending Jesus was some liberal, nice guy who loved everyone, or that Christianity is about peace and pacifism. It isn't! Biblical Christianity is about a hateful, vengeful, wrathful God throwing a soiled bone of human flesh out as a lifeboat to "save" a minority of God dick suckers from the danger that he created (by his design). God is the "hero" of his own story, which sees him both as someone saving you from himself. Not exactly. Agape love is the love of God (which is the LOWEST kind since God isn't real). It's the "special" kind of love that's exempt from all of the normal rules associate with love as described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8. God's love of course FAILS to meet any of the criteria for real love, making it absolutely worthless. It's no wonder why that's the only kind of love you can show. The lack of self-awareness and level of irony and projection you’ve displayed with this post simply off the charts. Wow. Translation: I have no actual argument to refute anything you've said, so I'll offer a throw away ad hominem instead.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 23, 2023 2:14:45 GMT
Disclaimer: I appreciate YOU (as a person) for what you’re trying to do. But I don’t appreciate what you actually do! I don’t agree with your religion (or the reasonableness of your acceptance of this religion), but I can certainly recognize your attempt to represent your faith in a positive way that doesn’t malign that character of the god you believe. And the reason I can appreciate that is because this is the type of Christian I strived to be back when I was a believer. Having said that, I generally prefer to argue with the conservative, fundamentalist, homophobic Christians because it’s so much easier to show why Christianity is a failed religion using them as a perfect example. When the loudest representatives of Christ are essentially “the scum of the Earth”, the selfish, ignorant, cherry-picking, self-righteous people who have so little regard for humanity that they delight in this notion that people will burn in hell - that paints the religion in the perfect light necessary for a rational mind to reject it. All they need to witness are the mad ravings of Christians like djorno to know that this is not only a false belief system, but a harmful and dangerous one. Forgive me, but I sincerely hope that you’re not going to fall back on the tired trope of evoking the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to dismiss your fellow Christian here. As much as you might like to “disown” this kind of thinking, he is in fact a product of your religious system, based on your religious Holy Book. If he is “wrong” and you are “right”, how is an atheist like me supposed to know the difference? What standard should I be using to judge which of you is the “true Christian”? And if both of you are true, then do you not see the problem of internal inconsistency you have to overcome with your own religious system? Please don’t take this personally, but the reason I don’t like liberal Christians or those who might be LGBTQ affirming is because you’re just as guilty as cherry picking and ignoring the inconvenient passages (including the ones from the NEW testament) as people like clusium and djorno. The two of you existing in the same space is only ammunition for me to show just how contradictory the Bible is. Liberal Christians try to repaint this ugly religion into something benign and tolerable to make more attractive than it is. The Bible is a homophobic book, with homophobic teachings (in BOTH testaments). It’s easy for you to say that you don’t judge gay people and think they are okay, but that’s not what the Bible says about gay people. You claim to be a Bible believer, which means you still need to explain away the homophobic parts. You can’t just deny them as if they don’t exist because you’d rather focus on the so-called love of Jesus. That’s dishonest! If you truly believe that Jesus is God, then you ought to have an explanation for why Jesus ever ordered that gays be executed in the first place. That’s a commandment in scripture, and the New Testament never overturns this. Liberal Christianity (IMO) is a form of cognitive dissonance whereby a Christian is trying to reconcile the teachings of the Bible with their own conflicting moral standard. People who intuitively understand that things like slavery, and genocide, and misogyny, and homophobia are wrong…but still want to believe in the Bible anyway despite the fact that it literally sanctions all of these things.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 23, 2023 8:28:52 GMT
Dumb move there, Djorno. After you just explained how other OT prohibitions don't apply anymore, you pull out 2 Timothy 3:16 to show why the prohibition on gay sex still DOES apply? Then the same Timothy verse, by your reasoning, should equally apply to those other OT prohibitions that you just said don't count anymore.No, sir. A) I said those laws don’t apply to me as a Christian. B) I quoted it in response to Gadreel’s claim that no where in the bible is homosexuality considered a sin. C) I also quoted 2 Timothy to explain why it’s OK for me as a Christian to appeal to OT passages. I hope that clears up the confusion. Jesus is more strict on divorce than homosexuality, which he never references, yet most Christian denominations have no problem with divorce, even multiple ones.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2023 13:59:40 GMT
No, sir. A) I said those laws don’t apply to me as a Christian. B) I quoted it in response to Gadreel’s claim that no where in the bible is homosexuality considered a sin. C) I also quoted 2 Timothy to explain why it’s OK for me as a Christian to appeal to OT passages. I hope that clears up the confusion. Jesus is more strict on divorce than homosexuality, which he never references, yet most Christian denominations have no problem with divorce, even multiple ones. The only reason Our Lord Discussed divorce, but not homosexual acts, is because the religious leaders were the ones who brought up the subject. Therefore, that doesn't mean that Our Lord was more strict on one, but, not the other.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 23, 2023 14:32:28 GMT
Jesus is more strict on divorce than homosexuality, which he never references, yet most Christian denominations have no problem with divorce, even multiple ones. The only reason Our Lord Discussed divorce, but not homosexual acts, is because the religious leaders were the ones who brought up the subject. Therefore, that doesn't mean that Our Lord was more strict on one, but, not the other. I know. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover and if homosexuality was a huge issue for Jesus, he would have made a point of it. Homosexuality was considered a sin even in Jesus’ time, but so was masturbation or pulling out before ejaculation. It’s not about the penis, but the semen.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2023 14:46:03 GMT
The only reason Our Lord Discussed divorce, but not homosexual acts, is because the religious leaders were the ones who brought up the subject. Therefore, that doesn't mean that Our Lord was more strict on one, but, not the other. I know. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover and if homosexuality was a huge issue for Jesus, he would have made a point of it. Homosexuality was considered a sin even in Jesus’ time, but so was masturbation or pulling out before ejaculation. It’s not about the penis, but the semen. Only if the matter was brought up, would He Have Discussed it, just as He Did with divorce. The fact was, nobody would be caught committing homosexual acts in Israel, regardless of sexual orientation, knowing they would be stoned to death.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 14:51:57 GMT
Prove it. Can you back up your claim?
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 23, 2023 14:53:09 GMT
I know. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover and if homosexuality was a huge issue for Jesus, he would have made a point of it. Homosexuality was considered a sin even in Jesus’ time, but so was masturbation or pulling out before ejaculation. It’s not about the penis, but the semen. Only if the matter was brought up, would He Have Discussed it, just as He Did with divorce. The fact was, nobody would be caught committing homosexual acts in Israel, regardless of sexual orientation, knowing they would be stoned to death. There was plenty. This was the Roman Empire. Funny how the Romans come off as kinda the good guys in the Gospel narratives. What language was the New Testament written in?
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2023 16:48:44 GMT
Prove it. Can you back up your claim? If the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves rather than admonishing that they should be set free because owning human beings is wrong, that is an endorsement of slavery whether you're too stupid to admit it. If the Bible shows Yahweh giving orders to slaughter an entire group of people, including civilians and children, that is an endorsement of genocide whether you're too stupid to admit it. And in fact, the Bible does both of those things. The God depicted in that book is simply a depraved, evil tyrant, whether you're too stupid to admit it.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 17:01:56 GMT
Prove it. Can you back up your claim? If the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves rather than admonishing that they should be set free because owning human beings is wrong, that is an endorsement of slavery whether you're too stupid to admit it. If the Bible shows Yahweh giving orders to slaughter an entire group of people, including civilians and children, that is an endorsement of genocide whether you're too stupid to admit it. And in fact, the Bible does both of those things. The God depicted in that book is simply a depraved, evil tyrant, whether you're too stupid to admit it. Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2023 17:15:37 GMT
If the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves rather than admonishing that they should be set free because owning human beings is wrong, that is an endorsement of slavery whether you're too stupid to admit it. If the Bible shows Yahweh giving orders to slaughter an entire group of people, including civilians and children, that is an endorsement of genocide whether you're too stupid to admit it. And in fact, the Bible does both of those things. The God depicted in that book is simply a depraved, evil tyrant, whether you're too stupid to admit it. Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir. Are you really challenging him to bring evidence that the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves?
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 17:23:42 GMT
They were laughable. No serious biblical scholar takes those arguments seriously. Hmm interesting because I happen to know a number of serious biblical scholars. Can you tell me how you are involved in the church? Think you need to see this, sir.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 17:25:10 GMT
Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir. Are you really challenging him to bring evidence that the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves? I’m challenging him to bring evidence that the bible endorses the kind of slavery he thinks if does.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Feb 23, 2023 17:34:10 GMT
Only if the matter was brought up, would He Have Discussed it, just as He Did with divorce. The fact was, nobody would be caught committing homosexual acts in Israel, regardless of sexual orientation, knowing they would be stoned to death. There was plenty. This was the Roman Empire. Funny how the Romans come off as kinda the good guys in the Gospel narratives. What language was the New Testament written in? Yes, *IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!* Ditto for the Greeks as well. But, not for the Jews. That is why when St. Paul was admonishing the newly formed churches throughout the Greek & Roman world he addressed the issue of homosexual acts (as well as other types of fornications).
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Feb 23, 2023 18:38:20 GMT
There was plenty. This was the Roman Empire. Funny how the Romans come off as kinda the good guys in the Gospel narratives. What language was the New Testament written in? Yes, *IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE!!!* Ditto for the Greeks as well. But, not for the Jews. That is why when St. Paul was admonishing the newly formed churches throughout the Greek & Roman world he addressed the issue of homosexual acts (as well as other types of fornications). Which according to his religion is a grave sin just like eating pork is a grave sin. And the sin is not homosexuality per se, but using sex for recreational pleasure. This is why any fornication including sex using birth control is a grave still on the books, if not practiced much today. However, there is only one-size-fits all punishment. We all fall short of the grace of God. There is probably far more “grave sin” going on unchecked in your life you don’t even realize you engage in. If anything, you might think you are being kind to gay people when you withhold your charity in loving thy neighbor unconditionally. That is the Narrow Gate and few can pass through it. I daresay Paul knew all about homosexuality. Not that he was necessarily gay himself, but he was half Greek and not raised in Jerusalem, but the very cosmopolitan Tarsus in the Greco-Roman world. He was very well educated for a man of his time and in the leather and tent making trade. He would have intimately known pagans homosexuals and otherwise, and probably did lots of business with them. That was his gateway into their world to spread his message from Jesus himself. He had totally new ideas, was well spoken, and people found what he said as positive and hopeful for a new world. He never admonished his friends in the churches to persecute gay people or said they were inherently evil, he simply told them cut out the pagan rituals, which were not sexual but often used transgendered shamans, together with the Jesus’ Resurrection commemoration meals. He told them to stick to the plan of going as righteous as possible; go celibate if necessary, just like him, because the Lord Jesus was returning soon before the last of them would die. He told straight people to do the same. He refers to his “thorn in his side,” which means whatever Paul struggled with in failing righteous himself, it was his problem, not anyone else’s. Paul was not self-righteous, which is what the Church Universal became once it went political. The Church needs to heal itself. That said, not all Romans were citified hedonists, the old conservative tribal cultures still held sway in the countryside among the heaths and the educated classes, the Atheists, who sneered at magical paganism, were not all bread, circuses, and whorehouses. They thought a lot on their philosophy and their learning would come to elevate the Church as centers for positive outcomes of universal peace and love, rather than torture chambers of body, mind, and soul they general are when politicized. And this is not 1st century Rome, but the 21st and we are not bound by the superstitions that keeps religion in business. There is no rational ethical guidance coming from any of the churches now. It’s all noise for self-preservation with no signal. If it works for you fine, but there is good reason for me to not follow your advice on the subject at this time. If the churches clean up their acts and actually decide to follow Jesus into the Narrow Gate, let me know. I ain’t holding my breath.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 23, 2023 18:39:00 GMT
Hmm interesting because I happen to know a number of serious biblical scholars. Can you tell me how you are involved in the church? Think you need to see this, sir. Given that this response is a dodge, I am guessing the answer is not very.
|
|
djorno
Sophomore
@djorno
Posts: 322
Likes: 81
|
Post by djorno on Feb 23, 2023 18:55:50 GMT
Think you need to see this, sir. Given that this response is a dodge, I am guessing the answer is not very. ^^Talking of dodging…
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 23, 2023 19:11:04 GMT
Given that this response is a dodge, I am guessing the answer is not very. ^^Talking of dodging… Buddy, I asked you a direct question, you asked me to watch a video, I did watch the video, you have not answered the question. I think you need to go back to the log in your eye part of the bible
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 23, 2023 20:02:18 GMT
If the Bible gives advice on how to treat slaves rather than admonishing that they should be set free because owning human beings is wrong, that is an endorsement of slavery whether you're too stupid to admit it. If the Bible shows Yahweh giving orders to slaughter an entire group of people, including civilians and children, that is an endorsement of genocide whether you're too stupid to admit it. And in fact, the Bible does both of those things. The God depicted in that book is simply a depraved, evil tyrant, whether you're too stupid to admit it. Bring your evidence in regards to slavery, sir. "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." Took me 3 seconds of work.
|
|