Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on December 18, 2015, 12:15:52 PM
-
deleted
-
The gospel of John specifically mentions that there was a disciple whom Jesus loved, presumably male. As Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is possible he was gay and enjoying a gay relationship with this particular disciple.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is NORMAL! If it could be proved Jesus was gay it would be a slap in the face to all the unpleasant bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nasty bigotry where homosexuality is concerned.
A question for the Christians on the forum, just supposing it could be established beyond all doubt that Jesus was a homosexual, would it make any difference to your faith?
Floo, this has been doing the rounds for decades - its nothing new. What is possibly more important is the fact that he DIDN'T use homosexual relationships as a motif at any time. Rather, when he used relationships as a motif, it was always the heterosexual form that he used. Interestingly, that other big social issue - the place of women - was one he did often reference and act on.
As for whether such a discovery - something that has been being sought for over a century - would make any difference to my faith, I doubt it - since sexuality isn't an issue that impacts on salvation.
-
I get the impression that Jesus did have a sense of humour.
-
The gospel of John specifically mentions that there was a disciple whom Jesus loved, presumably male. As Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is possible he was gay and enjoying a gay relationship with this particular disciple.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is NORMAL! If it could be proved Jesus was gay it would be a slap in the face to all the unpleasant bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nasty bigotry where homosexuality is concerned.
A question for the Christians on the forum, just supposing it could be established beyond all doubt that Jesus was a homosexual, would it make any difference to your faith?
There might be more Judy Garland on Songs of Praise.
-
The gospel of John specifically mentions that there was a disciple whom Jesus loved, presumably male. As Jesus never condemned homosexuality, it is possible he was gay and enjoying a gay relationship with this particular disciple.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, it is NORMAL! If it could be proved Jesus was gay it would be a slap in the face to all the unpleasant bigots who use the Bible as an excuse for their nasty bigotry where homosexuality is concerned.
A question for the Christians on the forum, just supposing it could be established beyond all doubt that Jesus was a homosexual, would it make any difference to your faith?
No.
-
I get the impression that Jesus did have a sense of humour.
"Always look on the bright side of life...."
-
What an abhorrent OP!
-
What an abhorrent OP!
Why is it?
-
Why is it?
Survivor bias
-
What an abhorrent OP!
No it isn't, 2Corrie. The idea has been doing the rounds for as long as I can remember (though when I first heard it, the term 'gay' wasn't commonly associated with homosexuality). There have been a number of attempts to provide evidence, such as Floo's reference to 'a special disciple' but therte has never been any solid evidence. Moreover, as I pointed out in an earlier post, he challenged plenty of other taboos and cultural mores in his teaching and his life - yet never that of homsexuality.
-
Don't recall Jesus did much to help the women of his time, eh ??????
-
He was very supportive of women, liked them and numbered them amongst his friends. He could hardly have women wandering around the country with him, as he did with his apostles, in a male dominant society (though I have no doubt the women of his time were strong, Jewish women are known to be so as a generalisation). That would have caused scandal.
I have already answered that the possibility of Jesus being gay would not affect my faith one bit but it seems a bit pointless to speculate about his innate sexuality. We'll never know for sure so why wonder? It's pretty prurient to be nosey about anyone's sexuality, imo. Character and personality are what matter.
-
OK So being gay has naff all to do with character & personality.
Are you serious ?!!?!?!??!? ::) ??? ???
-
Individual sexuality is an integral part of each of us but if someone is honest, has a good moral compass, good to be with, sexuality doesn't come into it.
-
AAHHHH I get it now.
As long as we keep our sexuality 'secret' we're OK ???
-
It's also quite possible to love someone in a platonic sense. I have a female friend that I have known since my teens (am now rapidly becoming one of the ancients) who I could say, I 'love' dearly.
-
Are you female or male-gay ???
-
Are you female or male-gay ???
Trippy.... I'm a wee bitty tired and have used the wrong word! ::)
One of those... 'can't think of the word moments'!
It's ok, you won't be hearing any more from me tonight.... Izzz off to me bed.
-
AAH That's sweet, ok. Hope you had a good sleep & up ready for the next round ?!?!?! LOL
-
Gay or straight I hope Jesus had a good consensual sex life.
-
Individual sexuality is an integral part of each of us but if someone is honest, has a good moral compass, good to be with, sexuality doesn't come into it.
I agree with Brownie on this one :)
-
Don't recall Jesus did much to help the women of his time, eh ??????
He bothered to speak to them, which many of that time didn't.
Plus he stopped the stoning of the woman for adultery, didn't he?
He acknowledged women, which was a big step in those days.
-
AAHHHH I get it now.
As long as we keep our sexuality 'secret' we're OK ???
No a persons sexuality is a personal thing.
Some people want to have it acknowledged by other people, others just want privacy.
A person can still make a valid point regardless of their personal sexuality.
If they don't hurt others, it isn't really other people's business.
Whoever Jesus was ( or is ;) ) , that part of him is a private thing.
It wouldn't have been understood in the times he lived in, if he wanted privacy that's up to him 🌹
It doesn't take anything away from his teachings on how we should treat others, IMO.
-
AAHHHH I get it now.
As long as we keep our sexuality 'secret' we're OK ???
No, why would any of us keep our sexuality secret? It just shouldn't be an issue imo. No-one takes any notice of the fact that I am heterosexual, if they feel the need to judge me it will be on my character. The same goes for homosexuals. We are more than our sexual orientation.
-
I agree 2Corrie. Some have nothing better to do than suggest things about other people based on the stupidest reasons. I love my buddies, oh, then according to the author of this thread it's got to be sexual. Men in the Middle East still kiss each other, oh, then according to the author of this thread, that's evidence that all those men are gay. Perhaps one should mind their own sex life and quit making stunted suggestions about others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLCpfGniz8
-
There might be more Judy Garland on Songs of Praise.
So there would be some good that would come out of this tedious non topic ;)
-
So there would be some good that would come out of this tedious non topic ;)
This should be a non topic, because being gay should be no big deal anymore than being heterosexual is no big deal. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone who is gay by posting the thread, and apologise if I have. :-[
-
Don't recall Jesus did much to help the women of his time, eh ??????
Who brought the news of his resurrection, and to whom did he first appear post-resurrection, trippy? We also know that he had 12 named disciples but some 70 followers, of which several were women, all of whom were sent out to share his message at at least one point in his ministry. There are records of his performing miracles specifically for women, and he also got stroppy with his (male) disciples when they tried to stop mothers with children coming to talk to him. In the cointext in which we live, that wouldn't be regarded as much; in the context of the time, that would have been.
In fact, trippy, there are plenty of stories within the Gospels of Jesus making time mtoo speak with women, often with women that no 'respectable' Jew would be seen talking to.
-
Gay or straight I hope Jesus had a good consensual sex life.
Actually, it would appear that he remained celibate, as has been the case with many people throughout history. Sex and sexuality isn't the be-all and end-all of human life.
-
This should be a non topic, because being gay should be no big deal anymore than being heterosexual is no big deal. I certainly didn't mean to offend anyone who is gay by posting the thread, and apologise if I have. :-[
Floo, I think the problem with a thread like this is that it is predicated on an English word - love - that covers a range of emotions; in reality, many other languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, have a range of words that cover individual aspects of that range of emotions. As such, the topic is - as you say - a non-topic because we are often talking at one or more remove from the original meaning of the material.
-
Actually, it would appear that he remained celibate, as has been the case with many people throughout history.
Got any evidence of that?
-
Got any evidence of that?
Are you appealing to selfish gene theory or one where the goal of humanity is to get hector or an hector up an orifice? Aren't you ignoring the ancient practice of auto eroticism still vilified by unthinking shaggers of any persuasion?
-
Actually, it would appear that he remained celibate, as has been the case with many people throughout history. Sex and sexuality isn't the be-all and end-all of human life.
You have no idea if that was the case, he might have had a great bonkfest throughout his short life for all you know! Those who claim Jesus was celibate do so because the idea of him having any sort of sex life makes them feel uncomfortable, imo.
-
There are 5 references to the 'disciple Jesus loved' in the New Testament - all in John's Gospel.
John 13
23 ἦν ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς·
John 19
26 Ἰησοῦς οὖν ἰδὼν τὴν μητέρα καὶ τὸν μαθητὴν παρεστῶτα ὃν ἠγάπα λέγει τῇ μητρί· Γύναι, ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου·
John 20
2 τρέχει οὖν καὶ ἔρχεται πρὸς Σίμωνα Πέτρον καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον μαθητὴν ὃν ἐφίλει ὁ Ἰησοῦς, καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· Ἦραν τὸν κύριον ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου, καὶ οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν.
John 21 (2)
7 λέγει οὖν ὁ μαθητὴς ἐκεῖνος ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς τῷ Πέτρῳ· Ὁ κύριός ἐστιν. Σίμων οὖν Πέτρος, ἀκούσας ὅτι ὁ κύριός ἐστιν, τὸν ἐπενδύτην διεζώσατο, ἦν γὰρ γυμνός, καὶ ἔβαλεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν·
20 Ἐπιστραφεὶς ὁ Πέτρος βλέπει τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀκολουθοῦντα, ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν· Κύριε, τίς ἐστιν ὁ παραδιδούς σε;
Those of you who know their Greek, even modern Greek, will appreciate that the 5 verbs used in these 5 references - "ἠγάπα" (x4) and "ἐφίλει" (x1), are never used in contexts that have any sexual connotation at all. In other words, the love referred to is that of a parent (ἠγάπα) and of a brother (ἐφίλει). To use such verb references to suggest anything about a person's sexuality is to make a major error of judgement.
-
You have no idea if that was the case, he might have had a great bonkfest throughout his short life for all you know! Those who claim Jesus was celibate do so because the idea of him having any sort of sex life makes them feel uncomfortable, imo.
Sorry Floo, but "... hose who claim Jesus was celibate do so because", 1) there is no reference to a wedding between him and anyone else, 2) there is no reference to his loving anyone in an 'eros' way, 3) celibacy was something that was not uncommon in that period [or throughout history for that matter] and 4) on a more general level, sex isn't everyone's 'raison d'etre' (though it may be yours).
-
4) on a more general level, sex isn't everyone's 'raison d'etre' (though it may be yours).
Actually, yes, sex is everyone's raison d'etre, literally.
-
Actually, yes, sex is everyone's raison d'etre, literally.
Sorry, Shaker, it may have been their parents' raison d'etre, but as I'm sure you'll agree there are many people who go a lifetime without having sexual intercourse, and that doesn't diminish their humanity and their reason for being.
-
Sorry, Shaker, it may have been their parents' raison d'etre, but as I'm sure you'll agree there are many people who go a lifetime without having sexual intercourse, and that doesn't diminish their humanity
It certainly makes them rather odd and most likely maladapted in some way, which is almost inevitable when people cut themselves off from a component of the greatest source of happiness, contentment and fulfilment that human beings ever know.
and their reason for being.
Sex is their reason for being, however ;)
-
Sorry Floo, but "... hose who claim Jesus was celibate do so because", 1) there is no reference to a wedding between him and anyone else, 2) there is no reference to his loving anyone in an 'eros' way, 3) celibacy was something that was not uncommon in that period [or throughout history for that matter] and 4) on a more general level, sex isn't everyone's 'raison d'etre' (though it may be yours).
Apart from his birth and his precocious visit to the Temple at 12, there is no reference to his life before he started strutting his stuff at 30. Probably because it wasn't considered important.
-
Apart from his birth and his precocious visit to the Temple at 12, there is no reference to his life before he started strutting his stuff at 30. Probably because it wasn't considered important.
Precisely; it wasn't felt necessary to refer to events that may not have occurred. By the way, I think that, if he had married, there would have been reference made to the fact - there is reference to the rest of his family.
-
It certainly makes them rather odd and most likely maladapted in some way, which is almost inevitable when people cut themselves off from a component of the greatest source of happiness, contentment and fulfilment that human beings ever know.
That sounds as if you think that those who choose a life of celibacy are somehow mentally ill or even 'sub-human' in some way. I think you might want to rethink your thinking.
Sex is their reason for being, however ;)
No, whilst sex is probably the reason for their being (though one can now have children without having sex), sex isn't necessarily their reason for being.
-
That sounds as if you think that those who choose a life of celibacy are somehow mentally ill or even 'sub-human' in some way. I think you might want to rethink your thinking.
Not sub-human; that term is entirely of your using.
Just peculiar, which is what I already said.
No, whilst sex is probably the reason for their being (though one can now have children without having sex), sex isn't necessarily their reason for being.
Probably? No probably about it; definitely.
-
Doesn't the idea of a celibate Jesus just reflect the church's screwed-up ideas about the purity of celibacy and the fact that it hasn't quite shaken off its disgust at sex, whether it is the idea of the uncleanliness of women generally, or the supposedly modern concept of same sex relationships being ok so long as the people in them don't have sex?
-
Are you appealing to selfish gene theory or one where the goal of humanity is to get hector or an hector up an orifice? Aren't you ignoring the ancient practice of auto eroticism still vilified by unthinking shaggers of any persuasion?
No I'm asking Hope a question.
-
Sorry Floo, but "... hose who claim Jesus was celibate do so because", 1) there is no reference to a wedding between him and anyone else, 2) there is no reference to his loving anyone in an 'eros' way, 3) celibacy was something that was not uncommon in that period [or throughout history for that matter] and 4) on a more general level, sex isn't everyone's 'raison d'etre' (though it may be yours).
There's also no reference to Jesus going to the toilet but I bet he did.
With the evidence we have, there is no way to answer the question of whether he was gay or straight or married or celibate.
Some Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be a celibate straight guy but I think that reflects their hang ups about sex and sexuality more than anything else.
Some non Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be gay, but I think that's because they know it winds up the Christians.
-
There's also no reference to Jesus going to the toilet but I bet he did.
With the evidence we have, there is no way to answer the question of whether he was gay or straight or married or celibate.
Some Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be a celibate straight guy but I think that reflects their hang ups about sex and sexuality more than anything else.
Some non Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be gay, but I think that's because they know it winds up the Christians.
If a person is or was gay it shouldn't wind anyone up unless they are an anti-gay bigot!
-
Seems SO many here feel the Bible we have now is 100% correct & can be totally relied upon !!!
CAN IT ?!?!!?!?!
-
Not sub-human; that term is entirely of your using.
And used because your comments smacked of the kind o thing that was said about the disabled until relatively recently. Try to wriggle out of the comment as much as you like, but your comment is now enshrined.
Probably? No probably about it; definitely.
As I have said, one doesn't require sexual intercourse to create a human being any longer, Shaker. So, 'probably' is the reality of medical science.
-
Seems SO many here feel the Bible we have now is 100% correct & can be totally relied upon !!!
CAN IT ?!?!!?!?!
OK, what other bits could have been included? Are you referring to the other gospels and epistles that were written between the middle of the 2nd century AD and as late as the 5th?
-
And used because your comments smacked of the kind o thing that was said about the disabled until relatively recently. Try to wriggle out of the comment as much as you like, but your comment is now enshrined.
And I'm quite happy for it to be so, as I didn't use a term such as 'sub-human' as you are trying to imply.
As I have said, one doesn't require sexual intercourse to create a human being any longer, Shaker. So, 'probably' is the reality of medical science.
Which is not only incredibly recent in human history but also extremely rare.
-
There's also no reference to Jesus going to the toilet but I bet he did.
That is such a lame example, jeremy, as to suggest that you are reaching for examples.
With the evidence we have, there is no way to answer the question of whether he was gay or straight or married or celibate.
to the contrary, I would suggest that we have got a considerable amount of evidence to suggest one of these. I listed them in the post you quoted and no-one has yet produced any evidence to suggest any other conclusion.
Some Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be a celibate straight guy but I think that reflects their hang ups about sex and sexuality more than anything else.
There may be some, I suppose, though I've never met any. Most want to have an interpretation that is honest to the material before us. As pointed out above, I have listed 4 obvious inferences from the documents we have; the others that have been put forward have to stretch the language and contextual pointers to near-on breaking point.
[Some non Christians seem to have a burning desire for Jesus to be gay, but I think that's because they know it winds up the Christians.
Whereas I'd suggest that it simply highlights their lack of understanding, especially in regards to the linguistic issues.
-
Which is not only incredibly recent in human history but also extremely rare.
Well, the context of your comment was partly within the present/recent past, so your reference to human history is rather irrelevant.
-
And I'm quite happy for it to be so, as I didn't use a term such as 'sub-human'.
One doesn't have to use a particular phrase or term, Shakes; all one has to do is give an implication. You did.
-
That is such a lame example, jeremy, as to suggest that you are reaching for examples.
Your inability to come up with a real response tells me you can't answer the point, which is that a story not mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened.
to the contrary, I would suggest that we have got a considerable amount of evidence to suggest one of these. I listed them in the post you quoted and no-one has yet produced any evidence to suggest any other conclusion.
You didn't provide any evidence, you said one thing that isn't mentioned in the Bible but could still have happened and you made a number of assertions that you have no idea are true or not.
There may be some, I suppose, though I've never met any. Most want to have an interpretation that is honest to the material before us.
If you did that, it would be a first for you.
-
One doesn't have to use a particular phrase or term, Shakes; all one has to do is give an implication. You did.
Nope. I used the word 'odd,' which is not and never has been a synonym of 'sub-human.' That one's still very much all yours, so own it.
-
You have no idea if that was the case, he might have had a great bonkfest throughout his short life for all you know! Those who claim Jesus was celibate do so because the idea of him having any sort of sex life makes them feel uncomfortable, imo.
But he had to be without sin, or the whole theory falls apart.
-
To use such verb references to suggest anything about a person's sexuality is to make a major error of judgement.
But he's singled out for getting quite cosy at the Last Supper, although there was no need to mention it. On the face of it, "the disciple who Jesus loved" meant nothing except to an audience who already knew what was being alluded to.
Since northern Palestine was heavily settled by Greeks, I expect there was a lot of it about. But it was all parcel of what the Jews meant by Greek. Purists didn't like it, but they were only trying to shoo back the tide, because Hebrew Jews were heavily outnumbered by Greek Jews.
However, if any of the shadowy figures behind the Jesus legend had crossed any lines, I think the rabbis would have used it.
-
But he had to be without sin, or the whole theory falls apart.
But, of course, sexual intercourse isn't a sin (and nor is celibacy) - its part of human nature. I think the main concern that Christians have with the idea of Jesus having a wife and children (if they even think about it) is that his ability to love the whole human race could be compromised. Furthermore, would it have been fair on such a family for him to go off on a 3-year ministry tour as he did? It certainly isn't uncommon for people, even today, to be so single-minded as to mean that they choose not to partake in every single aspect of their humanity.
-
I agree 2Corrie. Some have nothing better to do than suggest things about other people based on the stupidest reasons. I love my buddies, oh, then according to the author of this thread it's got to be sexual. Men in the Middle East still kiss each other, oh, then according to the author of this thread, that's evidence that all those men are gay. Perhaps one should mind their own sex life and quit making stunted suggestions about others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLCpfGniz8
Yes....many young men even in India hold hands when they walk around or have the hands on each others shoulders. They usually hug when they meet. That does not mean they are gay.
Gays like to believe that everyone else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'. It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.
-
Your inability to come up with a real response tells me you can't answer the point, which is that a story not mentioning something doesn't mean it never happened.
I'd agree, but when a story mentions a number of other things in the same 'league' it suggests some thing quite telling.
You didn't provide any evidence, you said one thing that isn't mentioned in the Bible but could still have happened and you made a number of assertions that you have no idea are true or not.
I made a number of assertions that are based on a reading of the Bible as whole and on the language used within the material being discussed. So, whilst I can't be definitively sure that they are true or not, I am able to make an educated and rational interpretation. After all, that is not that different to what scientists do.
If you did that, it would be a first for you.
Well, at least I'm one stage further than you and some others here. ;)
-
Gays like to believe that everyone else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'. It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.
do you actually believe the bollocks you post?
-
Yes....many young men even in India hold hands when they walk around or have the hands on each others shoulders. They usually hug when they meet. That does not mean they are gay.
Gays like to believe that everyone else (especially the famous ones) is a 'closet gay'. It makes them feel less insecure and isolated I suppose.
Admittedly I don't know many gay people in person, but I have met quite a number on line and I believe that to be a CRAZY bigoted statement! >:(
-
But, of course, sexual intercourse isn't a sin
Fornication adultery sodomy and bestiality were sins. That would restrict his options in the bonkfest department.
-
Well, at least I'm one stage further than you and some others here. ;)
No you are not. You have appalling critical thinking skills. You have no clue about the historical period. You can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims and you think that pretending you posted evidence "elsewhere" is enough to fool the rest of us.
-
No you are not. You have appalling critical thinking skills. You have no clue about the historical period. You can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims and you think that pretending you posted evidence "elsewhere" is enough to fool the rest of us.
Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine as if they'd happened within the last 100 years and in the West. It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments; and it has been up to that same group to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads (now defunct and in most cases binned through the usual pruning process) was posted there and even responded to, by some who then claim that they'd never seen it.
I wouldn't be fool enough to claim that I've never made a bad judgement or call on any given topic - sometimes I've been wrapped up in an debate and posted something on a different topic thread or misquoted or misinterpreted another poster or another source - something that just about all of us have done at one time or another.
As for 'appalling critical thinking skills' I've generally been told that these skills are higher than average by lecturers at university and colleagues at work (I'm not even going to claim massive such skills), whilst the accusation that I "can't see evidence that is in front of your nose, if it contradicts your claims" can probably be laid at the feet of just about everyone here. Everyone is guilty of confirmation bias and even survival bias to a degree - and I wouldn't put myself amongst the worst on either side of the debate. For instance, I have disagreed as much with you and Sassy, as I have with trippy and Nick Marks, ad_o and Shakes.
-
Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine as if they'd haened within the last 100 years and in the West. It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments; and it has been up to me and others to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads (now defunct and in most cases binned through the usual pruning process) was posted there and even responded to some who often claim that they'd never seen it.
I think it is the inconsistencies in your arguments that have come to the fore, Hope!
-
Yet, over the history of this forum, it has often been left up to me and a few others like Anchor to point out that folk like you and Floo - to name but two - have judged events that occurred in 1st Palestine as if they'd happened within the last 100 years and in the West.
Nope. I've never done that.
It has been up to the same group to highlight inconsistencies in your and others' arguments;
You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.
and it has been up to that same group to point out that material that has been posted on previous threads
Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.
As for 'appalling critical thinking skills' I've generally been told that these skills are higher than average by lecturers at university and colleagues at work
Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.
-
Nope. I've never done that.
You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.
Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.
Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.
Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is. I say that because there is no evidence of it having been applied by many of the antitheists on philosophical materialism.
Wigginhall used to apply it but has largely been seduced by the Bluehill side of the Farce.......Nearly sane is your man though Long may he reign.
-
Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me. I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.
-
Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me. I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.
Hard Fucking luck.
-
Hard Fucking luck.
Hello, Christ must have appeared to you, and through you, given us a heart-warming and seasonal message, hard fucking luck.
-
Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is.
Yes. Are you aware of what thinking is?
I say that because there is no evidence of it having been applied by many of the antitheists on philosophical materialism.
Ah, you are under the mistaken impression that any of us give a fuck about your obsession with philosophical materialism.
-
Vlad, please fuck off, with your gossip about me. I am my own person, with my own ideas, and I don't relish stupid comments such as yours.
You know, that's not the wiggy I remember from other forums more years ago than I care to recall, yet wiggy 2.0 continues to be by far the better and improved version in my opinion. (Not humble, as I don't do humble unless it's Kate).
Don't quite understand wiggy beta, just approve it.
A very merry Christmas wiggy to you and to yours and all good wishes for a happy, healthy, prosperous and peaceful new year.
-
Hello, Christ must have appeared to you, and through you, given us a heart-warming and seasonal message, hard fucking luck.
or we can ponder the providence of your yuletide ''fuck off''......By the way ''Hard fucking luck'' is more philosophical than ''fuck off'' don't you think?
-
You know, that's not the wiggy I remember from other forums more years ago than I care to recall, yet wiggy 2.0 continues to be by far the better and improved version in my opinion. (Not humble, as I don't do humble unless it's Kate).
Don't quite understand wiggy beta, just approve it.
A very merry Christmas wiggy to you and to yours and all good wishes for a happy, healthy, prosperous and peaceful new year.
Cheers, sunshine. I understand less and less, but it leads to happiness (the Ken Dodd version).
-
or we can ponder the providence of your yuletide ''fuck off''......By the way ''Hard fucking luck'' is more philosophical than ''fuck off'' don't you think?
Troll, troll, little troll. Lie, lie, little liar.
-
Nope. I've never done that.
Well, you've never corrected Floo when she has made reference to events that took place in 1st Century Palestine - such as the marriage of young people - but assumed that third millennium thinking applied back then, regarding, for instance, the age they could get married or the nature of Jewish marriage; if anything you have agreed with her way of thinkin, thus making you complicit in her misinformation.
You need to attend to the inconsistencies in your own arguments first.
And those would be ...? I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.
[Material that nobody else remembers you posting and that you seem to be reluctant to repost.
I think the technical terminology for that is 'selective memory loss'.
Well you don't display them in respect of Christianity.
That's your opinion, but in view of your own critical thinking lacking cohesiveness, then I'm not sure that you've got a leg to stand on.
-
Well, you've never corrected Floo
Oh dear, that pathetic already? I don't know if Jezza has a Mrs Jezza and at least one or possibly assorted Jezzettes but I'm fairly sure he has other things to do than correct your endless parade of logical fallacies.
And those would be ...?
The really quite staggering parade of one logical fallacy after another after another without which you can scarcely put finger to keyboard.
I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.
I've unfortunately had cause to point out your cognitive cock-ups more times than I wish were the case. Please do provide examples of these invalidating examples.
Not that you will, obviously.
-
Well, you've never corrected Floo when she has made reference to events that took place in 1st Century Palestine - such as the marriage of young people - but assumed that third millennium thinking applied back then, regarding, for instance, the age they could get married or the nature of Jewish marriage; if anything you have agreed with her way of thinkin, thus making you complicit in her misinformation.
Nonsense.
And those would be ...? I've heard a lot about them, but whenever anyone produces examples, they include inconsistencies which invalidate them as examples.
Bullshit.
If you want an example, there's your stupid insistence that the early Christians must have accurately transmitted the story of Jesus' life in the face of all the evidence against.
I think the technical terminology for that is 'selective memory loss'.
On your part maybe.
That's your opinion, but in view of your own critical thinking lacking cohesiveness, then I'm not sure that you've got a leg to stand on.
I have demonstrated errors in your thinking. You have done no such thing with mine.
-
Admittedly I don't know many gay people in person, but I have met quite a number on line and I believe that to be a CRAZY bigoted statement! >:(
I am sure you would not think I was bigoted or homophobic in any way Floo but years ago I did know, personally, a few gay men, from work and other things and have to say that they all said at one time or another that some non-gay men were closet gays. I don't know whether or not they meant it and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be said nowadays, people think differently and most of us don't care about the sexual orientation of others, but in the past it wasn't uncommon to hear that said.
-
I am sure you would not think I was bigoted or homophobic in any way Floo but years ago I did know, personally, a few gay men, from work and other things and have to say that they all said at one time or another that some non-gay men were closet gays. I don't know whether or not they meant it and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be said nowadays, people think differently and most of us don't care about the sexual orientation of others, but in the past it wasn't uncommon to hear that said.
Yes but you do know that heterosexual people do that as well. Very often (in the past) suggestions were made by my father whilst watching TV that certain entertainers were "puffs". They weren't. But everyone seemed to do it back in the day. As you say, not now.
Maybe Sririam has found some kind of time portal and he has slipped through to the present day with attitudes from the 60's and 70's.
-
Oh yes Trentvoyager, heterosexual people often call other people, "Gay" (can't say I ever had but I've often heard it), and young people bandy the word about casually. However the people I was talking about in my previous post (and it is a long time ago), at least appeared to mean it. I haven't thought about it for years but it struck me when the subject came up. The fact that someone has observed the fact doesn't make them bigoted, it is merely an observation, albeit a pointless one. Doesn't really matter.
-
Oh dear, that pathetic already? I don't know if Jezza has a Mrs Jezza and at least one or possibly assorted Jezzettes but I'm fairly sure he has other things to do than correct your endless parade of logical fallacies.
Sorry, Shaker, if someone fails to correct someone's incorrect assumptions - as you and Jeremy often fail to do in regard to the assumptions that Floo bases many of her threads on - they effectively serve as a supporter of the misinformation. That is a logical, and even a legal (in some cases), fact. The fallacy is yours in thinking that my position is a fallacy.
The really quite staggering parade of one logical fallacy after another after another without which you can scarcely put finger to keyboard.
So, I'm learning from you, but fairly slowly.
I've unfortunately had cause to point out your cognitive cock-ups more times than I wish were the case. Please do provide examples of these invalidating examples.
OK, Floo has suggested on several threads over the years that a 12 or 13 year old girl becoming pregnant must necessarily be the result of child abuse. In the 20th and 21st century here in the West, this would generally be the case (but not inevitably).
However, if we go to Nepal or India - as examples - it is not unusual for children to be married off in the early years of their lives - as young as 5 or 6 in some cases - and for that marriage to be consummated and children born 4 or 5 years later. The situation is often compared by healthcare and social welfare professionals to that which existed in the 1st Century in Palestine and some other parts of the Roman Empire.
Why? Well, folk like jeremy, Anchor, Gordon (I seem to remember) and myself have highlighted the fact that the life expectancy of such areas were between 40 and 50 (during the 1990s, the WHO issued a document that suggested that until life expectancy reaches 50 in any given area of the world, contraception is generally ignored by the population, especially those in the rural areas). If life expectancy is below 40+, adulthood starts much earlier than it does for us, and - as I've pointed out recently - even today a Jewish lad (and I think the same applies to girls) becomes an adult at 13.
The reference to Jesus debating with the Temple authorities when he was 12 suggests that that age was that much lower in 1st Century Palestine.
When all this kind of detail is taken into account, detail that is in the public domain for all to check, it quickly becomes clear that the very bases of many of Floo's arguments are invalidate. When you and others fail to correct her, you become guilty of such misinformation by association.
-
If you want an example, there's your stupid insistence that the early Christians must have accurately transmitted the story of Jesus' life in the face of all the evidence against.
Of which there is remarkably little, by the way, jeremy. What evidence there is 'against' is regularly based on the experiences of literate people trying to record events in an oral manner. Ong and others have shown that speakers of languages that are predominantly oral have techniques for passing on information in easily digested chunks. Such techniques include(d) rhyme, songs (and starting each line of the song with successive letters of the alphabet or syllabary), internal repetition and recitation. The result would be that it wouldn't the job of a single person to remember the material but the community, thus countering the danger of incorrect transmission - something that is often laid at the feet of the NT documents.
I have demonstrated errors in your thinking. You have done no such thing with mine.
Sometimes you have suggested that there have been errors in my thinking and sometimes you have been told - not necessarily by me - that you are wrong. Occasionally I have been in error and have accepted that. In view of the huge breadth of subjects we debate here - it isn't surprising that people sometimes get things wrong and incorrect.
-
So, I'm learning from you, but fairly slowly.
You've asserted in the past that I have not only used your favourite negative proof fallacy but have done so more than you. And yet despite being asked numerous times to provide a single example of this, you've never once done so, ever. So, since you assert again that I've employed a fallacy of some sort, here's another chance for you to stump up with some evidence.
Although you and I both know, everybody here knows, that in actual fact it'll be another chance for you to fail to do so.
-
You've asserted in the past that I have not only used your favourite negative proof fallacy but have done so more than you. And yet despite being asked numerous times to provide a single example of this, you've never once done so, ever. So, since you assert again that I've employed a fallacy of some sort, here's another chance for you to stump up with some evidence.
Although you and I both know, everybody here knows, that in actual fact it'll be another chance for you to fail to do so.
AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!
-
AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!
So no evidence of my having used the negative proof fallacy at all let alone more than you, as per your claim.
Quelle surprise.
-
Jeremy are you even aware of what critical thinking is.
Yes, he is. In fact he is one of the best informed on the board in that respect, and has been for a long time.
Apart from that, he's probably a complete arse :)
-
Sorry, Shaker, if someone fails to correct someone's incorrect assumptions - as you and Jeremy often fail to do in regard to the assumptions that Floo bases many of her threads on - they effectively serve as a supporter of the misinformation. That is a logical, and even a legal (in some cases), fact. The fallacy is yours in thinking that my position is a fallacy.
This is the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Our failure or otherwise to pick up on other people's errors has no bearing on our refutation of your arguments.
OK, Floo has suggested on several threads over the years that a 12 or 13 year old girl becoming pregnant must necessarily be the result of child abuse. In the 20th and 21st century here in the West, this would generally be the case (but not inevitably).
I thought you Christians were the ones who insisted on absolute morality. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, either it was wrong then for a twelve year old girl to be married off or it would be right now if it happened.
However, if we go to Nepal or India - as examples - it is not unusual for children to be married off in the early years of their lives - as young as 5 or 6 in some cases - and for that marriage to be consummated and children born 4 or 5 years later. The situation is often compared by healthcare and social welfare professionals to that which existed in the 1st Century in Palestine and some other parts of the Roman Empire.
You're claiming that children as young as ten were getting pregnant. Do you think that's safe?
The reference to Jesus debating with the Temple authorities when he was 12 suggests that that age was that much lower in 1st Century Palestine.
You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.
-
"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
-
Of which there is remarkably little, by the way, jeremy.
You count the gospels and Paul's own assertions as "remarkably little".
Anyway, there is some evidence that Christians were not concerned with accurate oral transmission of Jesus' life story even if you count it as "remarkably little" but there is no evidence at all of the negation of the hypothesis.
What evidence there is 'against' is regularly based on the experiences of literate people trying to record events in an oral manner.
Oh for fucks sake Hope! Stop denying the evidence. Read what I write.
I've told you what my evidence is, it is the written words of Paul and what is in the gospels. My evidence is solid documentary evidence, not a vague assumption of Chinese whispers. Your evidence, on the other hand is a vague assumption of not Chinese whispers.
Ong and others have shown that speakers of languages that are predominantly oral have techniques for passing on information in easily digested chunks. Such techniques include(d) rhyme, songs (and starting each line of the song with successive letters of the alphabet or syllabary), internal repetition and recitation. The result would be that it wouldn't the job of a single person to remember the material but the community, thus countering the danger of incorrect transmission - something that is often laid at the feet of the NT documents.
Try reading up about the Epic of Sundiata.
-
AS you know, Shakes, I've listed a number in recent posts on a number of threads - and if you haven't seen them, you are clearly struggling since you have responded to a couple already!!
Fail!
-
You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.
Strangely enough, I was talking about this very matter with two friends yesterday. I also mentioned the fact that his family later thought he was insane. Now if an archangel pops out of the blue and tells you you're pregnant by the Holy Spirit, then one would have thought the mother would expect her child to behave in a rather unusual manner later in life.
-
This is the fallacy of Tu Quoque. Our failure or otherwise to pick up on other people's errors has no bearing on our refutation of your arguments.
Actually it does, jeremy; especially when you actually argue for said person's assertions.
I thought you Christians were the ones who insisted on absolute morality. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, either it was wrong then for a twelve year old girl to be married off or it would be right now if it happened.
You're claiming that children as young as ten were getting pregnant. Do you think that's safe?
Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off. The age of puberty has changed many times over the centuries (http://bit.ly/1SbT6n6), and it is that which society uses for deciding the marriagable age.
You assume much. Even as a child it didn't make much sense to me and the questions it raised really irritated me. Jesus' parents could only have behaved as they did if they had completely forgotten about the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth. As it happens the story is most likely completely fabricated. It's not mentioned anywhere outside of Luke.
To respond backwards. There are many stories and events that are only mentioned in one or two of the 4 Gospels. That doesn't mean that they didn't happen - often it will depend on the point that the author was trying to make and the audience.
Regarding the forgetting of miraculous events, I can think of parents who have had children in very unexpected circumstances - yet who blow their tops when that child does something foolish or 'irresponsible'. After all, that is a fairly typical parental response.
-
Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off. The age of puberty has changed many times over the centuries (http://bit.ly/1SbT6n6), and it is that which society uses for deciding the marriagable age.
A legal age of consent has been all over the shop for centuries - now this, now that, now this again, now that again, here, there, everywhere. However, since I don't regard what the law says as synonymous with what's moral, the question then becomes: were thirteen year old girls so incredibly different physically and emotionally a few thousand miles away two thousand years ago that having sex with one and their bearing a child didn't constitute a act of child rape? Yes or no? That's the question you don't seem to want to touch.
To respond backwards.
You say that as though you do it any other way.
-
Shaker's arrogance forces him to pass judgment and impose HIS moral values on people of an earlier time who had different moral standards. That's a big fail for a historian and the end result is always a book, with pages that should not be read but should be torn out and used as toilet paper.
-
Shaker's arrogance forces him to pass judgment and impose HIS moral values on people of an earlier time who had different moral standards.
And there was me thinking (as per JeremyP's #88) that god-believers think their god's values are absolute and immutable, and don't change, mutate and evolve over time exactly as you'd expect purely-human-non-god values to given a sufficient length of time.
Guess not.
Or do they?
Search me.
They don't seem to be tremendously clear so how the hell can anybody else be?
-
Makes you wonder why a God that, according to some Christians anyway, is inherently good and apparently is the source of moral prescriptions (including on sexual matters) would choose to patronise a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society without doing something about its young girls becoming sexually active at such young ages.
It's almost as if there were no God at all!
-
"...would choose to patronize a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society..."
There's another fail. Thank God you're no historian Gordon. But thanks for sharing your arrogance and atheism. Merry CHRISTmas or whatever it is you godless are up to this time of year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA87aGEXNTk
-
Makes you wonder why a God that, according to some Christians anyway, is inherently good and apparently is the source of moral prescriptions (including on sexual matters) would choose to patronise a relatively primitive (in moral terms) middle-eastern society without doing something about its young girls becoming sexually active at such young ages.
The sexually-active bit has to do with the biology of human beings, Gordon.
It's almost as if there were no God at all!
Your comment suggests that you have limited knowledge of historical human biological detail.
-
There's another fail. Thank God you're no historian Gordon. But thanks for sharing your arrogance and atheism.
Gordon is about as far from arrogant as anybody I know. We're all aware that he's an atheist, but his atheism is not something that he feels a need to "advertise" unless simply saying so is what you regard as "advertising."
Merry CHRISTmas or whatever it is you godless are up to this time of year.
This one will be eating and drinking even more enormously than usual in celebration of a north-western European midwinter festival of light, colour and feasting.
-
A legal age of consent has been all over the shop for centuries - now this, now that, now this again, now that again, here, there, everywhere. However, since I don't regard what the law says as synonymous with what's moral, the question then becomes: were thirteen year old girls so incredibly different physically and emotionally a few thousand miles away two thousand years ago that having sex with one and their bearing a child didn't constitute a act of child rape? Yes or no? That's the question you don't seem to want to touch.You say that as though you do it any other way.
Odd that you should bring in the issue of consent, Shaker. I was referring to well-known biological information (see the Guardian article in a previous post, that noted that here in the UK the age of puberty (the age a child is capable of mothering/fathering a child) has changed by 5 years in the past 100. If it can change that much within a century, how much more can it change over a period of 20 centuries.
As I understand it, this age is closely linked to the quality of a child's diet and a society's life expectancy, and so regular fresh food and reasonable quantities of it - as would likely have been the case in 1st Century Palestine (as opposed, for instance, to a 17th/18th century British industrial context) would have allowed their bodies to better suit the biological need for earlier childbearing because of the lower life expectancy.
-
Odd that you should bring in the issue of consent, Shaker.
No, not odd at all since unlike you I'm not interested in (to me) wholly uninteresting minutiae about ages of puberty onset but issues of informed consdnt by a competent individual.
I was referring to well-known biological information (see the Guardian article in a previous post, that noted that here in the UK the age of puberty (the age a child is capable of mothering/fathering a child) has changed by 5 years in the past 100. If it can change that much within a century, how much more can it change over a period of 20 centuries.
As I understand it, this age is closely linked to the quality of a child's diet and a society's life expectancy, and so regular fresh food and reasonable quantities of it - as would likely have been the case in 1st Century Palestine (as opposed, for instance, to a 17th/18th century British industrial context) would have allowed their bodies to better suit the biological need for earlier childbearing because of the lower life expectancy.
Just as incredibly boring, pompous and irrelevant as usual.
What does this pedantic waste of keystrokes have to do with informed consent to sexual activity by a competent individual and is this different today than two thousand years ago?
-
Gordon is about as far from arrogant as anybody I know. We're all aware that he's an atheist, but his atheism is not something that he feels a need to "advertise" unless simply saying so is what you regard as "advertising."
I'd agree, Shakes, but as has been highighted by several posts recently regarding the age of puberty and other biological material, he and others have rather superciliously ignored biological facts giving a flavour of arrogance.
-
Incredibly boring, pompous and irrelevant as usual.
What does this pedantic waste of keystrokes have to do with informed consent?
What does inforemed consent have to do with the age of puberty, Shakes? That is why I queried why you had even introduced the topic.
As for boring, I happen to find the way in which the age of puberty has fluctuated over the centuries - and the reasons for this - both interesting and socially/scientifically informative. 'Pompous' is hardly an appropriate word for material that I learnt in secondary school biology. Finally, 'irrelevant' is about as inappropriate a word to use when the discussion is on the topic of the age at which a girl can scientifically bear a child.
-
Actually it does, jeremy; especially when you actually argue for said person's assertions.
Not saying anything at all is not arguing for somebody else's assumptions.
Why would it have been wrong for a 12-year-old to have been married off.
You tell me, you are the one who thinks God's morality is unchanging.
The age of puberty has changed many times over the centuries (http://bit.ly/1SbT6n6), and it is that which society uses for deciding the marriagable age.
That article is another example of your poor critical thinking skills. All it argues is that the age of puberty has been dropping over recent history. It does not say anything which allows you to infer the age of puberty was 10 or even 12 in the first century.
To respond backwards. There are many stories and events that are only mentioned in one or two of the 4 Gospels. That doesn't mean that they didn't happen
But it does mean the evidence in their favour is extremely weak and if it was an event that is important in the life of Jesus that all four gospels would be expected to mention and they don't, it counts against, not for its veracity.
Regarding the forgetting of miraculous events, I can think of parents who have had children in very unexpected circumstances - yet who blow their tops when that child does something foolish or 'irresponsible'. After all, that is a fairly typical parental response.
Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.
The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.
-
What does inforemed consent have to do with the age of puberty, Shakes?
Very little bordering on absolutely nothing - you seem to be fixated on puberty whereas all I'm concerned about is competent informed consent, because the two things are different and only the latter is important.
As for boring, I happen to find the way in which the age of puberty has fluctuated over the centuries - and the reasons for this - both interesting and socially/scientifically informative
What you find interesting is your own affair.
Very much your own, in my experience.
'Pompous' is hardly an appropriate word for material that I learnt in secondary school biology.
It was the appropriate word to me which is precisely the reason I used it. It's a rule I try to keep to.
Finally, 'irrelevant' is about as inappropriate a word to use when the discussion is on the topic of the age at which a girl can scientifically bear a child.
You seem to have an obsession with female adolescent biology rather than informed consent by a competent individual. I don't.
I notice (yet again) that you're doing everything to avoid the question as to whether sexual activity with a 13 year old is sufficiently different in some way as to make it apparently acceptable in your eyes two thousand years ago and apparently (I'm guessing - I don't know) unacceptable in 2015. For me to think there's a cogent difference I would need to be furnished with some sound, compelling reasons as to why. You're not providing them.
-
Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.
The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.
It was fine to start with, because the first version of Luke didn't have a Nativity.
Luke's Jesus does a lot of debating with rabbis. I think the writer was a rabbi and much of the Gospel is the writer having his own debate through Jesus's words. I figure it was Luke himself who went to sabbath supper at the chief rabbi's house and didn't approve of the seating arrangements, though I expect he said nothing at the time. It was probably Luke who got lost and turned up at the Temple, or more likely the synagogue in Cyrene or Antioch or somewhere. Details are easily switched.
-
It was fine to start with, because the first version of Luke didn't have a Nativity.
That's a minority view, unless you count Mark as the first version of Luke.
I figure it was Luke himself who went to sabbath supper at the chief rabbi's house and didn't approve of the seating arrangements,
I'd like to see your evidence for any of this.
-
Bah! humbug!
Cheer up you miserable lot!
Strewth! Some of the posts.......
Here is a Christmas interlude
🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄
Merry Christmas!
[/color][/size]
🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄🎄
-
Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"
And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.
X
-
Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"
And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.
X
Yes it's the same with people who automatically refer to religion as if it was something bad.
-
Very little bordering on absolutely nothing - you seem to be fixated on puberty whereas all I'm concerned about is competent informed consent, because the two things are different and only the latter is important.
Good to see you placing not only 20th century thinking on 1st century Palestine, how do you know that Mary (and many other young women of the time) didn't agree to the matches that their parents arranged.
What you find interesting is your own affair.
Except for when it is also apropos the subject of the discussion here.
It was the appropriate word to me which is precisely the reason I used it. It's a rule I try to keep to.
If you find straight-forward scientific references to be pompous, I find it odd that you spend so much of your time trying to use them.
You seem to have an obsession with female adolescent biology rather than informed consent by a competent individual. I don't.
Oddly enough, the one is related to the other. Remember that not only sexual maturity but mental maturity differs over the centuries.
I notice (yet again) that you're doing everything to avoid the question as to whether sexual activity with a 13 year old is sufficiently different in some way as to make it apparently acceptable in your eyes two thousand years ago and apparently (I'm guessing - I don't know) unacceptable in 2015. For me to think there's a cogent difference I would need to be furnished with some sound, compelling reasons as to why. You're not providing them.
Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me. As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high. As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.
I realise that this biological and sociological detail doesn't suit your rather unscientific biases against other cultures, but that's for you to deal with.
-
Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me. As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high. As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.
So are you saying that life expectancy has gone down since the 50's?
-
That's a minority view, unless you count Mark as the first version of Luke.
I think it's widely recognised that the start of Chapter 3 was the original beginning of the book.
I'd like to see your evidence for any of this.
I don't think anybody would have made it up who didn't have experience of what happens on these occasions.
-
Not saying anything at all is not arguing for somebody else's assumptions.
Not that I said that it was; rather I said that when one argues in support of what they have assumed or - in Floo's case - claimed, you are party to the misinformation.
You tell me, you are the one who thinks God's morality is unchanging.
Why would God's morality preclude someone from getting married at 12 or 13, 20 centuries ago, when that is the 20th/21st century equivalent - in terms of maturity and life expectancy of 19 or 20? You and Shakes seem to want to use modern conditions of life and life expectancy to judge a society that had very different maturity and life expectancy ages.
That article is another example of your poor critical thinking skills. All it argues is that the age of puberty has been dropping over recent history. It does not say anything which allows you to infer the age of puberty was 10 or even 12 in the first century.
Again, you show your own lack of critical thinking. I was challenged as to my claim that the age of puberty differs markedly over time - full stop. There was no immediate reference to the circumstances 20 centuries ago, though obviously that had been mentioned on a number of occasions in a wider context. I appreciate, as I have said to Shakes, that the staright-forward scientific, historical and sociological detail does suit your argue - but that is your look-out.
But it does mean the evidence in their favour is extremely weak and if it was an event that is important in the life of Jesus that all four gospels would be expected to mention and they don't, it counts against, not for its veracity.
Not really, I can think of lots of reports of the same event, but from different forms of the media, that have elements missing depending on the audience.
Bullshit. We are not talking about an unruly child, we are talking about a child that Mary should have known was a god.
Except that, rather than merely being divine, he was human as well.
The story does not hang together. It was fabricated.
The problem is that, when one uses lit.crit. techniques on the Synoptic Gospels, they hang together surprisingly well, both individually and as a trio.
-
I think it's widely recognised that the start of Chapter 3 was the original beginning of the book.
If it's widely recognised, you'll be able to produce some references to such works?
-
Good to see you placing not only 20th century thinking on 1st century Palestine
Some of us live in the 21st century but I'm pleased to see you're catching up.
how do you know that Mary (and many other young women of the time) didn't agree to the matches that their parents arranged.
The law sets a limit upon when it's reasonable to accept that a person is competent to give informed consent to things such as marriage and sexual activity. It's never anything less than fairly arbitrary and a one-size-fits-all approach that admits of exceptions either before and after the limit, but at no time would it deem a 13 or 14 year old sufficiently intellectually and emotionally mature to be able to consent to marriage and, presumably, sex and childbearing. I'm asking you why the brains of 13/14 year olds would be so different in the space of 2000 years that that which is unacceptable now would be acceptable then. All we're getting in return as a pseudo-answer is a lot of your usual hand-waving waffle about life expectancy.
If you find straight-forward scientific references to be pompous, I find it odd that you spend so much of your time trying to use them.
I don't. I feel the same way about using the correct terminology to identify your numerous and repeated logical fallacies - something that you whined about not so long ago, I recall.
Oddly enough, the one is related to the other. Remember that not only sexual maturity but mental maturity differs over the centuries.
Now we might be getting to the nub of it. Where is the evidence for this assertion?
Well, you clearly don't read my posts - but then, that doesn't surprise me. As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high. As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.
Who came up with these figures?
-
As I've already mentioned, when life expectancy is low, the need to have children and create the next generation has to start earlier than when life expectancy is high. As such, sexual activity with a 13-year old in 1st Century Palestine would be the equivalent to sexual activity with a 21-year old back in the 1950s, with an 18-year old back in the '80s and with a 16-year old in more recent years.
I realise that this biological and sociological detail doesn't suit your rather unscientific biases against other cultures, but that's for you to deal with.
Bearing in mind, and I'm paraphrasing here, in the thread about SSM when the legislation was going through, I recall Christians here were opposed to this on the basis that it didn't fit with 'God's plan for humanity' (or some similar sentiment), so I'd imagine that if there was an attempt today to reduce the age of consent to, say, 14, they would express a similar concern - and on this subject I'd agree with their sentiment (apart from the God bit).
So, and if morality is objective as has been claimed by some Christians here, and if we take into account Hope's view about there being a different morality in antiquity and the dangers of comparing then with now, then this surely means that: a) morality based can't be objective, if what was morally acceptable in the time and culture of Jesus (which Hope seems to be defending) isn't morally acceptable today, and b) therefore what the Bible allegedly 'teaches' about morality is grounded in that time and culture so it isn't necessarily relevant to today.
If puberty changes over time, which Hope suggests we take account of in making judgments about starting sexual activity, then we must also assume that the related morality must vary in line with puberty - so bang goes objective morality (which we knew to be nonsense anyway).
-
Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.
-
Just to note that the best response I've heard to the "are you gay" question came from Johnny Galecki (Leonard Hofstadter in "The Big Bang Theory"). An interviewer asked him whether he wanted to defend himself against rumours that he was gay, and he replied, "why would I want to defend myself against something that isn't offensive?"
And with that, I wish one and all here a very pleasant Christmas and a relaxing New Year.
X
Men arn't offensive either, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for one :o
I'd suggest people don't like being labelled what they're not ;)
If you're not gay, then it's upsetting if people mislabel you.
Presumably gay people get upset if the only label going,is heterosexual and macho
Happy Christmas and new Year:)
-
Men arn't offensive either, but I wouldn't want to be mistaken for one :o
I'd suggest people don't like being labelled what they're not ;)
If you're not gay, then it's upsetting if people mislabel you.
Presumably gay people get upset if the only label going is heterosexual and macho
I can only speak for myself Rose - but I am (don't any of you dare say 'surprisingly') mistaken for heterosexual to this day - this is despite my best efforts to appear as a flaming queen - however I do not get upset by this.
When I lived in Poland I was frequently mistaked for a Pole - that didn't upset me either.
-
Some of us live in the 21st century but I'm pleased to see you're catching up.The law sets a limit upon when it's reasonable to accept that a person is competent to give informed consent to things such as marriage and sexual activity. It's never anything less than fairly arbitrary and a one-size-fits-all approach that admits of exceptions either before and after the limit, but at no time would it deem a 13 or 14 year old sufficiently intellectually and emotionally mature to be able to consent to marriage and, presumably, sex and childbearing. I'm asking you why the brains of 13/14 year olds would be so different in the space of 2000 years that that which is unacceptable now would be acceptable then. All we're getting in return as a pseudo-answer is a lot of your usual hand-waving waffle about life expectancy.
I don't. I feel the same way about using the correct terminology to identify your numerous and repeated logical fallacies - something that you whined about not so long ago, I recall.Now we might be getting to the nub of it. Where is the evidence for this assertion?Who came up with these figures?
Mentally they were more adult, had seen more death than many of us have seen now
They were expected to be more adult most were doing full time work by 14
-
Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.
Yes, you're right - objective and absolute morality aren't the same.
It does make it difficult, as you say, since to follow the line Hope has advanced then moral changes presumably correspond to other changes, such as variations over time in the onset of puberty or changes in social attitudes (such as to homosexuality/SSM). So there is the problem of both mapping morality to some other factor, such as the onset of puberty, requires that variations is these factors are known and understood, and also that the start-point moral position is justified in relation to the place/time.
I've no idea if Hope's thesis that mixes the onset or puberty and lifespans in antiquity is sound but if moral positions are linked to factors like this being properly assessed, since if they are improperly assessed this raises other problems, this doesn't confirm that the moral position in antiquity, that it was acceptable for girls to be sexually active and risk pregnancy at 12 or 13, is justified.
-
Objective and absolute morality are not the same thing. It is possible to have a differing age of consent that would be objective either for the time and culture or for individual circumstances. This merely means that any such objective morality would be incredibly difficult to determine.
An interesting point, NS.
However if objective morality can change according to time and culture, as you suggest, I would have great difficulty in distinguishing this from relative morality which is also dependent on time and culture(amongst other things). As you say, this would be incredibly difficult to determine, unless one had access and validation as to the source of this objectivity.
-
Mentally they were more adult, had seen more death than many of us have seen now
This seems to be what Hope is claiming. I'm asking him to show the evidence for this claim.
They were expected to be more adult most were doing full time work by 14
This is just a statement of fact, though, not evidence for what Hope is claiming.
-
I think it's widely recognised that the start of Chapter 3 was the original beginning of the book.
Is it? I mean, it certainly would fit as the start of the book, but this is the first time I have heard anybody claim that.
I don't think anybody would have made it up who didn't have experience of what happens on these occasions.
I'm pretty sure that almost everything in Luke is fiction. To claim you wouldn't make it up is denying the power of human creativity.
-
Not that I said that it was; rather I said that when one argues in support of what they have assumed or - in Floo's case - claimed, you are party to the misinformation.
I don't think I have argued in support of what Floo claims in terms of 1st century morality.
Why would God's morality preclude someone from getting married at 12 or 13, 20 centuries ago
If God's morality doesn't preclude somebody getting married at age 12 in the first century, it doesn't preclude somebody getting married at age 12 now because God is unchanging and his morality is absolute. Do you think it's OK for for a 12 year old girl in the 21st century to get married?
Note: I do not believe morality is absolute, so I could consistently hold the position that their age of consent and our age of consent are both OK.
Again, you show your own lack of critical thinking.
You clearly do not understand what that phrase means. In this case it means not accepting your source uncritically. I examined your source and decided it is likely to be accurate, but I also determined (by reading it) that its scope only covered the last century. It tells us nothing about the trends in puberty before the 19th century.
Furthermore, it claims that puberty has onset at an earlier age more recently. If you are going to extrapolate the report back to the first century, you must assume it was even higher then.
I was challenged as to my claim that the age of puberty differs markedly over time - full stop.
That is disingenuous: in the context of this thread, we are clearly concerned (or, at least you are) with modern puberty in comparison to the time of Mary.
Not really, I can think of lots of reports of the same event, but from different forms of the media, that have elements missing depending on the audience.
Tell me why you think all the authors apart from Luke would omit the story.
Except that, rather than merely being divine, he was human as well.
But following the events alleged at Jesus' birth, Mary would certainly remember that he was the prophesied Messiah. Unless one or both of these stories is fiction.
The problem is that, when one uses lit.crit. techniques on the Synoptic Gospels, they hang together surprisingly well, both individually and as a trio.
Well it's unfortunate that we are discussing history, not literary criticism then.
-
No Rose, but not surprised with your spewing lies about Christ. I was born a bastard, Christ was NOT.
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Isaiah 7:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE
-
I'm pretty sure that almost everything in Luke is fiction. To claim you wouldn't make it up is denying the power of human creativity.
But the scenarios need to have some plausibility. If Jesus goes to the beach and finds men mending nets, fine. If he finds them doing a Highland fling, you're just going to think, that would never happen.
-
Not necessarily.
It may be that as knowledge grows so does responsibility.
Therefore, as we learn more, morality changes.
Plus, Mary was having an illegitimate child, which does happen nowadays.
It might be we are more lenient nowadays, with young unmarried mothers.
Years ago they probably saw nothing wrong in them being "decently" married as there was probably more shame attached to it being outside marriage.
It may be they brought the marriage forward as she was already pregnant
In those days the respectable thing to do was marry them off, because Mary was already pregnant.
It's like the saying " it's no good shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted"
Mary was already pregnant.
😀
Jesus was supposedly the bastard child of the deity who couldn't keep it in its pants! If Joseph wasn't the father, and Mary's pregnancy was down to another human male, he deserves many accolades for marrying her and making her respectable. Isn't it wonderful that in the bad old days it was always the poor girl who got the blame if she was pregnant without a ring on her finger, but the owner of the penis got away scot free most of the time!
-
Rose
TOTALLY AGREE !!!
We must NEVER forget.....
Religion is for HUMANKIND NOT for any god !!!!! ;) ;D
Nick
-
Surely if a deity does exist it would be above all human faults and failings, and not be as described in the Bible. The authors who created that god gave it all the worst of human attributes, probably in an attempt to make their god bigger and much more scary than the gods of other tribes!
-
What an abhorrent OP!
I agree and she already knew it was. I would suggest all believers ignore those threads by Floo which are literally just a wum thread to insult God and Christ in future. Can we have an agreement on that from all believers to ignore the threads that Floo writes which insult God and Christ? If the believer who sees it first write WUM thread we can all ignore. Thanks. We will however to answer the threads she writes which do not insult God and are not there to wind up people.
-
Rose,
Bastard is another word for your illegitimate, here is some help. And it still is blamed on women, and violence against women still has not ended
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bastard
Listen to the word of this song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hARxUjcQNK0
No rot that floo writes about my Saviour surprises me. It does revolt me though.
-
I agree and she already knew it was. I would suggest all believers ignore those threads by Floo which are literally just a wum thread to insult God and Christ in future. Can we have an agreement on that from all believers to ignore the threads that Floo writes which insult God and Christ? If the believer who sees it first write WUM thread we can all ignore. Thanks. We will however to answer the threads she writes which do not insult God and are not there to wind up people.
Only nasty bigots would think the op abhorrent! :o
I make no apology for insulting the deity if it exists, if it is as evil as the Biblical depiction of it is. As for Jesus he was probably decent enough, but by no means perfect.
Sass no one can hold a candle to you where wummery is concerned! ;D
-
floo,
God would see the lie behind the apology so save your breath.
-
floo,
God would see the lie behind the apology so save your breath.
I don't think Floo would be required to apologise, because much of what she says comes from her own experiences in life.
A deity would understand that and rise above it, however people who hurt others and gave God a bad name, might find it was them that needed to apologise.
-
Therefore, as we learn more, morality changes.
I would argue that is completely the way it is. However, Christians tell us morality comes from God and God is eternal and unchanging. If they are correct, morality has not changed since the days we used to force 12 year olds to marry.
Plus, Mary was having an illegitimate child, which does happen nowadays.
It may be they brought the marriage forward as she was already pregnant
In those days the respectable thing to do was marry them off, because Mary was already pregnant.
It's worth pointing out that nobody knows how old Mary was when the events of the gospels started. The stories we do have are most likely fiction and they don't tell us how old Mary was, in any case.
-
But the scenarios need to have some plausibility.
There's a bit in it where Jesus gets executed and comes alive again. I don't think plausibility is Luke's major concern.
-
I don't think Floo would be required to apologise, because much of what she says comes from her own experiences in life.
A deity would understand that and rise above it, however people who hurt others and gave God a bad name, might find it was them that needed to apologise.
A real deity would be nothing like the one in the Bible, it would be above all human faults and failings, imo.
-
Well there's the problem, Rose and Floo dictating how God should, would, and will behave. That's not the god found in scripture nor one I would put my faith in.
And Rose, I don't think God would require nor believe an apology from Floo.
"...People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." 1Samuel 16:7
-
Well there's the problem, Rose and Floo dictating how God should, would, and will behave. That's not the god found in scripture nor one I would put my faith in.
So you don't like Floo and Rose dictating how God should, could and will behave, but you are quite happy with a person writing 2,000 years ago doing the same. I think you need to start thinking this stuff through more deeply.
-
Hang on. If Mary was born sinless, how could she lie to everybody about who was the father of her child?
-
Hang on. If Mary was born sinless, how could she lie to everybody about who was the father of her child?
Mary never lied to anyone... How do you think everything came to pass?
Because Mary was married to Joseph he would automatically of took earthly role of Father to Jesus.
-
Mary never lied to anyone... How do you think everything came to pass?
Because Mary was married to Joseph he would automatically of took earthly role of Father to Jesus.
Sass how the heck do you know if Mary told porkies or not? ::)
-
I agree and she already knew it was. I would suggest all believers ignore those threads by Floo which are literally just a wum thread to insult God and Christ in future. Can we have an agreement on that from all believers to ignore the threads that Floo writes which insult God and Christ? If the believer who sees it first write WUM thread we can all ignore. Thanks. We will however to answer the threads she writes which do not insult God and are not there to wind up people.
How does anyone insult something that's so very unlikely to be there in the first place, there's no supporting evidence Sass.
Ever tried to insult a brick Sass?
I'll give that a 1 Sass, only one assertion, I'm feeling generous.
ippy
-
What does
'automatically of took'
actually mean - grammatically speaking ????
-
I wouldn' put my faith in a man made God, which is what you get when Christians spout off about God and make out they are some sort of expert.
And no more would I put my faith in the kind of God that you and Floo seem to want us to put our faith in, especially when what Floo, especially, plots out is so diametrically different to the God that is the bedrock of (to use a comment of your own from elsewhere) such a 'beautiful religion' as Judaism - a God who Christians also follow.
-
A bastard is just someone who's parents weren't married.
If Joseph was the father and he married Mary before the child was born, it would have become legitimate hence the term "he made an honest woman of her"
Before they married though, potentially the baby was illegitimate.
The problem with this argument, Rose, is that we have no idea how long Joseph and Mary had been married before Mary told Joseph that she was pregant; but we do know that they were married. That is precisely what the term 'betrothed' means in Jews culture. Unlike our system whereby a coupe get engaged, which isn't legally binding in any way, and then get married months or even years later; the Jewish way was (and remains) to get betrothed (which had a legal standing no less than that of our marriage ceremony) and then for the bridegroom to return to his family home (though in modern life this may only be a token time apart) - be that a single building or a family 'enclosure' with several buildings - and prepare a place for him and his new wife to live as husband and wife (compare what Jesus is reported to have said in John 14: 2 & 3).
The fact people believe the father was God doesn't actually change anything.
and nor does the fact that people believe that God wasn't the father prove that he wasn't ;)
Mary was given respectability in the eyes of society of the time because Joseph married her. ( not God)
Wrong, Mary had no need to be "given respectability in the eyes of society of the time", because she was already betrothed to Joseph - she was laready legally bound to him - hence the fact that he is reported to have considered 'putting her aside' (a Jewish euphemism for divorce) quietly.
I won't go on correcting your misunderstandings one by one, Rose: suffice it to say that Jesus, if he was only human and therefore Joseph's natural child, wasn't necessarily illegitimate as he may well have been conceived at a point later than their betrothal ceremony. Furthermore, since 'illegitimacy' now refers to birth, rater than conception, we all know that the two were 'married' when he was born - in Jewish society's way of thinking.
-
There's a bit in it where Jesus gets executed and comes alive again. I don't think plausibility is Luke's major concern.
The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy. All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.
-
The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy. All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.
As writers of fiction have known since the year dot, when you create entities utterly divorced from any demands of reason, logic, fact and evidence you can simply say that they can do absolutely anything. You can assert till the cows come home that they can do this and can do that, safe in the knowledge that you'll never be called upon to provide a scrap of evidence for these fantastical claims - it's always someone else, somewhere else, a long time ago, after you're dead. There's always some excuse.
-
I don't think Floo would be required to apologise, because much of what she says comes from her own experiences in life.
Whilst I appreciate that a lot of what she says is related to her youthful experiences, not everything is. There are times - such as the idea that a 1st Century AD child of 13 becoming pregnant must require sexual abuse of that child, or the idea that Mary was not married at the time -when her assertions and accusations are disproved by anthropological and social history documentation. It is that side of the posting practice that several of us believe needs to be apologized for.
A deity would understand that and rise above it, however people who hurt others and gave God a bad name, might find it was them that needed to apologise.
Jesus goes further than that and suggests that God may not recognise their claim to be his followers.
-
As writers of fiction have known since the year dot, when you create entities utterly divorced from any demands of reason, logic, fact and evidence you can simply say that they can do absolutely anything. You can assert till the cows come home that they can do this and can do that, safe in the knowledge that you'll never be called upon to provide a scrap of evidence for these fantastical claims - it's always someone else, somewhere else, a long time ago, after you're dead. There's always some excuse.
Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm. Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.
-
Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.
Is that going to be your final invocation of the negative proof fallacy for 2015 or can we expect you to squeeze in one or two more tomorrow? In the annals of your thrashing the bollocks off that particular fallacy (often, going back a very long time) that really has to be one of the most blitheringly witless instances of it even by your non-existent standards of critical thinking, and that's saying something. You really do mark yourself out as utterly incapable of rational thought, of learning from correction with regard to aberrant thinking. Astonishing.
Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.
What an utterly feeble attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I mean, really, utterly piss poor.
-
Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm. Your inistence that there isn't such a realm is no less divorced from reason, logic, fact and evidence as that which you are accusing others of.
If the Biblical deity exists and is nothing like the psychopath described in the Bible why doesn't it set the record straight, which it hasn't? Jesus was not the deity, just a mere human with charisma, but faults and failings too!
-
Is that going to be your final invocation of the negative proof fallacy for 2015 or can we expect you to squeeze in one or two more tomorrow? In the annals of your thrashing the bollocks off that particular fallacy (often, going back a very long time) that really has to be one of the most blitheringly witless instances of it even by your non-existent standards of critical thinking, and that's saying something. You really do mark yourself out as utterly incapable of rational thought, of learning from correction with regard to aberrant thinking. Astonishing. What an utterly feeble attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I mean, really, utterly piss poor.
Hi Shakes, Here's your challenges for the next year.
1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?
2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.
You may wish to post your responses on the thread I have started especially for this - http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11391.new#new
-
Hi Shakes, Here's your challenges for the next year.
1) Produce reference to a scientific document, that has been peer-reviewed or otherwise validated, that shows that your belief that the physical realm is all there is, is valid?
2) Produce reference to a scientific document of the equivalent status of something like the Theory of Gravity that in any way deals with the spiritual realm.
You may wish to post your responses on the thread I have started especially for this - http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11391.new#new
And your challenge is to prove anything attributed to Jesus and the deity had any TRUTH! ;D
-
Sorry, Shaker, there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest that there isn't a spiritual realm.
You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.
-
If the Biblical deity exists and is nothing like the psychopath described in the Bible why doesn't it set the record straight, which it hasn't!
Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.
-
You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.
OK, Gordon, perhaps you will produce the evidence that you use to inform your opinion on the spiritual realm. You can use the thread I've started for the purpose.
-
You are in danger, Hope, of wearing out the negative proof fallacy.
Goodness only knows he's made it threadbare enough this year.
-
Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.
You're about as much use with irony as you are with rational thought.
-
You're about as much use with irony as you are with rational thought.
Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.
-
Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.
Do you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?
-
Well, at least I do both better than you seem to manage.
R & E's Fallacymeister-in-chief better at rational thought?
Really? How does that work, then?
-
Dpo you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?
Very good :D
-
R & E's Fallacymeister-in-chief better at rational thought?
Really? How does that work, then?
By reading your posts which are often factually incorrect, despite your claiming to be fact- centric
-
Do you have peer reviewed evidence to support that assertion?
Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.
And before you ask me to provide links to those, remember that Shakes made an assertion (one he has made on a number of occasions) so the burden of prove lies on his shoulders - a burden that he has so far failed to deliver on.
-
By reading your posts which are often factually incorrect, despite your claiming to be fact- centric
Name some.
-
Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.
Best laugh I've had in quite some time.
-
Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.
Doesn't really cut the mustard as there are an equal if not greater number of posters who have stated you are incorrect. And in either case that is purely an appeal to 'argumentum ad populum' and not really admissable.
No what we need is a rigorous study of your entire output on message boards to establish if indeed your claims about the understanding and use of both irony and rational thought are true and then they need to be quantified and judged. Furthermore we then need to measure them against Shakers use and understanding of those two attributes and compare and contrast your abilities.
Goodness me that should keep the board busy for the next 12 months.
Happy New Year!
-
OK, Gordon, perhaps you will produce the evidence that you use to inform your opinion on the spiritual realm. You can use the thread I've started for the purpose.
So, I take it you've posted details of definitive and validated spiritual evidence there to start the ball rolling?
-
Floo, as I'm sure you'll agree, it can be difficult to 'set the record straight' when what is being claimed by the likes of yourself is nothing more than hearsay with no viable evidence to support it.
So you are claiming the Bible is hearsay with no viable evidence to support it? WOW! ;D
-
Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.
And that of course means they are! ;D ;D ;D
-
Duh! Of course more have said Hope is wrong around here. Most of ya are godless atheists! Too funny
-
The problem is that you have no idea what a deity is plausibly able to do, jeremy.
Neither do you.
All you have is your undertanding of the physical world which may well lack the breadth and reality of the divine.
I least I do have an understanding of the physical world. You seem to have no understanding of it or this mythical divine realm that you cannot even define, never mind understand.
-
Whilst I appreciate that a lot of what she says is related to her youthful experiences, not everything is. There are times - such as the idea that a 1st Century AD child of 13 becoming pregnant must require sexual abuse of that child,
In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?
-
In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?
Sexual abuse was rife in the not so good book, and people seeking to pretend that it was ok, and for a young girl to get pregnant, are making excuses for despicable deeds! >:(
-
In our society, we would assume that sexual abuse was highly probable in this instance. If morality comes from God and God is unchanging, is it us that are wrong or the people of the 1st century?
Do you mind ever so much if I add a second question that he'll also ignore?
Is the human organism so evolutionarily different physically and psychologically/emotionally/intellectually in the space of two thousand years that what is the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of an incompetent subject incapable of informed consent today was perfectly acceptable then?
-
Well, there are posts of mine on this and other boards that my peers have stated are correct.
Who are your "peers". Do they exhibit the same level of intellectual rigour as you do? If so, I think I can see the flaw in your point.
Having said that, your statement is strictly true in the sense that you do sometimes make posts that are correct, usually on secular topics.
-
Sexual abuse was rife in the not so good book, and people seeking to pretend that it was ok, and for a young girl to get pregnant, are making excuses for despicable deeds! >:(
People like Hope argue that we should not judge these people by our standards. That is an argument I can understand but the problem is that he subscribes to an absolute morality that he says comes from his unchanging god. If so, either we can judge these people by our standards, or their standards are still OK.
-
Do you mind ever so much if I add a second question that he'll also ignore?
Of course not.
Is the human organism so evolutionarily different physically and psychologically/emotionally/intellectually in the space of two thousand years that what is the physical, sexual and emotional abuse of an incompetent subject incapable of informed consent today was perfectly acceptable then?
Well clearly it was acceptable in the first century because they did it. In fact, I think informed consent was often irrelevant in terms of marriage no matter what age the bride. If you were a girl, you often married the person your family told you to. This is a practice that has continued until fairly recently and still does in some cultures and social groups.
Obviously, we now know it to be wrong since it reduces half the population to the status of possession. The difficulty arises for Christians because their alleged morality is supposed to come from ever lasting unchanging God and here we have prima facie evidence that morality has improved over the last two millennia.
-
Of course not.
Well clearly it was acceptable in the first century because they did it. In fact, I think informed consent was often irrelevant in terms of marriage no matter what age the bride. If you were a girl, you often married the person your family told you to. This is a practice that has continued until fairly recently and still does in some cultures and social groups.
Obviously, we now know it to be wrong since it reduces half the population to the status of possession.
I wouldn't consider that to be the reason it's regarded as wrong, myself ...
-
"not so good book" Right, that book she claims to read every day.
-
On another forum an extremist fundie cretin is claiming that the deity deemed that women should be subservient to men, who are their lords and masters, YEH RIGHT! >:( I would love to hang the idiot by his dangly bits from the church steeple!
The Bible's treatment of women is despicable, and it can rightly be regarded as the not so good book, just for that, let alone all the other nasty things its states, which override the sensible suggestions!
-
It's interestimg how Christians maintain that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to tell us what he thinks and wants.
-
Why can't Jesus HIMSELF tell us this. ;) ::)
And where is he anyway ?!?!?!?! ;) ??? ::)
-
It's interestimg how Christians maintain that God is beyond human understanding and then proceed to tell us what he thinks and wants.
Too right! As I have mentioned before, my later mother-in-law knew exactly what the deity thought on every topic, including the clothes and TV programmes it liked! ;D
-
Duh! Of course more have said Hope is wrong around here. Most of ya are godless atheists! Too funny
You forget Woody, you're godless too, we all are.
ippy
-
How does anyone insult something that's so very unlikely to be there in the first place, there's no supporting evidence Sass.
Ever tried to insult a brick Sass?
I'll give that a 1 Sass, only one assertion, I'm feeling generous.
ippy
I guess you can say you are the brick.
If God can turn stones into the descendants of Abraham and Christ is the important stone/brick the builders rejected.
Then perhaps some people are just as thick as bricks but not able to make use of them as God can. :)
-
Some of the comments made relating to contents of believers posts seem rather moot. Especially, when the comments are made by people who do not have a clear command of knowledge and facts when it comes to the religious beliefs held by the poster.
Who wud ave thunk it.... :o
-
Some of the comments made relating to contents of believers posts seem rather moot. Especially, when the comments are made by people who do not have a clear command of knowledge and facts when it comes to the religious beliefs held by the poster.
Who wud ave thunk it.... :o
A bit heavy there Sass, almost an assertion there, I did notice the "if".
When I'm as certain as poss that there is no such thing as a unicorn, why would I need to be encyclopaedic about every aspect of unicorns there is to know, when there's no evidence that would support the idea in the first place, what's to know about something that's far more likely to be just another one of those silly man made ideas, than anything else?
Now what was that other crazy idea I could say the same thing about Sass?
ippy
-
What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.
-
What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.
That will be because you don't understand and can't see the difference between the probability of flesh-and-blood, material organisms (might be carbon-based, might not be), something at least partially like humans whose existence is in principle detectable, and non-material, supernatural, paranormal alleged so-called entities like gods whose existence isn't even in principle detectable by any scientific means and for whose existence nobody can provide any methodology at all.
I can't say that I believe in alien life as I have no evidence to do so. I can say that I know exactly what it would take for me to be presented with evidence for extra-terrestrial life, which is vastly more than you can ever say for any 'god.'
As with all theists, your parochial village mentality is showing.
-
What I find crazy is atheists who insist God does not exist due to lack of evidence. And then they quickly put on their tin foil hats and tell us that aliens from outer space do, or probably do exist, no evidence required.
The clue's in your post Woody, "probably do exist", oh yes, and life forming elswere in the universe, there is evdience that makes it very likely, such as life forming precursers found within meterorites that have landed here on the Earth, having said that, the "probably" still applies of course.
ippy
-
It is much more likely there is intelligent life on other planets in this vast universe of ours than the existence of a deity, particularly the Biblical one
-
Sorry ippy but that is no evidence that aliens exist or probably exist.
Really floo? You think it's likely this chance accident repeated itself? What are the Odds? Nope, I'll stick with the Creator.
-
Sorry ippy but that is no evidence that aliens exist
Nobody's saying that, however.
or probably exist.
That's more like it.
Really floo? You think it's likely this chance accident repeated itself? What are the Odds?
It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.
Nope, I'll stick with the Creator.
Yeah, it'll be easier for you ::)
-
Nobody's saying that, however.
That's more like it.
It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.
Yeah, it'll be easier for you ::)
Nice one Shakes, the godidit, the unthinking way of getting out of jail free trump card.
ippy
-
In the earliest Bibles, all the Jesus speak was in mauve.
-
It is much more likely there is intelligent life on other planets in this vast universe of ours than the existence of a deity, particularly the Biblical one
As Shaker points out - "It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.[/quote]So using 'likelihood' as an argument is pointless.
-
As Shaker points out - "It's impossible to work out the odds precisely because we don't know the exact number of planets (i.e. possible venues for the emergence of life) in the universe. What we do know is that just that bit of the universe we can observe is colossal beyond human comprehension and that sheer size shortens the odds because sheer size (and age) offers a bigger stage for life to emerge onto.So using 'likelihood' as an argument is pointless.
Are you so stupid that you didn't realise the misrepresentation , you do here, of Shaker's post, or just happy to lie and do it anyway?
-
Are you so stupid that you didn't realise the misrepresentation , you do here, of Shaker's post, or just happy to lie and do it anyway?
I was simply pointing out that Shakes' argument holds just as validly against Floo's invocation of 'likelhood' as anyone else's in the matter.
-
I was simply pointing out that Shakes' argument holds just as validly against Floo's invocation of 'likelhood' as anyone else's in the matter.
And doing it in a way that shows you to be either stupid or a liar.
-
And doing it in a way that shows you to be either stupid or a liar.
Well I know where my money is on that.
-
How pathetic, Khtru bumps a stunted old thread of floo's, yet again, suggesting somebody is gay. And all he has to say is the words of Christ were once written in purple. That's not even on topic, not even close. It's as on topic as this, Ktru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEU7cGD4w0
-
How pathetic, Khtru bumps a stunted old thread of floo's, yet again, suggesting somebody is gay. And all he has to say is the words of Christ were once written in purple. That's not even on topic, not even close. It's as on topic as this, Ktru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEU7cGD4w0
I thought it was a good gag.
Seeing as you liked it so much, I'll hang on to it.
-
How pathetic, Khtru bumps a stunted old thread of floo's, yet again, suggesting somebody is gay. And all he has to say is the words of Christ were once written in purple. That's not even on topic, not even close. It's as on topic as this, Ktru.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rEU7cGD4w0
Maybe K has seen one of your old photos and realised you are so much better looking.
See what I did there.... I think he likes stirring but ends up with lumps in his recipes for disaster... ;D
-
Maybe K has seen one of your old photos and realised you are so much better looking.
See what I did there.... I think he likes stirring but ends up with lumps in his recipes for disaster... ;D
Crawling through life on your hands and knees, bent in subservience and fear to an imaginary god.....
-
Crawling through life on your hands and knees, bent in subservience and fear to an imaginary god.....
Thankfully, that in no way describes Christianity. If anything, its striding purposefully through life in communion with a living God.
-
Thankfully, that in no way describes Christianity. If anything, its striding purposefully through life in communion with a living God.
And yet so many people still manage to stride purposefully through life without imaginary BFFs.
-
And yet so many people still manage to stride purposefully through life without imaginary BFFs.
And ...
-
And that makes it an optional extra, a fifth wheel seemingly only indulged in by those with an emotional need for such a thing.
-
And that makes it an optional extra, a fifth wheel seemingly only indulged in by those with an emotional need for such a thing.
Or it may be that those striding purposefully through life without God are doing so at a level below their potential.
-
Or it may be that those striding purposefully through life without God are doing so at a level below their potential.
How would you tell the difference?
-
How would you tell the difference?
In a way, its for the person to tell the difference not a 3rd party. However, experience tells me that I'd tell the difference by whether someone felt that that was something missing from their stride.
I've heard folk suggest (though I'm not so convinced by this) that one can tell by the determination that someone has to diss Christianity - or religion as a whole. ;)
-
In a way, its for the person to tell the difference not a 3rd party. However, experience tells me that I'd tell the difference by whether someone felt that that was something missing from their stride.
Ask around - plenty to choose from
You can start with me - nothing missing.
I've heard folk suggest (though I'm not so convinced by this) that one can tell by the determination that someone has to diss Christianity - or religion as a whole. ;)
Aside from the very obviously ad hoc madey-uppy nature of that by people who don't like their batty and wholly unevidenced beliefs being challenged or criticised, people 'diss' Christianity and/or religion as a whole because they dislike it - its silliness, its puerility, the credulity and servility and guilt it fosters.
And of course because it's just plain daft, and wholly unworthy of sensible grown-ups.
-
Thankfully, that in no way describes Christianity. If anything, its striding purposefully through life in communion with a living God.
Yet Christianity is built on fear.
The god of the Bible gets people to love him by condemning those who don't to eternal torture. A conditional love born out of fear is not what I would call love.
-
Yet Christianity is built on fear.
The god of the Bible gets people to love him by condemning those who don't to eternal torture. A conditional love born out of fear is not what I would call love.
Khat, whilst some English language translations seem to suggest this, the words used in those translations didn't generally mean that when the translations were first made. Furthermore, the original Greek and Hebrew doesn't either.
That's why relying on old translations which are no longer in everyday English (something that they used to be) is a wonderful fallacy when debating. May I suggest either the Common English Bible, the English Standard Bible or even the Message as more suited to 21st century English.
-
A message which seems to require multiple translation and interpretation at comparatively regular intervals, historically speaking, and a god of the traditional attributes are hardly compatible are they?
-
Ask around - plenty to choose from
You can start with me - nothing missing.[/quote}OK, so you feel that you don't need anything. Good for you. Does that prove that you don't, though?
And of course because it's just plain daft, and wholly unworthy of sensible grown-ups.
You may need to argue that position with some eminently sensible grown-ups who do not share your opinions. Nobel prize winners, leaders of nations, well-educated business folk, ...
-
Yet Christianity is built on fear.
The god of the Bible gets people to love him by condemning those who don't to eternal torture. A conditional love born out of fear is not what I would call love.
Agreed
-
A message which seems to require multiple translation and interpretation at comparatively regular intervals, historically speaking, and a god of the traditional attributes are hardly compatible are they?
Language is a living organism, Shaker. Society changes the meaning of words over time. Are you suggesting that God ought to have mde sure that language never changes and that we all spoke the same language?
-
You may need to argue that position with some eminently sensible grown-ups who do not share your opinions. Nobel prize winners, leaders of nations, well-educated business folk, ...
Sensibleness in an actual discipline such a physics or economics is a good preventive against being led to believe the implausible and unevidenced where emotion is involved, but it's not infallible. Doublethink is a powerful factor in some minds - that's why there are some religious scientists.
-
Language is a living organism, Shaker. Society changes the meaning of words over time. Are you suggesting that God ought to have mde sure that language never changes and that we all spoke the same language?
I'm suggesting that a god of the traditional omnimax attributes would not need to rely on getting its supposed message to humanity across by the inherently risky methods of multiple and regular translation, retranslation and interpretation not merely from language A to language B but within the same language, but would want, would know how and would be able to communicate clearly and unambiguously without these risky and imperfect tools and processes. Translation is a fine art and a constant trade-off between literal rendering and flavour; that's why the risk of misleading texts is significant and constant. A text needs to be interpreted only if it's ambiguous to start with, and that's patently inconsistent with a god of the usual attributes. I try to write as simply and as clearly as I can, but sometimes fail in full accuracy and clarity. That's because I'm a fallible human being of limited knowledge - I don't have unlimited capacities and capabilities as a god is deemed to have, and who would be entirely capable of transmitting a message with the maximum of clarity and the minimum of (in fact, zero) ambiguity.
Perhaps you don't believe in such a god. You seem reluctant to say, and I understand why.
-
Agreed
As I've said to Khat, this is untrue. I would agree that religious leaders down the years have used the Bible to enforce their own power - in much the same way as Jewish religious leaders did with their multitudinous glosses to God's instructions, and in much the same as modern governments seek to add things to legislation until the courts say that they can't.
I appreciate the situation you found yourself in as a child, Floo, and feel very sorry for you. I suspect that that is, at least in part, why Pentecostal groups were regarded as non-mainstream for so long.
-
Thankfully, that in no way describes Christianity. If anything, its striding purposefully through life in communion with a living God.
From where I stand, it looks like the crawling description is more accurate.
-
As I've said to Khat, this is untrue. I would agree that religious leaders down the years have used the Bible to enforce their own power - in much the same way as Jewish religious leaders did with their multitudinous glosses to God's instructions, and in much the same as modern governments seek to add things to legislation until the courts say that they can't.
I appreciate the situation you found yourself in as a child, Floo, and feel very sorry for you. I suspect that that is, at least in part, why Pentecostal groups were regarded as non-mainstream for so long.
Hope my unfortunate childhood experience of religion has nothing to do with my take on it now. I have read the Bible many times and made up my own mind about it.
-
Language is a living organism, Shaker. Society changes the meaning of words over time. Are you suggesting that God ought to have mde sure that language never changes and that we all spoke the same language?
For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That very much looks to me like the deal is "follow me or you'll die". It's a threat voiced by Paul. Was he mistaken? Has the language changed over the years or been mistranslated? Or does it say what it seems to say at first sight?
-
Try reading the Bible Khatru and Floo. God get's nobody to love him. Hell or not, the choice is ours. I have never met a person that became a Christian, decided to love God, because they were scared of Hell. You can't make somebody love you, if God did that, He would have sabotaged His reason for creating us.
-
Try reading the Bible Khatru and Floo. God get's nobody to love him. Hell or not, the choice is ours. I have never met a person that became a Christian, decided to love God, because they were scared of Hell. You can't make somebody love you, if God did that, He would have sabotaged His reason for creating us.
What was/is that reason, according to you?
-
Try reading the Bible Khatru and Floo. God get's nobody to love him. Hell or not, the choice is ours. I have never met a person that became a Christian, decided to love God, because they were scared of Hell.
And certainly not the caricature hell beloved of antitheists
-
I have never met a person that became a Christian, decided to love God, because they were scared of Hell.
Off topic - but you might want to tell Rose and Sririam that on another thread, because they are trying to argue that fear is the motivator for everything we do.
-
If it turned out that Jesus was Gay/Homosexual would Christians love him the same or less?
Would the swivel-eyed ones become more tolerant of Gays? (Would they insist in capitalising the letter 'g'?)
-
Thankfully, that in no way describes Christianity. If anything, its striding purposefully through life in communion with a living God.
Of course people who worship gods different to yours would say the same thing.
Look at history where it's plain to see that the driving force behind Christianity has been fear: fear of hell, the devil and death. Thankfully, the onset of science has brought an understanding of natural events which has been extremely effective in removing the fear factor from Christianity. Yet having said that, it's plain from reading some believers post in here that the existence of the devil and hell are still fundamental in Christian superstition.
Not naming names but there are believers in here who unsuccessfully attempt to instil fear in others by telling us how their god is going to torture us after we've died (You know who you are!). Unfortunately for them, it's easy to see that their threats are born of fear and cowardice and are wholly devoid of reason, logic and evidence.
-
Khat, whilst some English language translations seem to suggest this, the words used in those translations didn't generally mean that when the translations were first made. Furthermore, the original Greek and Hebrew doesn't either.
That's why relying on old translations which are no longer in everyday English (something that they used to be) is a wonderful fallacy when debating. May I suggest either the Common English Bible, the English Standard Bible or even the Message as more suited to 21st century English.
Whoops!
I forgot to mention that the "translation cop out" as above is one of the items on my lost that Christians use when accusing unbelievers of not understanding.
-
Try reading the Bible Khatru and Floo. God get's nobody to love him. Hell or not, the choice is ours. I have never met a person that became a Christian, decided to love God, because they were scared of Hell. You can't make somebody love you, if God did that, He would have sabotaged His reason for creating us.
Despite what you say, the Bible still contains plenty of instructions to fear God. Clearly this explains why Christians regularly refer to themselves as "God-fearing"
No doubt their love for their god is not as strong as their fear. It would explain why it gets used so often.
Here's just a small sample of verses instructing believers to fear the god of the Bible..........
"Do not take advantage of each other, but fear your God. I am the Lord your God."
Leviticus 25:17
"Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name."
Deuteronomy 6:13
"For the Lord your God dried up the Jordan before you until you had crossed over. The Lord your God did to the Jordan just what he had done to the Red Sea when he dried it up before us until we had crossed over. He did this so that all the peoples of the earth might know that the hand of the Lord is powerful and so that you might always fear the Lord your God"
Joshua 4:23-24
"Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord."
Joshua 23:14
"If you fear the Lord and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the Lord your God--good! But if you do not obey the Lord, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you, as it was against your fathers."
1 Samuel 12:14-15
"But be sure to fear the Lord and serve him faithfully with all your heart; consider what great things he has done for you."
1 Samuel 12:24
"For great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols, but the Lord made the heavens."
1 Chronicles 16:25-26
"So I continued, "What you are doing is not right. Shouldn't you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies?""
Nehemiah 5:9
"Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling."
Psalms 2:11
"The fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the Lord are sure and altogether righteous."
Psalms 19:9
"You who fear the Lord, praise him! All you descendants of Jacob, honor him! Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!"
Psalms 22:23
"Who, then, is the man that fears the Lord? He will instruct him in the way chosen for him. He will spend his days in prosperity, and his descendants will inherit the land. The Lord confides in those who fear him; he makes his covenant known to them."
Psalms 25:12-14
"How great is your goodness, which you have stored up for those who fear you, which you bestow in the sight of men on those who take refuge in you."
Psalms 31:19
"Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the people of the world revere him. For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm."
Psalms 33:8-9
" Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
-
Khatru, that is all Old Testament stuff. You might as well try to argue that Handel's Dixit Dominus is Christian.
-
Crawling through life on your hands and knees, bent in subservience and fear to an imaginary god.....
I walk with God and Christ.... No crawling just Father, Son and Daughter.
No fear for as we know...
King James Bible
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
With every new post to me you are showing I am right and other believers right; when we say you know nothing about God, Christ, the Bible or Christianity.
For God so loved the world... How many times does it take for you to actually listen when the truth is showing you are wrong?
-
And yet so many people still manage to stride purposefully through life without imaginary BFFs.
Stride or just making it through each day with health issues and other worries?
You choose...If you have no health issues or worry then fair enough.
But if you have, then you are not striding through are you?
-
If it turned out that Jesus was Gay/Homosexual would Christians love him the same or less?
Would the swivel-eyed ones become more tolerant of Gays? (Would they insist in capitalising the letter 'g'?)
Why is being gay not right for Christ or any Christian?
Because it is not the way God created men and women to live.
Every man was to have his own wife.
As Christians do we love the sin or the person. Is love defined by sexuality or just sin?
If a person says he loves God would he deliberately so the sins he dislikes?
We have a history of wrong and right. Do we love people less as individuals because they turn out to be liars?
If they steal would we love them less? The sins of the individual are between them and God.
We are called to love one another. Love is not defined by treating people differently from others.
Love is defined by treating everyone the way we wish to be treated. If I did not like chicken then I would not expect someone to try and force feed it me, because they love it.
Jesus was not Gay. No if's or but's. Christianity is about loving people inspite of the way they behave towards themselves and others...
King James Bible
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
I don't have to tell you what they actually did to Christ. But in all his suffering being hated and jeered at. The crowd insulting him and spitting at him, he did not give like for like. There would be adulterer, homosexuals and even high priest in the crowd but he asked for forgiveness. Christ has wisdom and loved others. He did no judge rather he reached out.
Our greatest error today is to think that one type of sin is different from other sins. Yes sexual sin affects the body in a different way but all sin leads to death.
So if Jesus had committed a sin that would be the thing which meant he was not a perfect sacrifice. We can be sure Christ was not gay and without sin. But can we ever get rid of the wrong way of thinking that homosexual sin is any different to heterosexual sin of sex before marriage or adultery.
Christ died for homosexuals, adulterers, perverts and all who sin. But wanting forgiveness and wanting to live differently is up to us. Can we really see a gay person as being a sinner and it being worse than a theif? >
It is the mind of people who make it what it is. God invites all to be forgiven in Christ and more to the point to become a changed person in mind and spirit. Jesus was not Gay.
-
Sass, you don't know whether Jesus had sex with men or women or both! To state he wasn't gay, without any evidence to support that statement, is daft!
-
All we can say is that there is nothing written about Jesus's sexuality. My view is that it isn't relevant. I never think of it except when coming on here or occasionally, in the past, on other forums. Not an issue for me and certainly not an important one in the scheme of things. It is far better to concentrate on what we know about him.
-
All we can say is that there is nothing written about Jesus's sexuality. My view is that it isn't relevant. I never think of it except when coming on here or occasionally, in the past, on other forums. Not an issue for me and certainly not an important one in the scheme of things. It is far better to concentrate on what we know about him.
Well, some Christians are very quick to call being gay a sin, and worthy of hell.
Could they maintain that position if they knew Jesus was gay?
-
Don't tar us all with the same brush BeR!
If Jesus was gay it would make no difference to me but it is all hypothetical. The fact that we don't know is quite relevant, I think. There is no promotion of a sexual orientation. If we think of Jesus as heterosexual or homosexual we are making assumptions.
-
Don't tar us all with the same brush BeR!
If Jesus was gay it would make no difference to me but it is all hypothetical. The fact that we don't know is quite relevant, I think. There is no promotion of a sexual orientation. If we think of Jesus as heterosexual or homosexual we are making assumptions.
I said SOME.
To those SOME, I think it would be important.
-
Yes, although they would probably say it is the practice rather than the orientation. They expect people to go through life without comfort, affection, partnership which I think is a bit of a cheek being as they probably have all those things themselves.
To me, and to most of us, it really isn't important. In recent years I've only come across anti-gays on the internet and, of course, read about them in the media and seen the occasional TV programme where that attitude comes to the fore. I'm glad to say that anti-gay sentiments are dying out and people are generally regarded as people, sexuality coming way down on the list.
-
Khatru, that is all Old Testament stuff. You might as well try to argue that Handel's Dixit Dominus is Christian.
You're right, it is OT stuff and by that, it's prior to the time when believers gave their god a personality transplant so that, ostensibly, he didn't appear so nasty.
Certainly, the body count is a lot less and those killed by the new improved deity number only two (I think). We can contrast that with the old nasty deity where deaths at his hand probably ran into millions.
So yeah, on the face of it, God V.2 seems to be better than God V.1
But wait a minute, what's this?
I hear that everyone who doesn't worship God V.2 is going to be tortured for all eternity. Now that's bad and beyond the evil of God V.1
-
Christ died for homosexuals, adulterers, perverts and all who sin
Really - can you just stop doing that.
Just once.
I really do object to being bracketed with murderers.
Just stop being an offensive fuckwit.
-
Really - can you just stop doing that.
Just once.
I really do object to being bracketed with murderers.
Just stop being an offensive fuckwit.
Trent, that's Sass you're talking to.
-
I had to laugh ::)
-
I walk with God and Christ.... No crawling just Father, Son and Daughter.
No fear for as we know...
King James Bible
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
With every new post to me you are showing I am right and other believers right; when we say you know nothing about God, Christ, the Bible or Christianity.
For God so loved the world... How many times does it take for you to actually listen when the truth is showing you are wrong?
Yeah and as you stride through life with your invisible sky pixie, it's no doubt "end times this" and "end times that". That's the trouble with your truth - you have no hope for the world.
Yet as you walk, there will always be a fear at the back of your mind - it's in your doubts - believers always have their doubts. And when you encounter such a crisis of faith you'll have to face up to wondering what happens if you fail? Then the fear comes....fear of Satan, fear of eternal damnation and fear of hell and its demons.
But is losing your faith that bad?
Just think how you'll be free from your prudish, judgmental, smiting god.
And when a cute little girl dies of leukaemia you'll be able to sympathise that it was rotten luck without attributing her death to the action or inaction of your god.
Then there's respect for mankind! That'll be a new experience for you. We all know how your belief system brainwashes you into seeing humanity as inherently flawed, wretched, unworthy and oh-so-lucky to be tolerated by your deity of choice.
Anything else?
How about respect for the world? Ditch your ju-ju and you'll realise that animals are anything but soulless meatbags magicked into existence for mankind to exploit as they see fit.
Just think - you'll no longer be the religite, clinging to dogma and superstition while all the time harbouring a deep hatred of reason and logic.
-
Jesus was not Gay. No if's or but's. Christianity is about loving people inspite of the way they behave towards themselves and others...
It's a shame your god doesn't aspire to such a high standard of morality.
-
Yeah and as you stride through life with your invisible sky pixie, it's no doubt "end times this" and "end times that". That's the trouble with your truth - you have no hope for the world.
Yet as you walk, there will always be a fear at the back of your mind - it's in your doubts - believers always have their doubts. And when you encounter such a crisis of faith you'll have to face up to wondering what happens if you fail? Then the fear comes....fear of Satan, fear of eternal damnation and fear of hell and its demons.
But is losing your faith that bad?
Just think how you'll be free from your prudish, judgmental, smiting god.
And when a cute little girl dies of leukaemia you'll be able to sympathise that it was rotten luck without attributing her death to the action or inaction of your god.
Then there's respect for mankind! That'll be a new experience for you. We all know how your belief system brainwashes you into seeing humanity as inherently flawed, wretched, unworthy and oh-so-lucky to be tolerated by your deity of choice.
Anything else?
How about respect for the world? Ditch your ju-ju and you'll realise that animals are anything but soulless meatbags magicked into existence for mankind to exploit as they see fit.
Just think - you'll no longer be the religite, clinging to dogma and superstition while all the time harbouring a deep hatred of reason and logic.
Splendidly put, mate!
-
It is the Christian belief that Christ died for everyone (regardless of their sexual orientation), that includes sinners - most of all sinners. If posters don't believe in all that, they don't have to, but I fail to see what is wrong with a Christian stating what is a fundamental Christian belief.
-
It is the Christian belief that Christ died for everyone (regardless of their sexual orientation), that includes sinners - most of all sinners. If posters don't believe in all that, they don't have to, but I fail to see what is wrong with a Christian stating what is a fundamental Christian belief.
I think what is wrong with it, Brownie, is the assumption that we are all sinners who have done something worthy of death, and that he had to die to redeem us. That is manifestly not true, although I don't deny that there as some very nasty people out there.
-
You put that very politely young Len! Would that everyone disagreed so cordially though, if they did, no doubt there would be those who found it boring.
-
Really - can you just stop doing that.
Just once.
I really do object to being bracketed with murderers.
Just stop being an offensive fuckwit.
Unbelievers are also granted equivalent moral status to that little list.
It's a degenrate belief system they have.
-
It is the Christian belief that Christ died for everyone (regardless of their sexual orientation), that includes sinners - most of all sinners. If posters don't believe in all that, they don't have to, but I fail to see what is wrong with a Christian stating what is a fundamental Christian belief.
Simply put - heterosexuality is never cited as a sin - homosexuality is. This means that Sass and her ilk are free to put me alongside murderers and the like as a sinner because all sins are equal apparently. I find it offensive, unnecessary nonsense.
-
Yeah well, just ignore them for they know not what they say.
I wonder how Christians with that anachronistic view treat homosexuals who are Christian? There are plenty of them, generally in long term, committed relationships. Probably civil partners or married now.
-
It is the Christian belief that Christ died for everyone (regardless of their sexual orientation), that includes sinners - most of all sinners. If posters don't believe in all that, they don't have to, but I fail to see what is wrong with a Christian stating what is a fundamental Christian belief.
Jesus died to save murderers, paedophiles and divorcees.
Now do you see?
-
Yeah well, just ignore them for they know not what they say.
I wonder how Christians with that anachronistic view treat homosexuals who are Christian? There are plenty of them, generally in long term, committed relationships. Probably civil partners or married now.
I really like your position, Brownie, but Hope or Sassy will claim that we should ignore you because you don't know and homosexual sex is comparable to murder
-
I really like your position, Brownie, but Hope or Sassy will claim that we should ignore you because you don't know and homosexual sex is comparable to murder
I agree; and I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect gay posters to ignore being mentioned in the same breath as murderers.
-
I agree; and I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect gay posters to ignore being mentioned in the same breath as murderers.
When it comes to Sass, we don't for one minute expect a reasoned view. She needs sympathy and education.
-
<SNIP>
If I did not like chicken then I would not expect someone to try and force feed it me because they love it.
<Snippty SNIP>
Keep repeating this to yourself until the truth of it finally dawns on you..
-
Splendidly put, mate!
Thanks!
-
Sass, you don't know whether Jesus had sex with men or women or both! To state he wasn't gay, without any evidence to support that statement, is daft!
The bible is clear... Christ was a PERFECT sacrifice. As he was not married he had not had sex.
Again you are not able to arrive at the truth because you never understand what is put in front of you and never read the bible.
-
Really - can you just stop doing that.
Just once.
I really do object to being bracketed with murderers.
Just stop being an offensive fuckwit.
You are the one who is offensive. Had you EVER read the posts by all believers then you would know there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SINS. ONLY SIN WHICH LEADS TO INSTANT DEATH IN THE OT.
Why do you see your sin as any different to an adulterers? The 10 commandments are all listed together. The comparison of one being worse than the other is entirely your own. The bible does not single out one sin greater than another they just have sins which lead to instant death. In the case of adulterers, homosexuals and murderers it was instant death.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
The one sin not mentioned in the gospels of men being put to death was homosexuality. It was never talked about and it was not something men caught in the act of doing in Christs ministry. So in truth the bible saw homosexuality as the same as adultery and murder as I said they all lead to death but in the case of sin death in the here and now they all lead to being put to death instantly.
As Christ said: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. All have sinned but there is sin that leads to death and that sin cannot be pray about for others.
King James Bible
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
There were sins but some did not lead to death. Adultery and Murder etc did lead to people being put to death instantly
The posts are not written at you or about you. They are about the truth and what happens and has happened in the past.
If you could think as a scholar and not your sexuality. You would stop attacking people and what they write due to your sexuality and read and reply to the scholarly facts held within the posts and the points being made.
Namely that all sin is sin and leads to death of the individual for the purpose of salvation. We can pray for those we see sin but not about those sins which actually lead to their death in the here and now. Now maybe you will stop reacting as if the person and not the bible are saying these things. The title of this thread is deemed offensive to believers for it asks " Was Jesus Gay"
We have a right to answer that as it is not asked because the person does not know the answer. The person asking knows from the bible it would be impossible under the law for Christ to be Gay. So to stir emotions up for believer and none believer.
I personally have no beef with you. But don't take it out on me because you do have a beef about making it about your own sexuality and not the discussion of Christ which the bible is clear on. As it is about murder, adultery and homosexuality being sins which the persons involved were put to death if caught in the act of committing.
How can murder, adultery or homosexuality be compared as in degrees of badness or sin? It can't because they all pertain to individuals and none reflect on each other.
-
So many words, so little content.
-
Sassy
Are there only 10?
I thought there were many more.
-
So many words, so little content.
And so boring! :(
-
Yeah and as you stride through life with your invisible sky pixie, it's no doubt "end times this" and "end times that". That's the trouble with your truth - you have no hope for the world.
Yet as you walk, there will always be a fear at the back of your mind - it's in your doubts - believers always have their doubts. And when you encounter such a crisis of faith you'll have to face up to wondering what happens if you fail? Then the fear comes....fear of Satan, fear of eternal damnation and fear of hell and its demons.
But is losing your faith that bad?
Just think how you'll be free from your prudish, judgmental, smiting god.
And when a cute little girl dies of leukaemia you'll be able to sympathise that it was rotten luck without attributing her death to the action or inaction of your god.
My cute and beautiful niece died from a massive heart attack at the age of 16 weeks from endocardialfibroelastosis.
It is a genetic heart disease. It wasn't rotten luck and it wasn't an inaction by my God. It wasn't sympathy it was a sharing of grief. But a week or so before the incident I was with my sister and her baby at her home. Lovely day and a good one by all accounts. When I left to go home for my evening meal as I got to the door a voice said to me. " Go back and kiss the baby, you will never get to kiss her again." Baby was sleeping peacefully and I kissed her and left.
I never got to see her again two weeks later early hours of the morning police knocked at my parents home with my sister clutching babies blanket. Despite brave attempts by her and the ambulance crew they could not save her.
No one not even babies dad got to see her again or kiss her goodbye. My sister said no one was to see her that she was to be kept in funeral home till funeral and coffin sealed. No visits. No one could come and kiss her goodbye.
Two years later another niece my sisters daughter died. A little boy died in womb. Then two neices born with heart disease and a boy severe breathing difficulties. Both neices had been sent home to die. Both anointed and both still alive with children of their own. The heart disease does not heal. One niece it has completely healed now the other still has to take it easy.
Very beautiful has three children and her own business.
You have no idea when it comes to the power of God what he can do and change.
Don't tell me about what I will be able to do with others. My daughter special needs complications since birth and breathing difficulties all through her life. My son has breathing complications for the first two years of his life.
My husband was severely mentally ill and nearly lost his life on three occasions the last requiring dialysis which wasn't really
sure would work. I have spent all my adult life caring for others. Mother, children and siblings children.
Not a moment to spare for myself till my son turned 18 two years ago and he helped in the evenings allowing me some times for myself a couple of nights a week.
Judgmental freedom and smiting God. You need a lesson in life which concerns looking after others instead of yourself all the time. Taking the time to know others instead of passing your judgments out on those who hold a faith which gives them the strength to do that you would not survive. You talk about things from an utterly self centred point of view. One unrealistic in the way you view others in ignorance.
Then there's respect for mankind! That'll be a new experience for you. We all know how your belief system brainwashes you into seeing humanity as inherently flawed, wretched, unworthy and oh-so-lucky to be tolerated by your deity of choice.
My humanity has me facing my problems head on. Taking care of those and not requiring or needing respect to look after those I love. My faith is not about what others think it is about doing that which as human beings we all should do.
I see the no flaws in humanity I see flaws in individuals like yourself who have no humane kindness or responsibility in attaining the truth about others before judging them. My faith shows me that my Father God, loves all.... even those humanity deem unworthy and unlovable. Mankind makes their own suffer... my Father asks them to stop hurting and to begin loving them all.
My view is nothing like yours. Who is really brainwashed? You brainwash yourself if you really believe your own rubbish and statements.
Anything else?
How about respect for the world? Ditch your ju-ju and you'll realise that animals are anything but soulless meatbags magicked into existence for mankind to exploit as they see fit.
Just think - you'll no longer be the religite, clinging to dogma and superstition while all the time harbouring a deep hatred of reason and logic.
You mean become like you... Soulless, judgmental and thinking the worst of anything to keep from accepting that people with faith are people who believe God loves everyone, including you. I don't have dogma and superstition. You do... re-read what you wrote and ask yourself where you learned it... You could not walk a yard in my shows let alone a mile. You would never survive as an atheist.
-
Keep repeating this to yourself until the truth of it finally dawns on you..
You only run from the truth because of your own personal history.
Life isn't always fair. Not everyone are whom they appear to be.
But you would not know if someone bent over backward to help you because you are too stuck in your past.
Sorry we differ in I am no ones mug and I don't allow my past to rule my present or future.
Nor do I judge the truth about God according to the life I have lived or what others have done to me.
As a Child and as an adult, the truth about God does not alter according to what happens to me or the events in my life.
The truth about God is solid. It is in the truth we find the way forward and learn we may not have had to go through most of the things had we just listened to him and those who loved us.
So by all means keep to your own fantasies that X'tians are brainwashed but don't pretend we never step outside our comfort zone to test if something true. At least you have evidence that it is not so. Just as believers have evidence that God is faithful to his words and promises. You cannot live life to the full whilst you are still living in your past.
-
Simply put - heterosexuality is never cited as a sin - homosexuality is. This means that Sass and her ilk are free to put me alongside murderers and the like as a sinner because all sins are equal apparently. I find it offensive, unnecessary nonsense.
Trent, I'd have thought that being regarded as on a par with everyone else - a sinner - is quite sufficient for most people. Why should being treated as equally as this be offensive? (note that it is only the likes of you who pick on the extremes when trying to make such a point as you have).
-
Keep repeating this to yourself until the truth of it finally dawns on you..
It seems sad that you haven't taken your own advice during the years I've been discussing with you.
-
I think what is wrong with it, Brownie, is the assumption that we are all sinners who have done something worthy of death, and that he had to die to redeem us. That is manifestly not true, although I don't deny that there as some very nasty people out there.
Len, as you have made it clear that you don't believe in God, I think we can rightly assume that you don't believe in the concept of spiritual life and death - which is the context in which this 'death' is mentioned. Without any understanding of the concept, your comment that "I think what is wrong with it, ..., is the assumption that we are all sinners who have done something worthy of death, and that he had to die to redeem us" makes no sense.
-
Trent, I'd have thought that being regarded as on a par with everyone else - a sinner - is quite sufficient for most people. Why should being treated as equally as this be offensive? (note that it is only the likes of you who pick on the extremes when trying to make such a point as you have).
Is that really true, Hope? You've never linked homosexuality with criminal or harmful activity in any of your posts?
And I know Trent can speak for himself but who exactly is 'the likes of you'?
-
Sassy
Are there only 10?
I thought there were many more.
Yes, there are only 10 Commandments, BR. None of the other instructions given by God that are included in the pages of the Old and New Testaments go outside of the parameters laid out by them.
-
Is that really true, Hope? You've never linked homosexuality with criminal or harmful activity in any of your posts?
No, I never linked homosexuality with criminal or harmful activity in any of my posts - in fact I've never linked it with sin. What I havethough done is link homosexual activity with sin and compared it to a wide range of what Christian regard as 'sin'. I have never linked it exclusively what might be regarded - from a purely social perspective - as the extreme forms of wrong.
I'm not saying that it can't be - but then certain heterosexual behaviours can be linked in this way as well - such as rape.
... but who exactly is 'the likes of you'?
The people here who try to link homosexual behaviour exclusively to certain 'extreme' sins to make a point.
-
No, I never linked homosexuality with criminal or harmful activity in any of my posts - in fact I've never linked it with sin. What I havethough done is link homosexual activity with sin and compared it to a wide range of what Christian regard as 'sin'. I have never linked it exclusively what might be regarded - from a purely social perspective - as the extreme forms of wrong.
I'm not saying that it can't be - but then certain heterosexual behaviours can be linked in this way as well - such as rape.
Active homosexuals are on a par with rapists?
-
Len, as you have made it clear that you don't believe in God, I think we can rightly assume that you don't believe in the concept of spiritual life and death - which is the context in which this 'death' is mentioned. Without any understanding of the concept, your comment that "I think what is wrong with it, ..., is the assumption that we are all sinners who have done something worthy of death, and that he had to die to redeem us" makes no sense.
I simply approach the matter from the way I was taught it when young.
-
Active homosexuals are on a par with rapists?
As I understand the law, someone can be accused of either homosexual or heterosexual rape, Rhi.
-
I simply approach the matter from the way I was taught it when young.
And that was?
-
As I understand the law, someone can be accused of either homosexual or heterosexual rape, Rhi.
That wasn't what I asked. Answer the question.
-
Active homosexuals are on a par with rapists?
I am not sure exactly what Hope is trying to say, but if that is what he is implying that is awful! >:(
-
And that was?
That we would go to hell after death if we didn't accept Jesus as our saviour.
-
I am not sure exactly what Hope is trying to say, but if that is what he is implying that is awful! >:(
Rapist a can be gay or straight; in fact the law now recognises any penetrative act as rape so rapists can be male or female.
I asked if active homosexuals are on a par with rapists. I'm awaiting an answer.
-
What I havethough done is link homosexual activity with sin and compared it to a wide range of what Christian regard as 'sin'. I have never linked it exclusively what might be regarded - from a purely social perspective - as the extreme forms of wrong.
The use of the word 'exclusively' there is telling.
-
The use of the word 'exclusively' there is telling.
Precisely, which is what I have been arguing for the past few years. I have always linked it to 'sin' or a variety of examples of sin from the full range of said concept.
-
I asked if active homosexuals are on a par with rapists. I'm awaiting an answer.
Well, is rape a sin in your view? I know you are 'awaiting an answer' but I've given the answer to this exact question on a number of occasion, most recently in my post of 05:23:31 PM
-
That we would go to hell after death if we didn't accept Jesus as our saviour.
OK, if that is what you were taught, I can understand where you are coming from. Whether that is actually what the Jesus taught is very open to debate.
-
I am not sure exactly what Hope is trying to say, but if that is what he is implying that is awful! >:(
You know exactly waht I'm trying tosay, Floo - we did this same discussion on other forums years ago. The problem is that, if you acknowledge what I'm saying, it means that its less easy for you and others to ridicule my understanding of what the Bible teaches.
-
Well, is rape a sin in your view? I know you are 'awaiting an answer' but I've given the answer to this exact question on a number of occasion, most recently in my post of 05:23:31 PM
I don't recognise 'sin'; that's an absurdity invented by your religion.
-
The people here who try to link homosexual behaviour exclusively to certain 'extreme' sins to make a point.
So are you going to take that up with Sassy who linked homosexuality to murder.
It was not I who linked it to anything at all - which if you had read the thread for comprehension you would have understood.
I mean she could have linked it to stealing jelly babies - but she didn't she linked it to murder. I expect you to take her to task immediately.
Although I won't hold my breath.
-
As Hope notes, we have been through this and should Trentvoyager and his partner have a quick roll in the hay this evening, Hope thinks in terms of sin that that is the equivalent of the Holocaust.
-
As Hope notes, we haven't been through this and should Trentvoyager and his partner have a quick roll in the hat this evening, Hope thinks in terms of sin that that is the equivalent of the Holocaust.
I wish ::)
-
To be fair NS, I do remember that now you mention it.
He probably linked it to having a flutter on the horses or something though as well so that's ok.
-
OK, if that is what you were taught, I can understand where you are coming from. Whether that is actually what the Jesus taught is very open to debate.
Apart from the historical facts and the good advice, the whole of the Bible is open to debate.
-
Apart from the historical facts and the good advice, the whole of the Bible is open to debate.
The sdame could be said about just about every document that is written by anyone other than the originator of the ideas involved, which is why proper research into them is so important before using them to make any given point. In other words, just because your and my parents brought us up in the way that they did (whatever that might have been) it doesn't necessarily mean that they used any given documentation in the way that it had been created/developed. The same will go for the ways that you and I have brought up children of ours, or they of theirs - unless we, as parents study everything we teach in detail.
-
As Hope notes, we have been through this and should Trentvoyager and his partner have a quick roll in the hay this evening, Hope thinks in terms of sin that that is the equivalent of the Holocaust.
or telling a white lie. It is only humans who grade wrong-doings.
-
or telling a white lie. It is only humans who grade wrong-doings.
So there you have it folks, in Hope's god's eyes if you lied about the whereabouts of the Frank family to save them, it is just the same as gassing them
-
I don't recognise 'sin'; that's an absurdity invented by your religion.
Oddly enough, it is a concept that long predates Christiuanity, Rhi. Probably Judaism as well. Whilst they don't use the same word, the concept exists in Hinduism. However,I'll rephrase it - "Well, is rape a 'wrong' in your view?"
-
So there you have it folks, in Hope's god's eyes if you lied about the whereabouts of the Frank family to save them, it is just the same as gassing them
Can't remember the full story - its a couple of decades since I last read the material - but I seem to remember the point was that for a long time no-one lied about their whereabouts because the Germans never actually asked anyone!! No-one volunteered the information up front.
-
Oddly enough, it is a concept that long predates Christiuanity, Rhi. Probably Judaism as well. Whilst they don't use the same word, the concept exists in Hinduism. However,I'll rephrase it - "Well, is rape a 'wrong' in your view?"
Yes. Homosexual acts aren't though. *
Back to you with that one.
* Phrasing due to irritating software filter.
-
Yes. Homosexual acts aren't though. *
Back to you with that one.
* Phrasing due to irritating software filter.
So you agree that there is a concept that some will call wrong-doing, others will call sin and yet others will call crime. The issue about 'the right or wrong' of homosexual activities is no more than your opinion. You have no definitive evidence to support that opinion (and sorry, since law permits a number of things that I believe that we both regard as wrong - such as avoidance of legitimate taxation - you can't invoke that as a source of evidence)
-
Can't remember the full story - its a couple of decades since I last read the material - but I seem to remember the point was that for a long time no-one lied about their whereabouts because the Germans never actually asked anyone!! No-one volunteered the information up front.
It's a hypothetical, not an historical point. Your god thinks lying to save the Franks is equivalent to gassing them.
-
So you agree that there is a concept that some will call wrong-doing, others will call sin and yet others will call crime. The issue about 'the right or wrong' of homosexual activities is no more than your opinion. You have no definitive evidence to support that opinion (and sorry, since law permits a number of things that I believe that we both regard as wrong - such as avoidance of legitimate taxation - you can't invoke that as a source of evidence)
Straight answer, please, Hope.
-
So you agree that there is a concept that some will call wrong-doing, others will call sin and yet others will call crime.
Crime and wrong-doing have fairly specific meanings understood by all people in all cultures and societies since the dawn of the human species (and understood - because understood - by extant non-human primates) with the possible exception of a tiny minority of the more severely disturbed psychopaths. 'Sin' is a specifically and explicitly religious term relating to whatever is deemed unacceptable to a god. Disbelieve gods and sin disappears. Wrong-doing remains. Aside from the tiny number of exceptions just mentioned, everybody believes in wrong-doing; you have to be religious to believe in sin. I agree with Sam Harris that in essence morality is the matter of the happiness and unhappiness of sentient creatures, not the appeasement of the arbitrary standards of fictional entities. Shove morality outside of what causes pleasure and pain to sentient beings, stick it far out in some supposed, some assumed other-worldly realm of supernatural entities, make right and wrong about what's approved or disapproved of by some poorly (if that) defined and unevidenced entity called a god, divorce good and bad from this real world and the feeling creatures in it, and you can (spuriously) justify any and every sort of cruelty and wickedness. As the history of religion amply demonstrates.
The issue about 'the right or wrong' of homosexual activities is no more than your opinion. You have no definitive evidence to support that opinion (and sorry, since law permits a number of things that I believe that we both regard as wrong - such as avoidance of legitimate taxation - you can't invoke that as a source of evidence)
I'm quite happy to base my opinion upon the everyday empirical evidence of gay people living good and happy lives and finding their own happiness in their own minority (but permanent minority), very slightly different way to the heterosexual majority (where and when they're free to do so, in societies that prize diversity, liberal open-mindedness and not just mere tolerance but the positive celebration of difference). Changes in law are a consequence of this, not the spur of it. I have the evidence of my senses, evolutionarily-implanted empathy and a reasoning brain. What do you have?
-
It's a hypothetical, not an historical point. Your god thinks lying to save the Franks is equivalent to gassing them.
Hope, is this understanding of sin just an excuse for your homophobia?
-
Hope, is this understanding of sin just an excuse for your homophobia?
I couldn't possibly comment.
-
It's a hypothetical, not an historical point. Your god thinks lying to save the Franks is equivalent to gassing them.
No, not equivalent. He doesn't deal in equivalence. He deals in relationship. As both Jesus and St Paul point out, there is nothing wrong with ignoring an unjust law.
-
I couldn't possibly comment.
But I know you're dying to ;)
-
Hope, is this understanding of sin just an excuse for your homophobia?
What homophobia? Regarding 'this understanding of sin', please remember that that is God's understanding. It doesn't really matter whether an action slightly damages or destroys relationship - in his eyes there is never any situation that can't be rescued and/or repaired.
-
The sdame could be said about just about every document that is written by anyone other than the originator of the ideas involved, which is why proper research into them is so important before using them to make any given point. In other words, just because your and my parents brought us up in the way that they did (whatever that might have been) it doesn't necessarily mean that they used any given documentation in the way that it had been created/developed. The same will go for the ways that you and I have brought up children of ours, or they of theirs - unless we, as parents study everything we teach in detail.
I think it is incumbent on parents to teach children what they know to be facts and what they know to be mere beliefs.
-
No, not equivalent. He doesn't deal in equivalence. He deals in relationship. As both Jesus and St Paul point out, there is nothing wrong with ignoring an unjust law.
Now you are going against what you said. When I stated
As Hope notes, we have been through this and should Trentvoyager and his partner have a quick roll in the hay this evening, Hope thinks in terms of sin that that is the equivalent of the Holocaust
You then replied
or telling a white lie. It is only humans who grade wrong-doings.
which both accepts the equivalency and puts the lying to save the Franks as the same as Trent's roll in the hay, and the Holocaust.
-
It is only humans who grade wrong-doings.
I suspect that's because most people are naturally and inherently consequentialists, who weigh up the relative rightness or wrongness of an action by its effect - its consequences - upon sentient creatures such as human beings. Anything else is widely seen as histrionic madness (such as Jesus's ridiculous preachment that within one cranium the mere thought of adultery is morally equivalent to actual adultery).
-
What homophobia? Regarding 'this understanding of sin', please remember that that is God's understanding. It doesn't really matter whether an action slightly damages or destroys relationship - in his eyes there is never any situation that can't be rescued and/or repaired.
So the Franks are in heaven and it's remedied...oh no wait a minute. They weren't Christians.
Still, any Christians that were responsible for their murder are ok.
-
Oh please, try reading the Bible. There will be millions and millions of Christians that will NOT be OK come judgment day. There, feel better now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt4cPl0vfM0
-
That's not what Hope says.
-
No, not equivalent. He doesn't deal in equivalence. He deals in relationship. As both Jesus and St Paul point out, there is nothing wrong with ignoring an unjust law.
Super - then presumably both would support amendments to laws so as to remove discrimination that can't simply be ignored. Pity then that some of the followers of the former in current times aren't equally magnanimous.
-
Rhi ,
A homosexual is on par with you and I, also Hope and Honey Boo Boo.
Gordon,
Amend what laws? God set it out at the beginning. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Gordon.
-
Gordon,
Amend what laws? God set it out at the beginning. He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Gordon.
Daft ancient Hebrew mythology. No reason to take it seriously, every reason not to take it seriously, as a picture of the real world as it actually is. Stop being silly, if you're able.
-
A godless opinion from Shaker, who's only reason for being is to parade his arrogance on the internet with a heavy spray of PooPourri. Imagine where Shaker and his PooPourri could go if he had ambition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFI_-kJ95vc
-
I asked if active homosexuals are on a par with rapists. I'm awaiting an answer.
Give an example that puts any sin on par with each other?
You claimed to be taught and educated in theological matters, did you not.
The truth is theology DOES NOT teach that one sin is on par or even give examples on such a teaching this you know.
It teaches that the wages of sin is death and all have sinned.
It teaches there are sins you can pray for forgiveness you see your brother commit. However not the sins which lead to death the instant death which Homosexuality, Murder and Adultery were all such sins. So yes a par can be found in that they all lead to death. No other par exists as all are separate sins. You supposedly studied so should know that.
So what is the par you suggest which would make them equal to each other outside leading to instant death in the biblical times even up to the time of Christ? Why deliberately ask Hope something you know no Christian could even suggest.
Insincere not to tell the atheists the truth isn't it. Rather misleading them or was you misleading us when you said you had studied theology?
-
So are you going to take that up with Sassy who linked homosexuality to murder.
It was not I who linked it to anything at all - which if you had read the thread for comprehension you would have understood.
I mean she could have linked it to stealing jelly babies - but she didn't she linked it to murder. I expect you to take her to task immediately.
Although I won't hold my breath.
NO ONE LINKED HOMOSEXUALITY TO MURDER AND NO ONE COULD. GIVE AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE THAT IT CAN BE DONE.
So why are you being false and claiming something you could not even do no matter how hard you tried.
NO EVIDENCE... because it does not exist. The truth that exists in the bible is homosexuality, murder and adultery all lead to instant death the people who did those things paid with the price of their lives.
Now stop trying to make an issue that DOES NOT EXIST and one which shows NO ONE CAN LINK HOMOSEXUALITY WITH MURDER OR ADULTERY AS IF THE SAME.
MAYBE you will shut up now everyone can see the falseness of your claim and how rubbish it really is. You see Christians are fed up of people shouting foul when none exists and none could exist. We are the people being hard done by with false claims by people who themselves cannot even give an example of how such a thing could logically be done let alone conceived.
-
Ok Sass Answer me this.
Hope is married, heterosexual and because of this you would not judge him to be a sinner. Is this correct? (you can judge him to be a sinner for all sorts of other reasons but on this matter as I understand the issue you would not consider that a sin.)
I am in a civil partnership with my partner of 37 years - but because it is a homosexual partnership you consider that as a sin on a par with perverts and adulterers? Is that correct?
And because of this you expext me not to react? You expect me to lie down and let you call me a sinner for behaving in exactly the same way as heterosexuals do except for one small insignificant difference?
What a shame Hope, you and others who get so worked up about this issue didn't spend more of your time concentrating on issues that really matter like child poverty, wealth and health inequality, the environment and on and on and on. But you don't get quite the same glow of superiority and self righteousness from those issues as you do from one that is so clearly "wrong" in some book you read once.
However if you had read that book properly, you might want to re-read it and look at the following:
John 8:7
in fact quite a lot of the Christians on here would do well to look at that.
-
And talk about contradictory:
However not the sins which lead to death the instant death which Homosexuality, Murder and Adultery were all such sins. So yes a par can be found in that they all lead to death.
NO ONE LINKED HOMOSEXUALITY TO MURDER AND NO ONE COULD.
So Sass is that what you believe, that I should receive instant death as a punishment because of my homosexuality?
-
Ok Sass Answer me this.
Hope is married, heterosexual and because of this you would not judge him to be a sinner. Is this correct? (you can judge him to be a sinner for all sorts of other reasons but on this matter as I understand the issue you would not consider that a sin.
Wrong... Hope would still be a sinner regardless of whether he was married or not.
The bible is clear about what it considers sin.
I am in a civil partnership with my partner of 37 years - but because it is a homosexual partnership you consider that as a sin on a par with perverts and adulterers? Is that correct?
No it is not correct.
Now if you were heterosexual and living with a partner of 37 years you would still be living in sin if not married.
There is no example there that puts you being homosexual on par with perverts or adulterers. As I have already explained all are individual sins and none can be compared with each other. But those sins all lead to being put to death in OT if caught in the act of committing. If Hope was heterosexual and married but has sexual relations with another then he commits adultery.
How as I originally asked can you compare/par adultery with homosexuality. You can't just as you cannot put each of them on par/compare with being a thief.
And because of this you ecxpext me not to react? You expect me to lie down and let you call me a sinner for behaving in exactly the same way as heterosexuals do escept for one small insignificant difference?
Again you are asking a question then not waiting for an answer just assuming you have an answer without producing any evidence to support you having a logical reason for what you are stating. NO THERE IS NOTHING YOU HAVE SAID OR SHOWN BY WAY OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR FICTITIOUS REASONING. Your answer proves again you have no logical evidence to even prove to yourself that such a thing is possible.
What a shame Hope, you and others who get so wroked up about this isseu didn't spend mor eof your time concentratoing on issues that really matter like child poverty, wealth and health inequality, the environment and on and on and on. But you don't get quite the same glow of superiority and self righteousness from those issues as you do from one that is so clearly "wrong" in some boook you read once.
What a shame you are the only one GUILTY of false claims and of pushing onto others your own fictitious beliefs which you cannot prove. Nothing in the book confirms what you falsely claim.
I shall ask you a question: Can heterosexual and homosexuals commit adultery and murder?
Have they committed adultery and murder? If a homosexual commits murder are they also guilty of adultery?
If a heterosexual commits murder are they also guilty of adultery? So why pretend you are not intelligent to know that one sin does not make you guilty of another because of sexuality. So in future maybe you can do away with the false accusations against Christian and believers by stop falsely accusing them of something they CANNOT be guilty of doing
Homosexuality, adultery and murder are all separate sins which can be committed. However in the bible it can mean those who commit them can be put to death instantly as the stoning of the woman caught in adultery proved. Does her being stoned for adultery also means she is being stoned for murder or homosexuality? NO! So your false indignation is proved as false as your claim against believers. It is all in your own mind and not true.
However if you had read that book properly you might want to re-read it and look at the following:
John 8:7
in fact quite a lot of the Christians on here would do well to look at that.
You need to remove the forest from your eye and then you may do well to remove the splinter/speck from Christians.
King James Bible
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Your ignorance is that Christ COULD CAST THAT STONE HE HAD NO SIN. But he pointed out that those who were there all had sin who were accusing and wanting to stone her. Proving the fact that all sins are sin and all have sinned different sins. But all need forgiveness and Christ.
So now I have proved yet again you HAVE NO BASIS FOR SUCH FALSE ALLEGATIONS.
You should practice what you try to preach.
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
The difference between you, Hope and I, is that our sins are forgiven. Christ has paid the price.
So we are without sin and could cast the first stone. But we are not judging you, you do that to yourself every time you acknowledge that you know the bible says homosexual relations are a sin. Heterosexual married people who commit adultery or murder are not committing homosexuality. Just as you being homosexual does not make you an adulterer or a murderer.
Now the truth had finally been cleared up. Stop falsely accusing the bible or Christians.
Homosexuality, murder and adultery are all separate sins but all lead to the person being put to death in the OT.
If mentioning them in the same sentence does not mean you are guilty of all of them, then in no way can it make them on par.
That is your own imagination and false beliefs.
-
Sass
YOu have failed to answer one very simple question.
Do you consider a married person to be a sinner simply because thay are married and in a relationship?
I gave Hope as an example - but any married person?
The rest of your longwinded post is just a circular argument that goes nowhere.
Can you also answer do you believe I deserve instant death?
JJust give yes or no answers - it's not that difficult a concept.
And lastly - I am of course aware that homosexuality, murder and adultery are different issues. But why do you bracket them together - and in your heart of hearts (you know deep down where I do know there is a caring person) do you really believe that they are on a par where the punishment meted out is death?
-
And talk about contradictory:
So Sass is that what you believe, that I should receive instant death as a punishment because of my homosexuality?
Don't twist my WORDS. I never said any such thing. The same as the par I gave as example for the bible alone was that the three sins all lead to a person being put to death instantly does not support your false claim. Example in post before this.
NOTHING contradictory because unless you have committed adultery; murder as well as being homosexual then there is no par for you is there? Now stop making false allegations and stop whining making ridiculous statements that anyone would put you to death now for being homosexual.
The law was the OT covenant. The New covenant has absolutely nothing to do with the world because Christ#s Kingdom is NOT OF THIS WORLD. The new Kingdom is within the person and you are outside that KINGDOM. Because Christ died for sinners people who loved truth and love God. It is a kingdom that lives by the word of God within them.
Jeremiah 31:31-34. So we attend to our own failings and building the true kingdom the body of Christ.
Light and darkness have nothing in common and one is not born of the other. Why would you be judged by a true believer?
There is nothing for us to judge because there is one judge and the ruler of this world has already been judged.
So have all who come after Christ. They choose their own life or death. They who commit sin have been judged when the law came into the world through the Covenant with Moses and Israel. When Christ died it was complete.
He became the way for forgiveness. I admit to being a sinner. You do not admit you are doing anything which is a sin.
Because I admit I am a sinner saved by the blood and body of Christ why does that make me responsible for you or what you do? Christians can judge the sin to be wrong but we do not judge the person committing the sin.
It is not for us to condemn anyone for what they say or do. Yes I have corrected erroneous beliefs perhaps now you would give us the courtesy of stopping your false accusations.
Christ is for those who admit they are sinners and want forgiveness and to know God.
Outside the Kingdom of God is not the believers concern. The NT tells us about Christians living together and correcting each other. It shows we are not in the world. We are not of the world but new creations. If you feel Gods word condemns you but do not believe in God, why should that bother you? As for us, we believe we are sinners of different types of sin forgiven through Christ. Nevertheless why should us being forgiven make us condemn others who have not yet seen the light?
It would be stupid would it not, to condemn others for being what we once were or to think that sins can make us more or less guilty of sin because of their type.
Believers who are true believers are concerned with the Kingdom of Heaven and that is not part of condemning others.
I have never met you Trent. If we met without knowing who each of us are, we would probably get on and like each other very much. Because I would do as I do with everyone. Be concerned with the person who you are not you sexuality or sins.
I was raised without any bias and I really don't care about sexuality. I treat all the same and love them for who they are not what sins they might or might not have committed. I am not your judge or anyone elses. The bible for me is true.
True that I change my life accordingly not to judge someone elses.
-
Sass
YOu have failed to answer one very simple question.
Do you consider a married person to be a sinner simply because thay are married and in a relationship?
I gave Hope as an example - but any married person?
The rest of your longwinded post is just a circular argument that goes nowhere.
Can you also answer do you believe I deserve instant death?
JJust give yes or no answers - it's not that difficult a concept.
And lastly - I am of course aware that homosexuality, murder and adultery are different issues. But why do you bracket them together - and in your heart of hearts (you know deep down where I do know there is a caring person) do you really believe that they are on a par where the punishment meted out is death?
Read my posts and come back to me...
-
Hope is married, heterosexual and because of this you would not judge him to be a sinner. Is this correct? (you can judge him to be a sinner for all sorts of other reasons but on this matter as I understand the issue you would not consider that a sin.)
Note that - as you say - I am married and heterosexual. I have not lived with a partner 'as if married' or in some other form of non-marriage relationship. For millennia, heterosexual marriage has been the norm for societies across the globe.
I am in a civil partnership with my partner of 37 years - but because it is a homosexual partnership you consider that as a sin on a par with perverts and adulterers? Is that correct?
As I've pointed out before, I consider homosexual relationships to be a sin on a par with other sins. Note that I don't grade that term in the way that you have.
And because of this you expext me not to react? You expect me to lie down and let you call me a sinner for behaving in exactly the same way as heterosexuals do except for one small insignificant difference?
Sorry, I'd suggest that 'one small insignificant difference' is somewhat of an understatement. Biologically alone, there are a number of fairly sizeable differences.
What a shame Hope, you and others who get so worked up about this issue didn't spend more of your time concentrating on issues that really matter like child poverty, wealth and health inequality, the environment and on and on and on. But you don't get quite the same glow of superiority and self righteousness from those issues as you do from one that is so clearly "wrong" in some book you read once.
Not sure about you, but probably 99% of my concentration on issues is on those that you refer to above, and more. The time I spend discussing homosexual relationships is largely restricted to this and one or two other forums where I feel that it right to keep the debate on the issue open. Sadly, a few years ago I was banned from one forum because I was seen as too pro-gay by the forum owners!!
However if you had read that book properly, you might want to re-read it and look at the following:
John 8:7
in fact quite a lot of the Christians on here would do well to look at that.
It might also be worth looking at the context in which that single, 31 word verse, fits. Look at the previous verse, for instance, where it explains that the religious leaders were asking these questions in order to trap him - "This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him". So, rather than suggesting that " ... quite a lot of the Christians on here would do well to look at that", may I suggest that a lot of the posters here, of whatever point of view, " ... would do well to look at that"
-
Do you consider a married person to be a sinner simply because thay are married and in a relationship?
Perhaps you could provide us with a Biblical reference that indicates that heterosexual marriage is a 'wrong'. Or any reference from any source.
-
Note that I don't grade that term in the way that you have.
I have not graded them.
For millennia, heterosexual marriage has been the norm for societies across the globe.
And in what way is that a coherent argument for anything?
Not sure about you, but probably 99% of my concentration on issues is on those that you refer to above, and more.
I'm pleased to hear it.
may I suggest that a lot of the posters here, of whatever point of view, " ... would do well to look at that"
I'm not sure why non-Christians should necessarily follow a Chrisian text - but I do take the point that we are all guilty of judgement at times when we shouldn't. Although some of us much less than others - due to our differing beliefs.
If you care to look at my actual posts rather than how you perceive me - I only ever respond to Christians in a (shall we say - challenging way) on this one issue - as I do believe Sass's and your views and one or two others are detrimental to the well being of gay people (albeit in a very small way) in this country.
Neither you nor she will get a free pass if you mention homosexuality in the same sentence as murderers, adulterers or perverts. Not that I belive in any kind of death sentence for any of those groups but that is perhaps a discussion for another thread.
-
Perhaps you could provide us with a Biblical reference that indicates that heterosexual marriage is a 'wrong'. Or any reference from any source.
What?
I was asking that question of Sassy because she said you were a sinner - I was trying to clarify whether or not she considered you a sinner simply because you are married.
I don't think you are a sinner for that at all. She said it - but I think she was just dodging the question - as her later posts have proved.
-
Read my posts and come back to me...
I have and you didn't answer my questions.
Yes or no will suffice to each question.
-
But those sins all lead to being put to death in OT if caught in the act of committing.
So again I ask Sass - do you believe the Bible is correct in this instance?
As I say - not a difficult question.
Yes or No will suffice.
-
TV,
The death penalty for those things (as also for Sabbath-breaking) applied exclusively to Old Covenant Israel. That is, the land of Canaan was given to them but there must be no immorality within it - Israel was given the priestly task of living under what can be called the death-dealing aspect of the Law, to demonstrate God's holiness to the non-Israelite nations. Undergoing circumcision was a sign of this.
-
It must be great for believers when they realise that the god they've chosen to grovel to happens to hate the same things that they hate.
-
That does happen Khatru and I've witnessed it; a Bible quotation that reinforces, or appears to reinforce, an existing prejudice. It doesn't take much insight to see and hear the distaste for a particular person or activity on the face and lips of a 'believer', who spews hate. However I do not think this is true in the case of Sassy. I've not known Sass to show personal distaste for anyone, quite the opposite. I've read and re-read her posts and, frankly, do not understand them. She must mean something different to what we perceive. For the life of me I don't know what it is.
OMW, the Lord did create ''Adam and Gordon'', if he hadn't there wouldn't be a percentage of the human race who prefer cohabitation with their own sex to a heterosexual relationship. It's quite obvious that gay people were born that way.
In earlier times people didn't understand and rarely talked about such things, even in my lifetime it was considered by most people to be very odd and dangerous. I remember at school, during a discussion, being told by teachers that homosexuality was a mental illness! In Biblical times it was just the same, someone who was different to the average was viewed with suspicion.
When I think what gay people have had to go through I feel ashamed. Thank God that times have changed and are constantly improving.
-
That does happen Khatru and I've witnessed it; a Bible quotation that reinforces, or appears to reinforce, an existing prejudice. It doesn't take much insight to see and hear the distaste for a particular person or activity on the face and lips of a 'believer', who spews hate. However I do not think this is true in the case of Sassy. I've not known Sass to show personal distaste for anyone, quite the opposite. I've read and re-read her posts and, frankly, do not understand them. She must mean something different to what we perceive. For the life of me I don't know what it is.
OMW, the Lord did create ''Adam and Gordon'', if he hadn't there wouldn't be a percentage of the human race who prefer cohabitation with their own sex to a heterosexual relationship. It's quite obvious that gay people were born that way.
In earlier times people didn't understand and rarely talked about such things, even in my lifetime it was considered by most people to be very odd and dangerous. I remember at school, during a discussion, being told by teachers that homosexuality was a mental illness! In Biblical times it was just the same, someone who was different to the average was viewed with suspicion.
When I think what gay people have had to go through I feel ashamed. Thank God that times have changed and are constantly improving.
Nicely put.
I sometimes wonder just where in the bible does the supreme cosmic mega being prioritise homosexuality as a sin over adultery.
Adultery is one of the Bible god's big ones - you'll see it listed in his big ten. However, there's no commandment vetoing homosexual sex. Of course, adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than loving gay people who choose to enter into committed relationships.
This serves to demonstrate that Christians who get into gay-bashing while remaining silent on adultery are bigots.
-
Nicely put.
I sometimes wonder just where in the bible does the supreme cosmic mega being prioritise homosexuality as a sin over adultery.
Adultery is one of the Bible god's big ones - you'll see it listed in his big ten. However, there's no commandment vetoing homosexual sex. Of course, adultery is a far greater threat to the institution of marriage than loving gay people who choose to enter into committed relationships.
This serves to demonstrate that Christians who get into gay-bashing while remaining silent on adultery are bigots.
I don't think it does, it does say about men not lying together as with a women.
Perhaps that's more to do with orgies and immoral carrying on. ( perhaps it was that sort of thing that was frowned on, perhaps people did more of that when it was written.)
The other bit seems more about men wanting sex with angels against their will etc.
-
What Rose says. Plus the fact that whoever wrote it all down in the first place would not have understood much about it. Jesus never mentions homosexuality at all and showed compassion for everyone, even (maybe especially) those who had sinned. He seemed to understand his fellow man/woman very well and undoubtedly would have had the same attitude towards homosexuals - but as I said, the word wasn't mentioned by him. Doesn't mean there weren't any gay people though, there have always been.
Homosexuals are no more or less inclined to sin than heterosexuals. When it comes to love, in the eros sense, all want a committed, caring relationship.
-
I sometimes wonder just where in the bible does the supreme cosmic mega being prioritise homosexuality as a sin over adultery.
At about the same points as he prioritises being a woman as a sin over homosexuality - ie nowhere. However, the practise of homosexual relationships seem to be on a par with just about every other sexual sin - be that adultery, fornication, or whatever.
Adultery is one of the Bible god's big ones - you'll see it listed in his big ten. However, there's no commandment vetoing homosexual sex.
Actually there is at least one passage where the two are referenced in much the same 'breathe' - Leviticus 18: 20-22.
This serves to demonstrate that Christians who get into gay-bashing while remaining silent on adultery are bigots.
I have to say that I have yet to meet a Christian - of whatever stripe - who remains silent on adultery, Khat. In fact, I've heard more opinions expressed on that topic than on homosexual relationships.
-
At about the same points as he prioritises being a woman as a sin over homosexuality - ie nowhere. However, the practise of homosexual relationships seem to be on a par with just about every other sexual sin - be that adultery, fornication, or whatever.
Actually there is at least one passage where the two are referenced in much the same 'breathe' - Leviticus 18: 20-22.
I have to say that I have yet to meet a Christian - of whatever stripe - who remains silent on adultery, Khat. In fact, I've heard more opinions expressed on that topic than on homosexual relationships.
Cheating on your partner is WRONG, homosexuality isn't wrong.
-
I often wonder whether Jesus consciously chose not to challenge the prevailing law against homosexual relationships in much the same way that he consciously chose to challenge some of the other attitudes and laws that related to sexually-related sins - such as the attitude to lust (Matt. 5:27-30), divorce (31-32, 19: 1-12), adultery (John 8: 3-12)
-
Cheating on your partner is WRONG, homosexuality isn't wrong.
In your opinion.
-
In your opinion.
That's the majority opinion - not that that's an argumentum ad populum; it's because most people have sufficient wit to be able to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people.
-
That's the majority opinion - not that that's an argumentum ad populum;
Yet it is an opinion that has no evidence to support it. In other words, its precisely what you don't want to allow it to be - an argumentum ad populum. Remember that until pretty recently, the understanding of most people was that both were as harmful as each other.
it's because most people have sufficient wit to be able to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people.
I'd suggest that there are many people who have been on the receiving end of the damage that both can produce. I realise that over the last 15-25 years there have been a number of studies, many of which have come to the conclusion that children brought up by same-sex parents compare well with those brought up by opposite-sex parents; I would however question the longitudinal validity of such studies. Comparing a phenomenon that is perhaps 30 years old with one that is centuries old (and has been researched for perhaps a couple of those centuries) is poor science.
-
Yet it is an opinion that has no evidence to support it.
No evidence? Really? What about the lives as they are actually lived of gay people, both by their own accounts and by their families, friends, work colleagues (etc.) who see them? For decades they've been able to see the happiness that openly being in relationships brings and living lives and finding their own happiness according to their own lights; now they can see the happiness that getting married and/or having children can bring should they choose to do so.
In other words, its precisely what you don't want to allow it to be - an argumentum ad populum.
Wrong. We all know how hopeless you are in understanding fallacious reasoning and why it's fallacious - hence your slavish devotion to the negative proof fallacy to this very day - but a fallacy of this kind always has to have a 'because' in it somewhere to be fallacious. The 'because' is the giveaway. Thus it would be a fallacy to say "Homosexuality is fine because most people think that it is." Most people do indeed think that it's fine - that fact is supported by a wealth of evidence -, but that's not my argument here and not what I'm saying.
So no, not an AaP at all. Which is exactly what I said ::)
I'd suggest that there are many people who have been on the receiving end of the damage that both can produce.
What is the damage according to you that homosexuality produces? That of infidelity I've already identified (in #353) - what about homosexuality? Remember that the difference here is that: "... most people have sufficient wit to be able to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people."
Is this going to end up in the same bracket as the evidence of those "good reasons" why "homosexuality was viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" that the dog ate before you were able to post it?
-
Comparing a phenomenon that is perhaps 30 years old with one that is centuries old (and has been researched for perhaps a couple of those centuries) is poor science.
If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?
-
If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?
Don't see the logic here. Hope's position is that SSM is bad not that straight marriage is perfect.
-
Hope's position is that SSM is bad not that straight marriage is perfect.
He has zero evidence for that opinion, however. It's based only on his vulgar homophobia and nothing more.
-
If mixed-gender marriage is so wonderful then, and prior to SSM, why did divorce occur at all?
Well, historically, they occurred because people fell out of love with each other; or one or other was unfaithful to the other and the innocent party was given the chance to get out of the agreement; or marriage is not treated as a relationship between two individuals but as a political tool of domination - of a nation or individual over another, or to cement a political pact. In other words, divorce occurs within heterosexual contexts for very similar reasons that it can occur amongst homosexual contexts. Interstingly the firt example of a divorce law was that developed by the Jewish deity to protect the woman from simply being tossed out of the home with no means of support.
-
He has zero evidence for that opinion, however.
I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships. In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.
-
I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships.
You possess, I assume, some at least rudimentary form of a theory of mind and thus are able to understand that the benefits of heterosexual relationships apply also to homosexual ones, I take it?
In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.
"Illegitimate" and "illicit" are not synonyms. A synonym of "illicit" is "illegal."
If historians were to dismiss evidentairy material on the basis of that metrial being related to illicit events then an awful lot of history would be eradicated at a stroke.
As it happens it seems that France was the first country to decriminalize homosexual acts between men in 1791, when it adopted a new penal code. I think that that's quite long enough for us to be able to tell the difference between a society where homosexuality is at least tolerated, and a society where it's criminalised and punished. You, of course, give every impression that no amount of time would ever be sufficient.
-
He has zero evidence for that opinion, however. It's based only on his vulgar homophobia and nothing more.
Which I don't disagree with but he doesn't need to say all het marriages/relationships are perfect to make a case.
-
Which I don't disagree with but he doesn't need to say all het marriages/relationships are perfect to make a case.
No, he just has to provide some evidence of what he thinks the harm is that homosexuality produces/causes.
You'll notice that we're still waiting?
-
No evidence? Really? What about the lives as they are actually lived of gay people, both by their own accounts and by their families, friends, work colleagues (etc.) who see them?
Sorry, as you and many others here have made it very clear, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
Wrong. We all know how hopeless you are in understanding fallacious reasoning and why it's fallacious - hence your slavish devotion to the negative proof fallacy to this very day - but a fallacy of this kind always has to have a 'because' in it somewhere to be fallacious. The 'because' is the giveaway.
And the giveaway for your argument is that the last 20-30 years has seen a swing in public opinion, and we have no idea whether in another generation or two there will be swing the other way. All you can do is use the argumentum ad populum as it stands at the moment.
What is the damage according to you that homosexuality produces? That of infidelity I've already identified (in #353) - what about homosexuality?
As usual, you introduce the 'homosexuality' strawman when what we are discussing is homosexual relationships.
Remember that the difference here is that: "... most people have sufficient wit to be abl e to see the harm/damage caused by infidelity (because of the broken promises and the betrayal of trust that it involves) and may well have been on the receiving end of it themselves at some point, and not only the harm that isn't caused by homosexuality, which would be merely a negative, privative thing, but the positive and active happiness it brings to so many people."
Do you have any non-anedotal evidence to support your argument?
Since the thread that I started in order to present said material was chopped off at its knees long before I'd had a chance to put most of the material up, I get the impression that the dog got very exciting shaking at the material.
-
I agree, in a sense, Shakes; there hasn't been time yet for a reliable body of evidence - either way - to be developed as regards legitimate homosexual relationships. In the past, they were always illicit and illicit events don't make the best of evidentiary material.
Stop distorting the meaning of words in order to suit your own purposes. It just makes you look dishonest.
And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.
-
Sorry, as you and many others here have made it very clear, anecdotal evidence isn't evidence.
I was also of course referring to the hard statistical evidence of the lives of gay people around the world and how their lives have changed and attitudes towards them have changed over time in more opinon polls than I can even provide links to.
And the giveaway for your argument is that the last 20-30 years has seen a swing in public opinion, and we have no idea whether in another generation or two there will be swing the other way.
Very telling that you're reduced to the level of sheer invention out of nothing (and in the teeth of all past evidence in practically every single nation) for what might happen in future, maybe, could be, might be. That's it?
As usual, you introduce the 'homosexuality' strawman when what we are discussing is homosexual relationships.
Homosexual relationships tend to involve homosexuality, the last I heard.
Do you have any non-anedotal evidence to support your argument?
Already referred to.
Since the thread that I started in order to present said material was chopped off at its knees long before I'd had a chance to put most of the material up, I get the impression that the dog got very exciting shaking at the material.
Suuuuuuure it did.
-
And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.
You say that as though it can't be both.
-
No, he just has to provide some evidence of what he thinks the harm is that homosexuality produces/causes.
OK Shakes, you have made an assertion that you regard homosexual relationships as perfectly acceptable. I have yet to see any evidence other than anecdotal in support of this assertion.
You'll notice that we're still waiting?
OK, I'll repeat what I have said on a number of occasions, both on this thread and others. There is no reliable body of evidence one way or the other - other than anecdotal, which you have long 'outlawed'. I choose not to support major social changes such as this issue when there is no solid evidence to support it.
-
This distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual activity here is such a cruel and despicable thing. Forget love the sinner, hate the sin; it's actually a case of straight Christians seeking to impose on others a denial of the most precious gift they are free to enjoy - a loving sexual relationship within Christian marriage.
-
Stop distorting the meaning of words in order to suit your own purposes. It just makes you look dishonest.
And requiring a 'body of evidence' about gay relationships makes you look either stupid or prejudiced.
Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society. If that is distorting them, so be it. As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.
-
Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society. If that is distorting them, so be it. As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.
If this board was about the provision of evidence to support a position you would have take your negative proof fallacy, packed up and pissed off a long, long time ago.
-
Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society. If that is distorting them, so be it. As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.
No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.
As for your 'body of evidence' bollockery, let me help you out. We don't need one for 'heterosexual relationships' or 'homosexual relationships', just 'relationships', the benefits of which are self-evident. There is no distinction that needs to be made.
-
No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.
No he won't.
-
This distinction made between homosexuality and homosexual activity here is such a cruel and despicable thing.
Yet it exists across the board. It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case. There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
Forget love the sinner, hate the sin; it's actually a case of straight Christians seeking to impose on others a denial of the most precious gift they are free to enjoy - a loving sexual relationship within Christian marriage.
The problem is, Rhi, that this 'seeking to impoise' is not only confined to Christianity, it has over the centuries been seen in atheism, Islam, Hinduism - and just about every other '-ism' in the world. That suggests to me that it is external to religion and internal to humanity as a whole.
-
No he won't.
He will. Most likely he knows anyway; he's just choosing to pretend he doesn't in order to distort meaning to suit his own small-minded purpose.
Still, no excuses from now on.
-
Yet it exists across the board. It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case. There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
What does this meaningless waffle have to do with either homosexuality or homosexual acts, as you apparently want to differentiate them?
-
He will. Most likely he knows anyway; he's just choosing to pretend he doesn't in order to distort meaning to suit his own small-minded purpose.
Still, no excuses from now on.
He has no excuse for not understanding what the negative proof fallacy is by now, but he can barely lay his hands on a computer keyboard without committing it.
-
Yet it exists across the board. It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case. There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
The problem is, Rhi, that this 'seeking to impoise' is not only confined to Christianity, it has over the centuries been seen in atheism, Islam, Hinduism - and just about every other '-ism' in the world. That suggests to me that it is external to religion and internal to humanity as a whole.
And so is murder and slavery but then that's not the issue here. You think that my married homosexual friends are sinning. And that is what you are being pulled up on. Your trying to point to 'bad stuff happens' would beat best a tu quoque but here falls over into to you lying (again).
-
Sorry Rhi; I will use the meanings of words that are most commonly used in society. If that is distorting them, so be it. As for a body of evidence for an argument, I thought that was what this board was all about: the provision of evidence to support a position.
Except you denied the evidence in the basis of hand waving, why do lie so much?
-
Yet it exists across the board. It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case. There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
The problem is, Rhi, that this 'seeking to impoise' is not only confined to Christianity, it has over the centuries been seen in atheism, Islam, Hinduism - and just about every other '-ism' in the world. That suggests to me that it is external to religion and internal to humanity as a whole.
Stop digging the hole. So when my friends John and George got married, it was like violence? Or is that just every time they have some form of sex, you think that is the same as punching someone or gassing Jews?
-
Stop digging the hole. So when my friends John and George got married, it was like violence? Or is that just every time they have some form of sex, you think that is the same as punching someone or gassing Jews?
Hope exemplifies the notion of a belief in a god made in one's own image. And it's best not to say what I think of a god who sees no difference between homosexual acts and gassing Jews.
-
No, you're using words wrongly and not in a way I'm familiar with. Still, Shaker's put you right. You'll know for the future.
The fact that you, or anyone here isn't familiar with the way a word is used, doesn't make its use wrong. For instance, a prize example of what you are getting at is the word 'homophobia'. This was coined by supporters of gay rights in the late 1960s as a way of making out that people feared homosexuals, thus making out that they had mental condition. More recently, in his 1980 book "Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, John Boswell cited the etymology of homophobia - the union of homos and phobos - as the basis for his criticism of the term and for his suggestion in 1980 of the alternative homosexophobia. Then, again in 1980, in their article "A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality 5. pp. 357–72. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02. ISSN 0091-8369. OCLC 115532547. PMID 7204951, Hudson and Ricketts coined the term homonegativism for their research in order to avoid homophobia, which they regarded as being unscientific in its presumption of motivation.
Down the decades thare have been other attempts to do away with the term, because of its lack of clarity and/or clinical validity.
As for your 'body of evidence' bollockery, let me help you out. We don't need one for 'heterosexual relationships' or 'homosexual relationships', just 'relationships', the benefits of which are self-evident. There is no distinction that needs to be made.
OK, perhaps you want to let Gordon and one or two of the others know this. I have been asked by such folk to present evidence for the validity of heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, there must necessarily be a body of evidence to support the claim by the likes of Shakes that 'homosexual relationships' are acceptable.
In other words, I'm simply using the terminology that I am being challenged with.
Finally, since hoo-l relationships have a host of differences to hetero- ones - biologically, psychologically, etc - I'm not sure that one can legitimately bundle them into the same category.
-
Hope exemplifies the notion of a belief in a god made in one's own image
And I suppose you would know all about deities made in one's own image,Rhi? The idea is about as far from my understanding as you can get.
-
Yet it exists across the board. It is not illegal to be angry with someone, but if that anger ends up in violence, there is a criminal case. There is nothing illegal about disliking another person - be that for reasons of intellect, skin colour, gender, age, ...; but as soon as that dislike turns to action, a crime has been committed.
The logical progression from this diatribe of yours is, presumably, that same-sex attraction isn't wrong but homosexual activity is - on what basis and on whose authority?
The most nauseating aspect in your argument is, of course, your inclusion of homosexuality within the same paradigm that includes criminal acts and antisocial behaviours, along with the obvious tu quoque in a spurious attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the version of Christianity you subscribe to is implicitly homophobic. Thankfully, and despite all the homophobic bleating, at least here in the UK society has moved on, so no wonder the influence of Christianity is declining: and thank goodness that it is!
-
Well yes, G.
Equally awful though in my opinion is the desire on the part of people like Hope to seek to deny gay people the right to a loving sexual relationship, with or without marriage. To be honest I find something inhuman about it. I used to think it idolatry - 'it says it in the Bible so I'll suspend my humanity on order for a spot of book worship' - but actually it's nothing more nor less than bigotry bordering on hatred.
-
OK, perhaps you want to let Gordon and one or two of the others know this. I have been asked by such folk to present evidence for the validity of heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, there must necessarily be a body of evidence to support the claim by the likes of Shakes that 'homosexual relationships' are acceptable.
In other words, I'm simply using the terminology that I am being challenged with.
Utter drivel - you've been asked to justify your position that homosexual relationships are somehow invalid or less worthy than heterosexual relationships! So why not stop wriggling and do so.
Speaking for myself I regard all loving relationships between consenting adults as being equally valid and legitimate: the gender mix being irrelevant.
-
Well yes, G.
Equally awful though in my opinion is the desire on the part of people like Hope to seek to deny gay people the right to a loving sexual relationship, with or within marriage. To be honest I find something inhuman about it. I used to think it idolatry - 'it says it in the Bible so I'll suspend my humanity on order for a spot of book worship' - but actually it's nothing more nor less than bigotry bordering on hatred.
Yep - adjectives like 'cruel', 'disrespectful', 'bigoted', 'homophobic' and, ironically, 'unchristian' come to mind - and we are told that Christianity is Good News!
-
OK, perhaps you want to let Gordon and one or two of the others know this.
Why does Gordon in particular need to know?
I have been asked by such folk to present evidence for the validity of heterosexual relationships. Furthermore, there must necessarily be a body of evidence to support the claim by the likes of Shakes that 'homosexual relationships' are acceptable.
That's easy enough - the good things that heterosexual couples get out of their relationships, homosexuals get out of their relationships too. I think heterosexual relationships are acceptable; why wouldn't I think homosexual ones are as well? I would need a reason, a good reason, for thinking that they're not; I've not been provided with one. What possible reason would I have for not thinking so, given that I'm in entire agreement with Gordon's view that: "Speaking for myself I regard all loving relationships between consenting adults as being equally valid and legitimate: the gender mix being irrelevant"?
Finally, since hoo-l relationships have a host of differences to hetero- ones - biologically, psychologically, etc - I'm not sure that one can legitimately bundle them into the same category.
What "host of differences", especially "psychological" ones?
Are there psychological differences in heterosexual relationships between people where there is a very large age gap between partners than between partners of a similar age?
Are there psychological differences in heterosexual relationships between people where there is a very large financial disparity between partners than between partners of the same financial status?
Are there psychological differences in heterosexual relationships between partners from different racial/ethnic backgrounds than between partners of the same racial/ethnic group?
Or does this "difference" business only kick in between heterosexuals and homosexuals because you think it does?
-
I suspect it kicks in because he wants it to. Not just thinks it does. It fits with the pattern of dishonesty and distortion.
-
Same sex marriage is against the Navajo and Cherokee tribal law, it is illegal. These tribes represent 600,000 thousand natives Americans. No law passed by the Supreme Court of the USA can force these tribes to allow same sex marriage.
"It's not for us" Otto Tso, Navajo medicine man, a PAGAN.
-
So pagans can be stuck in an intolerant time-warp too. And?
That doesn't address what Hope is saying.
-
Jesus never considered it important enough ( as far as we know), to pass comment on.
-
Interestingly this next link asserts that Jesus did comment, but that it is largely missed.
http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html
-
In your opinion.
In the opinion of any decent human being!
-
I have and you didn't answer my questions.
Yes or no will suffice to each question.
No you are trying to change the subject. It was you who was shown to be making false allegations.
When the evidence was shown you tried to move goal post.
ALL questions were answered. Including the fact that marriage itself is NOT a sin. Hope clearly pointed out to you what you asked about him. I clearly shown yet again you trying to make something false out.
The fact remains that you could not use Hope being married as a sin.
You cannot accuse christians of using homosexuality as a comparison for murder or adultery and therefore no christian could be classing homosexuality, murder and adultery as being equal as there is no level to sin. All guilty of sin whatever it is.
However homosexuality, murder and adultery meant being put to death instantly.
You were asked to logically show how you could even think a comparison could be made and failed with thinking no one would notice you ignored it and changed the subject to Hope being married.
FACT: You tried to accuse Christians of doing something you could not even show logical motives or reasons for believing yourself.
That shows you failed NO ONE ELSE. It shows your accusations false and that you won't and can't even try to substantiate logical reasons for your false claim.
TRUTH.
-
What does this meaningless waffle have to do with either homosexuality or homosexual acts, as you apparently want to differentiate them?
It highlights that there are differences between 'orientation/tendency towards' and 'behaviour'. It is you who would appear to want to make out that there aren't.
-
In the opinion of any decent human being!
And there are many of those who believe as I do, Floo. The issue is still only one of opinion.
-
It highlights that there are differences between 'orientation/tendency towards' and 'behaviour'. It is you who would appear to want to make out that there aren't.
More that in the case of homosexuality any difference is an utter irrelevance.
-
And there are many of those who believe as I do, Floo.
Not many in the overall scheme of things, and dying out, thankfully.
Cohort replacement, as they call it.
-
Utter drivel - you've been asked to justify your position that homosexual relationships are somehow invalid or less worthy than heterosexual relationships! So why not stop wriggling and do so.
What, so that you can promptly shut down the thread as soon as I start making points - as happened towards the end of last year.
Speaking for myself I regard all loving relationships between consenting adults as being equally valid and legitimate: the gender mix being irrelevant.
So, you are happy that a consenting adult should have a relationship with another consenting adult even if it means that their respective partners or spouses (and any children they have) are hurt and damaged in the process?
-
What, so that you can promptly shut down the thread as soon as I start making points - as happened towards the end of last year?
You could always try framing the concatenation of fallacy and assertion that you regard as an argument in a manner that doesn't contravene the rules - how about that?
-
Not many in the overall scheme of things, and dying out, thankfully.
Are you suggesting that decent human beings are dying out? ;)
-
It highlights that there are differences between 'orientation/tendency towards' and 'behaviour'. It is you who would appear to want to make out that there aren't.
There's no more difference than for heterosexuals.
-
Are you suggesting that decent human beings are dying out? ;)
No, exactly the opposite - that ignorant, backward people with prejudiced views are. Do at least maintain an appearance of trying to keep up.
-
Are you suggesting that decent human beings are dying out? ;)
Hope, if you equate denying to others the kind of fulfilling loving sexual relationship that you've been free to enjoy with decency, you are seriously deluded to say the least. Trust me, decency isn't what I see in Christian homophobia any more than any other kind.
As a follower of the God of love shouldn't you err on the side of caution and allow people to have such relationships? I mean, it's not your place to judge, is it?
-
And there are many of those who believe as I do, Floo. The issue is still only one of opinion.
Like thinking people who aren't Caucasian are lesser mortals, is that a matter of opinion too? >:(
-
Hope, if you equate denying to others the kind of fulfilling loving sexual relationship that you've been free to enjoy with decency, you are seriously deluded to say the least. Trust me, decency isn't what I see in Christian homophobia any more than any other kind.
As a follower of the God of love shouldn't you err on the side of caution and allow people to have such relationships? I mean, it's not your place to judge, is it?
Quite right but Hope doesn't have to allow gay relationships. They have been 'allowed' by law for a very long time and in more recent times, have a legal basis on a par with straight couples. So all Hope has to do is accept, or not accept, but either way the status quo is what it is.
As so many Christians now accept gay partnerships, perhaps you could at least open your mind a bit Hope. You may find you eventually accept that it is OK for gay people to be married and that God doesn't mind; He created gay people after all, it is us who have made a big deal out of it, like so many things.
-
Like thinking people who aren't Caucasian are lesser mortals, is that a matter of opinion too? >:(
yes, just like there are Black supremacists with a differing opinion.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy
It's all someone's opinion.
-
Hope doesn't have to go anything, true. But he and his church still demean and exclude regardless of secular law. The Baptist pastor in my village has told me that she welcomes gay people but she has the right to tell them that 'The Lord' condemns them if they have sexual relations. Hope doesn't live in a bubble and his poisonous position still spreads.
-
What, so that you can promptly shut down the thread as soon as I start making points - as happened towards the end of last year.
If I did, I don't recall the details, it will have been because Rules were contravened in some way by some of those contributing: all you need do is make your points without contravening any Rules, and if you do that then I'll ensure that your posts stay up even if some responses to them have to be removed in order to retain the thread.
So, you are happy that a consenting adult should have a relationship with another consenting adult even if it means that their respective partners or spouses (and any children they have) are hurt and damaged in the process?
Sadly this happens irrespective of the gender of those involved: it is part of life 'warts and all'.
-
In your opinion.
Whether the relationship is homosexual or heterosexual, adultery is a breach of trust and likely to cause pain and upset to your partner.
Both heterosexuality and homosexuality occur naturally in the world at large; people can't help the way they are hardwired. Yet you would class homosexuals as the moral equivalent of murderers and liars.
-
I am of the opinion that being bigoted towards gays is as bad as being racist.
-
I am of the opinion that being bigoted towards gays is as bad as being racist.
Yes, and people have used the bible to be racist too.
🌹
-
Yes, and people have used the bible to be racist too.
🌹
That flipping book is often used as an excuse for disgusting behaviour. If something is wrong by all decent standards, it can't be excused because some believe the deity sanctions it!
-
Yet it is an opinion that has no evidence to support it. In other words, its precisely what you don't want to allow it to be - an argumentum ad populum. Remember that until pretty recently, the understanding of most people was that both were as harmful as each other.
No evidence?
While secularism has thankfully decriminalised homosexuality, the relics of centuries of Abrahamic religiosity remain.
Gays are still considered by many believers to be genetically deformed, sick or evil. Their only basis for coming to this conclusion is what believers glean from their superstitious mumbo jumbo. There was a time, not that long ago when it got so bad that many gays were even compelled to agree that there was indeed something wrong with them. They even tried to toe the heterosexual line and tried living a life pretending to be "normal, "straight" or whatever label the believers gave to heterosexuality. Sadly, there are pockets of superstition where this ill-informed nonsense still takes place and believers gather to "pray away the gay".
Those that didn't kowtow to superstition still had to spend their lives on the fringes of society where they became a joke, a figure of fun ridiculed and laughed at in all-too-many TV shows and sit-coms.
How we treat homosexuals has improved in leaps and bounds and the love you can now see between same-sex couples stands as testament to victory over religious hatred.
-
Same sex marriage is against the Navajo and Cherokee tribal law, it is illegal. These tribes represent 600,000 thousand natives Americans. No law passed by the Supreme Court of the USA can force these tribes to allow same sex marriage.
"It's not for us" Otto Tso, Navajo medicine man, a PAGAN.
It's nice to see a Christian showing respect for indigenous American native law.
Too bad that respect didn't exist 150 years ago when Christians slaughtered native Americans in their millions.
-
No evidence?
While secularism has thankfully decriminalised homosexuality, the relics of centuries of Abrahamic religiosity remain.
Gays are still considered by many believers to be genetically deformed, sick or evil. Their only basis for coming to this conclusion is what believers glean from their superstitious mumbo jumbo. There was a time, not that long ago when it got so bad that many gays were even compelled to agree that there was indeed something wrong with them. They even tried to toe the heterosexual line and tried living a life pretending to be "normal, "straight" or whatever label the believers gave to heterosexuality. Sadly, there are pockets of superstition where this ill-informed nonsense still takes place and believers gather to "pray away the gay".
Those that didn't kowtow to superstition still had to spend their lives on the fringes of society where they became a joke, a figure of fun ridiculed and laughed at in all-too-many TV shows and sit-coms.
How we treat homosexuals has improved in leaps and bounds and the love you can now see between same-sex couples stands as testament to victory over religious hatred.
To be fair though, some of the biggest send ups of gay people have been done by gay people.
In a strange sort of way, maybe it's got them accepted.
One of the most shocking comedians I ever heard live, was black and gay.
I don't think I have ever heard such a lot of shockingly politically incorrect views in one place before.
:D
-
Yes, and people have used the bible to be racist too.
🌹
They have indeed.
It's laughable that some of the most vocal anti-gay crusaders are Pentecostals - many of whom are black.
They want to use the Bible as justification to deny equal rights for gays in the same way that many white people used the Bible to deny equal rights for blacks.
-
So pagans can be stuck in an intolerant time-warp too. And?
That doesn't address what Hope is saying.
Did you believe homosexuality was wrong when you were as you "claimed" a Christian believer?
It is a simple enough question.
-
There's something up with your keyboard - it's inserting quotation marks randomly in the wrong place.
Keyboards can be fixed or replaced, however.
-
There's something up with your keyboard - it's inserting quotation marks randomly in the wrong place.
Keyboards can be fixed or replaced, however.
Nah! should have been 'claimed' but I wanted double emphasis so wrote as if I was actually saying it.
Shaker said "Keyboards etc" so maybe you can see we can use quotation marks as we choose. Just as we can denote SHOUT capitals as shouting or emphasis on what we are saying.
Come on Steven you are really petty now. You know you will never overcome God or Christians because you simply do not 'HAVE THE TRUTH'.
That is how all changes begin when writing... someone uses something differently.
Thing is... some do not have the intelligence to see what they are doing. :-*
Zip it, Zippy...LOL...
-
Shaker said "Keyboards etc"
Yes, as in, keyboards can be fixed or replaced but stupid is far harder to tackle.
so maybe you can see we can use quotation marks as we choose.
No, actually, you can't use them as you choose. Not if you want to write clear, comprehensible English, though I realise that that's never been a consideration for you.
Thing is... some do not have the intelligence to see what they are doing. :-*
Says somebody who can't string a sentence together.
And who thinks there's no gravity on planets other than Earth.
And who thinks that without weighted suits the astronauts who walked on the moon would have floated off into space.
-
Did you believe homosexuality was wrong when you were as you "claimed" a Christian believer?
It is a simple enough question.
Have to hand it to you, Sass, you've actually managed to pull off asking a simple question, in spite of the random punctuation. Go you.
No, never did think it was wrong, not for a nanosecond, was a card carrying member of LGCM.
Now you will say that means I was never a Christian in the first place. Well, right back at you with that one. Think Jesus said something about loving one another and you know, I'm just not feeling it from you right now.
-
Hope doesn't have to go anything, true. But he and his church still demean and exclude regardless of secular law. The Baptist pastor in my village has told me that she welcomes gay people but she has the right to tell them that 'The Lord' condemns them if they have sexual relations. Hope doesn't live in a bubble and his poisonous position still spreads.
I didn't know about Hope's church (remember, I've not been back and posting that long. Only recently I discovered Hope was a man!). I also feel sad about the Baptist church close to you.
No-one can give advice unless they are qualified in some way - especially on a forum - but I cannot help thinking it is a good idea for believers to try different churches. It opens the mind. Also not a bad idea to just be on your own and do independent study, at least for a while (my 'while' has lasted a very long time :D).
-
Hope doesn't have to go anything, true. But he and his church still demean and exclude regardless of secular law. The Baptist pastor in my village has told me that she welcomes gay people but she has the right to tell them that 'The Lord' condemns them if they have sexual relations. Hope doesn't live in a bubble and his poisonous position still spreads.
Rhi, churches aren't inevitably bound by secular law. For instance, my pastor is quite within his rights to tell a heterosexual couple living together but not married that they are living sinfully. According to secular law, they are perfectly allowed to live in this way.
-
Rhi, churches aren't inevitably bound by secular law. For instance, my pastor is quite within his rights to tell a heterosexual couple living together but not married that they are living sinfully. According to secular law, they are perfectly allowed to live in this way.
Of course churches aren't bound by secular law. Where they fall down is not being based on love and tolerance. They should be ahead of secular law on that one.
-
Yes, as in, keyboards can be fixed or replaced but stupid is far harder to tackle. No, actually, you can't use them as you choose. Not if you want to write clear, comprehensible English, though I realise that that's never been a consideration for you. Says somebody who can't string a sentence together.
And who thinks there's no gravity on planets other than Earth.
And who thinks that without weighted suits the astronauts who walked on the moon would have floated off into space.
Tut! Tut! You are losing your ability to produce arguments. You never produce evidence and even your insults have become droll. A new definition to sarcasm being completely witless.
Whatever you say... you still lag miles behind when it comes to the knowledge of Christianity.
And you having nothing by way of intelligent rebuttals. We can do this forever but when it comes to Christ and God, you are always going to lose.
-
Sassy
You do understand that the Moon has sufficient gravity to hold things onto it.
To get off the moon you need to reach the speed of 2.38 km/sec.
If you are not travelling at that speed you will fall back to the moon surface.
-
Have to hand it to you, Sass, you've actually managed to pull off asking a simple question, in spite of the random punctuation. Go you.
No, never did think it was wrong, not for a nanosecond, was a card carrying member of LGCM.
Now you will say that means I was never a Christian in the first place. Well, right back at you with that one. Think Jesus said something about loving one another and you know, I'm just not feeling it from you right now.
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
The answer would have been... the bible and the covenant of Moses said that homosexuality was wrong for them.
Just as homosexuality is for homosexuals, Christianity is for Christians and each must choose their own paths.
Christ commands us to love one another and to love God.
We are called out of the world to live for God in Christ not judge the world or those who do not follow Christ.
Maybe the truth is that whilst you believed - you were always in the world rather than in the word.
Sometimes, it is not the punctuation but the ability to know and understand what you are writing about.
You may have punctuation but you don't know a thing about God, love, Christ and Christianity.
Just as your guessing about myself and reply was totally off base.
-
Sassy
You do understand that the Moon has sufficient gravity to hold things onto it.
To get off the moon you need to reach the speed of 2.38 km/sec.
If you are not travelling at that speed you will fall back to the moon surface.
I know the ONE power that keeps everything in place is the same power which created it in the first instance.
His Name is God and he alone spoke everything that is, into being.
4 For the word of the Lord is right; and all his works are done in truth.
5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the Lord.
6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
So unless you have another explanation as to why everything works together as it, does. Which you don't stop copying text books they are useless as an argument against God.
-
I know the ONE power that keeps everything in place is the same power which created it in the first instance.
His Name is God and he alone spoke everything that is, into being.
So unless you have another explanation as to why everything works together as it, does. Which you don't stop copying text books they are useless as an argument against God.
I do not know what you are getting at really.
Do you at least understand that the Moon has gravity?
Do you understand that the tenuous atmosphere of the moon does not keep object on the surface.
I think you need to at least comprehend that.
-
I do not know what you are getting at really.
Do you at least understand that the Moon has gravity?
Do you understand that the tenuous atmosphere of the moon does not keep object on the surface.
I think you need to at least comprehend that.
Tell me how you would land on the moon without any gravity?
Is the gravity of earth the same on the moon and throughout the solar system?
So does everywhere have gravity like ours?
I never at any point believed there was an actual man in the moon.
I never believed that fairy tales were true or there was gold at the end of the rainbow.
But I do believe in God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I also know enough to know you only know what you were told. Just the same as us at school.
But I know that the things God does, it not explained by any teachings created by man and his science.
-
Tell me how you would land on the moon without any gravity?
How would you?
-
Is the gravity of earth the same on the moon and throughout the solar system?
Yes and no.
-
So does everywhere have gravity like ours?
What is 'gravity like ours' exactly?
-
I never at any point believed there was an actual man in the moon.
Glad to hear it.
I never believed that fairy tales were true or there was gold at the end of the rainbow.
You must have been a very sceptical child then?
But I do believe in God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
I never believed that fairy tales were true ...
Hmmmm ::)
-
I also know enough to know you only know what you were told. Just the same as us at school.
Where did you pick up your expertise on gravity then?
University? Sunday school? The Beano? ::) ::) ::)
-
Sassy: "Just as homosexuality is for homosexuals, Christianity is for Christians and each must choose their own paths."
What about Christian homosexuals Sass? There are quite a few.
-
What is 'gravity like ours' exactly?
You are desperate aren't you. Clutching at straws.
-
Glad to hear it.
You must have been a very sceptical child then?
Hmmmm ::)
You have to hum and ahh because at the end of the day you have absolutely nothing to offer up by means of a rebuttal, do you?
Could add an 'Ahhh Bisto' to your post... No gravy train coming through to save you... Little effort and broke when it comes to knowledge and answers.
-
Where did you pick up your expertise on gravity then?
University? Sunday school? The Beano? ::) ::) ::)
Your ignorance is showing.... is that the sound of the knowledge gravy train... nah! just someone wishing they had not started the conversation because the only butt getting kicked around here is the one they sit on the Rebuttal train had long left the station...
We know the moon is smaller than the earth so according to the books.... gravity will be less on the moon than it is on the earth. The earth the larger mass of the two...
Just so you don't have to make any more foolish comments. I did read the Beano annual every year. In fact we use to get quite a lot. Mandy, Bunty, Judy and others. But they never did Gravity... Although, desperate Dan did have gravy in his cow pie.
-
We know the moon is smaller than the earth so according to the books.... gravity will be less on the moon than it is on the earth.
Yes indeed - gravity on the moon is one sixth than that of the Earth. You've already been told this.
One-sixth of Earth's gravity however does not mean that astronauts on the surface would float away into space without weighted suits, as per your claim ::)
-
Does anyone else on this forum believe the moon landings didn't happen, as Sass does?
-
Does anyone else on this forum believe the moon landings didn't happen, as Sass does?
Deafening silence! ;D
-
Does anyone else on this forum believe the moon landings didn't happen, as Sass does?
She hasn't said this. She talked about the man in the moon not men on it, indeed, her posts clearly indicate that she believes in the moon landings. I suggest you owe her an apology.
-
She hasn't said this. She talked about the man in the moon not men on it, indeed, her posts clearly indicate that she believes in the moon landings. I suggest you owe her an apology.
But then there's this, NS.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11665.msg596625#msg596625
To be honest I haven't the faintest idea what she means.
-
But then there's this, NS.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11665.msg596625#msg596625
To be honest I haven't the faintest idea what she means.
The only line to possibly justify any idea that Sassy doesn't believe in the moon landings is followed by a lol. Her argument about gravity may be wrong but it is based on the need for heavy suits on the moon, by which she is clearly accepting that there were moon landings.
-
I can see how it can be read differently, NS. In fact I haven't commented so far because I don't know what Sass means - still don't so I will bow out now and leave the field to those who do.
-
I don't know what Sass means - still don't so I will bow out now and leave the field to those who do.
The the field is empty! Nobody knows what Sass means, except herself. :)
-
The the field is empty! Nobody knows what Sass means, except herself. :)
I wouldn't put a ha'penny on that, either.
-
We know the moon is smaller than the earth so according to the books.... gravity will be less on the moon than it is on the earth. The earth the larger mass of the two...
That's according to the books.
What about according to you?
-
Tell me how you would land on the moon without any gravity?
I give in, just how would you land on the moon without any gravity?
-
Your ignorance is showing.... is that the sound of the knowledge gravy train... nah! just someone wishing they had not started the conversation because the only butt getting kicked around here is the one they sit on the Rebuttal train had long left the station...
...and in English?
-
She hasn't said this. She talked about the man in the moon not men on it, indeed, her posts clearly indicate that she believes in the moon landings. I suggest you owe her an apology.
I believe Sass has suggested for quite a while that the moon landings didn't take place. No doubt she will clarify her thinking, if that word can be used where her posts are concerned!
-
Floo,
If you believe that about Sass, then you must have the evidence? It would be helpful to read, perhaps she has forgotten. Like you forgot what you wrote, remember that? You blew a fuse but in the end you had to admit to writing what you denied writing.
-
I believe Sass has suggested for quite a while that the moon landings didn't take place. No doubt she will clarify her thinking, if that word can be used where her posts are concerned!
Not only Sass believes the moon landings didn't happen. At one time there was a lot written about the sophisticated government hoax, I've forgotten most of it, and a film was made (a drama) that clearly showed how it could be done. I'm not saying Sass is correct about this, I honestly neither know nor care, but it is possible and she is in very good company thinking such.
-
Floo,
If you believe that about Sass, then you must have the evidence? It would be helpful to read, perhaps she has forgotten. Like you forgot what you wrote, remember that? You blew a fuse but in the end you had to admit to writing what you denied writing.
OMW, Sass has often stated that she doesn't believe that the moon-landings ever happened. As Brownie has pointed out, she wouldn't be the only person to believe this. There are many respected people who have suggested this. I've heard this idea being described as a 'respectable conspiracy theory'.
-
OMW, Sass has often stated that she doesn't believe that the moon-landings ever happened. As Brownie has pointed out, she wouldn't be the only person to believe this.
That's the ubiquity of stupidity for you.
There are many respected people who have suggested this. I've heard this idea being described as a 'respectable conspiracy theory'.
Anybody who believes such arrant tosh doesn't deserve to be regarded as respected; if they believe themselves to be so, they are delusional.
-
That's the ubiquity of stupidity for you.
Anybody who believes such arrant tosh doesn't deserve to be regarded as respected; if they believe themselves to be so, they are delusional.
I'd advise you not to be too rude about those who regard the events of 1969 as made up - there are a number of eminent folk amongst them - and some of the evidence they produce has yet to be debunked. I don't happen to agree with their arguments, but they aren't delusional, as you like to insist.
-
I'd advise you not to be too rude about those who regard the events of 1969 as made up - there are a number of eminent folk amongst them - and some of the evidence they produce has yet to be debunked. I don't happen to agree with their arguments, but they aren't delusional, as you like to insist.
It has ALL been debunked!
There are no reputable people that doubt the moon landings.
Anyone that does is a raving nutcase.
Don't ask Buzz if he walked on the moon, you might get a punch for being such an idiot.
-
Don't ask Buzz if he walked on the moon, you might get a punch for being such an idiot.
Having spoken to Buzz once, F2F, I have no problem with his position. As I say, it is the conspracy theorists' position I have problems with, but that doesn't mean that one can't acknowledge that there are some of their views which aren't as clear-cut as some here and within NASA would like people to believe.
-
I'd advise you not to be too rude about those who regard the events of 1969 as made up - there are a number of eminent folk amongst them - and some of the evidence they produce has yet to be debunked. I don't happen to agree with their arguments, but they aren't delusional, as you like to insist.
Of course they are.
Utter fruitloop dingbat delusional poopy heads. Without exception.
That you seem to think otherwise is no great revelation, however. It's all part of the same syndrome, undoubtedly.
Exactly who are these supposedly eminent folk you've alluded to? Seems like you forgot to say. What are their so far unrefuted points about the supposedly fake moon landings? You forgot to mention that too.
The testimony of the hundreds of thousands (possibly millions overall?) of people involved in the space programme - the specimens of moon rock brought back - the tracking of moon-bound craft by Russians and many others - the retroreflectors left on the moon's surface by which we know the moon is creeping away from us at around 3.8cm per year - I'd love to know what lunatic fantasies your "eminent folk" have concocted to deny the reality of these and so many, many other points.
-
Having spoken to Buzz once, F2F, I have no problem with his position. As I say, it is the conspracy theorists' position I have problems with, but that doesn't mean that one can't acknowledge that there are some of their views which aren't as clear-cut as some here and within NASA would like people to believe.
It is clear cut, and if you do not believe the moon landings happened you are a fruit loop.
-
Yes indeed - gravity on the moon is one sixth than that of the Earth. You've already been told this.
One-sixth of Earth's gravity however does not mean that astronauts on the surface would float away into space without weighted suits, as per your claim ::)
Do you know what makes you so insincere? The fact that having posted with you for years, you already know we have discussed the moon, earth and gravity before. What is it, Shaker.... trying to pretend you did not know I know about such things?
Shame on you.
-
Sassy: "Just as homosexuality is for homosexuals, Christianity is for Christians and each must choose their own paths."
What about Christian homosexuals Sass? There are quite a few.
Anyone born of the Spirit and Truth cannot be homosexual.
]
-
Do you know what makes you so insincere? The fact that having posted with you for years, you already know we have discussed the moon, earth and gravity before. What is it, Shaker.... trying to pretend you did not know I know about such things?
Shame on you.
Perhaps it would help clarify your knowledge of gravity if you expanded on or explained further this statement that you made earlier.
Gravity for instance.... We see the affect of gravity but no one understands why it is here and not on every planet in our solar system.
The way it reads to nearly everyone here is what is causing the confusion/queries.
-
Do you know what makes you so insincere? The fact that having posted with you for years, you already know we have discussed the moon, earth and gravity before.
That's news to me.
What is it, Shaker.... trying to pretend you did not know I know about such things?
Shame on you.
I'm basing your ignorance of these things on your statements, made within the past few days, that there is no gravity on any planet other than Earth and that without weighted spacesuits men on the moon would simply have floated off into space. Only someone massively, profoundly, insanely deluded about the most basic workings of nature would make such comments (and do so in public).
Your posts are semi-literate and incoherent babble at the best of times, which is why for the most part I ignore them, but I hadn't come across quite that nadir of jaw-dropping stupidity before.
-
Your posts are semi-literate and incoherent babble at the best of times, which is why for the most part I ignore them, but I hadn't come across quite that nadir of jaw-dropping stupidity before.
Quite! Sass's stupidity is at times irresistible, no matter how often we vow to ignore her. :(
-
Anyone born of the Spirit and Truth cannot be homosexual.
]
That is a really STUPID comment Sass, even for you! :o
-
Anyone born of the Spirit and Truth cannot be homosexual.
]
This is one area in which you and I part company Sass. We must agree to differ.
-
I didn't say, she didn't write it. I just want to read it. (Sass, no moon landing thingy).
And Shaker, some of your PooPourii is needed. Don't look down your beak at Sass. You believe in Klingons (ETs) and have no proof. You do have faith though.
Speaking of Shakers Klingon's, What does toilet paper and the Starship Enterprise have in common? They both circle Ur anus looking for Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9xWYApbd6Y
-
And Shaker, some of your PooPourii is needed. Don't look down your beak at Sass. You believe in Klingons (ETs) and have no proof. You do have faith though.
Feel free to link to the posts where I've said that.
Best of luck.
-
Why can people not exercise a little compassion here instead of piling on the heads, en masse, of their fellow posters?
-
Shaker,
Being that you're so anal. You didn't use such words, but you believe there are probably inhabited planets out there. And you require no ETs to have faith that they might be there, yet telling us there is no God and demanding evidence for His existence. And when given the opportunity you mock Sass for not believing a moon walk thingy.
Now wobble outside and enjoy some sunshine, don't just sit there and gobble down another bowl of boiled lentils.
A Klingon challenges a Shaker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKQDRxs5Nzk
-
Shaker,
Being that you're so anal. You didn't use such words
Well spotted. I didn't ;)
but you believe there are probably inhabited planets out there. And you require no ETs to have faith that they might be there
First of all "inhabited" implies complex intelligent life, which is going to be rare. Secondly, I have no belief in such planets because there's no evidence for them (though of course, by definition, if there were evidence of them there'd be no need for faith in them - it would be a matter of knowledge). Thirdly, my attitude toward extraterrestrial life is based upon a rational appraisal of the possibilities which is in itself based upon hard science across several disciplines.
yet telling us there is no God and demanding evidence for His existence.
It's not tremendously difficult to produce a clear, comprehensive and definitive set of criteria for the discovery of extraterrestrial life - that's to say, we know what it would mean to find such life - we would know it if we saw it and we would know how we know.
When you can say the same of any gods, get back to me.
And when given the opportunity you mock Sass for not believing a moon walk thingy.
Yes indeed. That's because anybody who believes in a moon landing conspiracy (i.e. that it never happened, and has been kept secret by potentially millions of people all over the world for nearly half a century) is a delusional asshat.
-
Why can people not exercise a little compassion here instead of piling on the heads, en masse, of their fellow posters?
You have no idea how much we hold back at times. That IS compassion.
-
You have no idea how much we hold back at times. That IS compassion.
That ::)
-
You have no idea how much we hold back at times. That IS compassion.
I agree!
There are many times I want to let fly and tell certain posters exactly what I think of them, in terms which would probably get me banned for life! I polish my halo at the end of each day when I congratulate myself on how restrained I have been. ;D I fear that one day I will really lose it with one poster in particular, some days I get very close to doing so! :o
-
Perhaps it would help clarify your knowledge of gravity if you expanded on or explained further this statement that you made earlier.
The way it reads to nearly everyone here is what is causing the confusion/queries.
Sometimes we take for granted that everyone knows that the gravity on planet earth is different from that through our solar system. I personally believe God is the force which keeps all the other forces in place.
The sun and moon brings life to our planet. Especially the sun it affects us and lives in that without it, we would all die.
The moon affecting the tidal flows. But we are kept spinning on our axis, rotating around the sun. Without the sun nothing would exist on earth. However, without God and his power none would remain where they are.
-
;D
-
That's news to me.I'm basing your ignorance of these things on your statements, made within the past few days, that there is no gravity on any planet other than Earth and that without weighted spacesuits men on the moon would simply have floated off into space. Only someone massively, profoundly, insanely deluded about the most basic workings of nature would make such comments (and do so in public).
Your posts are semi-literate and incoherent babble at the best of times, which is why for the most part I ignore them, but I hadn't come across quite that nadir of jaw-dropping stupidity before.
Our gravity is completely different in that we can plant seed and they will remain planted and grow. What would happen on the moon if we tried to plant seeds?
Our gravity on our planet is different from the gravity on others. Light weight gases like oxygen etc remain in our atmosphere.
However the heavier gases would remain on planets which have a heavier bulk than ours.
What I do not understand is why the moon has gases like potassium and sodium which are not found in our earths atmosphere.
I find the more we look at the planets of our solar system there is still questions which need answering.
Especially, if such a thing as a big bang occurred. Why are the planets not all with the same gases and atmosphere?
We basically on earth have an atmosphere. The Moon apparently does not have an atmosphere.
The bigger the planet the more heavier gases they are likely to have. Earth is different from the larger and the smaller planets.
So I feel correct in what I originally stated,. They do not have a gravity with an atmosphere able to sustain life, as ours does.
A life without the gravity we would not have. The sun and moon affect us but the other planets are within that same solar system. I might process things differently from others. I might question things differently from others.
But that does not mean you can insult me for thinking beyond what is 'taught' by man and see it differently from others.
In my eyes no other planet has gravity like ours.
The order of planets closest to the sun are as follows:-
1.Mercury, 2.Venus,3. Earth,4. Mars,5. Jupiter, 6.Saturn, 7.Uranus, 8.Neptune
These are the planets by size:-
1.Jupiter, 2.Saturn,3. Uranus,4. Neptune,5. Earth,6. Venus,7. Mars, 8.Mercury.
It appears the only planet where oxygen is found is earth.
So if the way I see things make me look foolish then perhaps you wear goggles and blinkers.
But I see no other Planet with out oxygen or gravity with life.
-
That is a really STUPID comment Sass, even for you! :o
Nothing stupid about it. What is clearly shown by your comment is that your ignorance of God the bible and Christianity makes you make unfounded allegations and makes you look stupid to those who do know.
-
You have no idea how much we hold back at times. That IS compassion.
Spot on, Lennie.
-
I saw something about how the moon kept the earth stable in its orbit, apparently if the moon wasn't there, the earth would wobble.
Interesting.
http://sciencenordic.com/what-would-we-do-without-moon
the amount of gravity a planet has is dependant on its mass, isn't it?
Isn't that universal?
-
Our gravity is completely different in that we can plant seed and they will remain planted and grow. What would happen on the moon if we tried to plant seeds?
Our gravity on our planet is different from the gravity on others. Light weight gases like oxygen etc remain in our atmosphere.
However the heavier gases would remain on planets which have a heavier bulk than ours.
What I do not understand is why the moon has gases like potassium and sodium which are not found in our earths atmosphere.
I find the more we look at the planets of our solar system there is still questions which need answering.
Especially, if such a thing as a big bang occurred. Why are the planets not all with the same gases and atmosphere?
We basically on earth have an atmosphere. The Moon apparently does not have an atmosphere.
The bigger the planet the more heavier gases they are likely to have. Earth is different from the larger and the smaller planets.
So I feel correct in what I originally stated,. They do not have a gravity with an atmosphere able to sustain life, as ours does.
A life without the gravity we would not have. The sun and moon affect us but the other planets are within that same solar system. I might process things differently from others. I might question things differently from others.
But that does not mean you can insult me for thinking beyond what is 'taught' by man and see it differently from others.
In my eyes no other planet has gravity like ours.
The order of planets closest to the sun are as follows:-
1.Mercury, 2.Venus,3. Earth,4. Mars,5. Jupiter, 6.Saturn, 7.Uranus, 8.Neptune
These are the planets by size:-
1.Jupiter, 2.Saturn,3. Uranus,4. Neptune,5. Earth,6. Venus,7. Mars, 8.Mercury.
It appears the only planet where oxygen is found is earth.
So if the way I see things make me look foolish then perhaps you wear goggles and blinkers.
But I see no other Planet with out oxygen or gravity with life.
Venus is the closest I believe, because it's mass is similar.
http://www.universetoday.com/35565/gravity-on-other-planets/
It just has an atmosphere that is poisonous to life ( as far as we know)
:)
I have heard it said that not only is the moon important to life on Earth but Jupiter also is because many meteorites/meteors end up crashing into it instead of the earth.
So I can see why someone could think all these things were arranged just so :)
-
Nothing stupid about it. What is clearly shown by your comment is that your ignorance of God the bible and Christianity makes you make unfounded allegations and makes you look stupid to those who do know.
Sass, your comments on the subject of religion are crazy, they always have been. If Jesus is around somewhere watching your daft antics, he is probably splitting his sides laughing!
-
This is one area in which you and I part company Sass. We must agree to differ.
Christ never did away with the teachings of the LAW and the Prophets, he upheld them.
If God said, " A man must not lie with a another man as he would with a woman" and a man does, is he showing obedience and therefore love for God. Or is he disobeying and so sinning showing no love for God?
So whilst we differ in opinion. The bible shows anyone who loves God does not do the things God tells them not.
King James Bible
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
True believers are born of Spirit and TRUTH. They worship God in Spirit and do not do the things against God.
Not everyone is born of the Spirit and truth.They believe and do miracles etc. We can be forgiven if we fall but on different note for example true Christian...
Do you think the priest who abused the children were Christians?
So they professed something with their mouths which they clearly DID NOT BELIEVE WITH THEIR HEARTS.
The actions of such calling themselves Christians were far from the heart of Christ and the love they should have had for God.
In the last days we were warned what would happen.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5 Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
It is deceit to tell people they can be saved by believing in Christ but doing the things that are not showing love for God and his truth.
Believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
God tells us to love one another. So whilst I am To love everyone... not just brothers and sisters in Christ.
So we love everyone and do not treat them differently. But can I love my friend who may believe in Christ but believes Gods love allows him to live a homosexual life if I allow them think that knowing it is untrue?
Gods spirit does not just lead and teach us, it enables us to stop sinning and knowing the things that hurt God and are not acceptable to him.
Christ warns...
King James Bible
For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
The righteousness of God comes through Christ... If homosexuality is a sin do you keep committing that sin?
If lying is a sin, do you keep on committing that sin. If thieving is a sin do you keep on stealing?
Even as sinners we fall sometimes...
King James Version
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
We cannot pray for others about sin which leads to death.
We can only love others, tell them the truth and pray God will lead them to true salvation and love in Christ.
-
Especially, if such a thing as a big bang occurred. Why are the planets not all with the same gases and atmosphere?
It's good that you are trying to look into all this Sassy -so please do carry on. I wanted to ask though why you think the Big Bang would produce planets all the same though.
-
I agree!
There are many times I want to let fly and tell certain posters exactly what I think of them, in terms which would probably get me banned for life! I polish my halo at the end of each day when I congratulate myself on how restrained I have been. ;D I fear that one day I will really lose it with one poster in particular, some days I get very close to doing so! :o
You do tell posters what you think of them, indeed you pounce on one in particular. There is no restraint except that you do not use bad language but you don't use that anyway. So no halo polishing for you.
--------------------------------------------
Maeght I too wonder why a big bang would result in planets all having the same gases and atmosphere - well they don't, so it didn't (if a big bang occurred).
-
Our gravity is completely different in that we can plant seed and they will remain planted and grow. What would happen on the moon if we tried to plant seeds?
Our gravity on our planet is different from the gravity on others.
Unbelievable ignorance!
Have you heard of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (my emphasis)?
http://tinyurl.com/kfwjb3m
Also
http://tinyurl.com/ptjaq7t
-
You do tell posters what you think of them, indeed you pounce on one in particular. There is no restraint except that you do not use bad language but you don't use that anyway. So no halo polishing for you.
--------------------------------------------
Maeght I too wonder why a big bang would result in planets all having the same gases and atmosphere - well they don't, so it didn't (if a big bang occurred).
My dear if I really said what I thought about one particular poster, then as I said I might be banned for life. I usually say nothing where that poster is concerned. As for Sass, she gives as good as she gets, and I make no apology for challenging her complete garbage!
-
We all speak garbage at times floo. When I read back I am sometimes appalled by my waffle.
Anyway, let's move on.
-
We all speak garbage at times floo. When I read back I am sometimes appalled by my waffle.
Anyway, let's move on.
Good idea. :)
I agree.
-
My dear if I really said what I thought about one particular poster, then as I said I might be banned for life. I usually say nothing where that poster is concerned. As for Sass, she gives as good as she gets, and I make no apology for challenging her complete garbage!
That's not going to help the atmosphere in here though. Not if posters imply they don't like other posters, leaving it open to speculation.
:(
But Brownie is right, i dont suppose we'll all solve anything by attacking each other.
-
Venus is the closest I believe, because it's mass is similar.
http://www.universetoday.com/35565/gravity-on-other-planets/
It just has an atmosphere that is poisonous to life ( as far as we know)
:)
I have heard it said that not only is the moon important to life on Earth but Jupiter also is because many meteorites/meteors end up crashing into it instead of the earth.
So I can see why someone could think all these things were arranged just so :)
Rose, the last I heard of Venus was, the strong acids in it's atmosphere dissolved or corroded the Soviet lander to bits in under an hour some years ago, I'm not sure but I may have to check but I don't think that strong acid is much good for our lungs and also it might make your eyes water.
Give Wikki a go It's quite interesting.
ippy
-
Rose, the last I heard of Venus was, the strong acids in it's atmosphere dissolved or corroded the Soviet lander to bits in under an hour some years ago, I'm not sure but I may have to check but I don't think that strong acid is much good for our lungs and also it might make your eyes water.
Give Wikki a go It's quite interesting.
ippy
:)
Yes, you are right, but life survives here in some very inhospitable places, so I was just being cautious about if life could exist there.
( example from the link :If you wanted to kill something, or maybe just dispose of a body, you couldn’t do much better than the conditions in Yellowstone’s hot springs. The springs are near the boiling point of water and acidic enough to dissolve nails. But some microbes thrive there, and the pigments they produce give the springs vivid, otherworldly colors.)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/top-ten-places-where-life-shouldnt-exist-but-does-144112310/
🌹
-
Sometimes we take for granted that everyone knows that the gravity on planet earth is different from that through our solar system.
Well there you go then.
Your original statement as written, and you do harp on about people not replying to what was written, indicated that on some other planet(s) in our solar system - there is no gravity.
Now you are stating that they all have gravity. That is good, isn't It?
-
:)
Yes, you are right, but life survives here in some very inhospitable places, so I was just being cautious about if life could exist there.
( example from the link :If you wanted to kill something, or maybe just dispose of a body, you couldn’t do much better than the conditions in Yellowstone’s hot springs. The springs are near the boiling point of water and acidic enough to dissolve nails. But some microbes thrive there, and the pigments they produce give the springs vivid, otherworldly colors.)
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/top-ten-places-where-life-shouldnt-exist-but-does-144112310/
🌹
Yes the under sea volcanic vents have something very similar, more than likely on Wikki.
ippy
-
Yes the under sea volcanic vents have something very similar, more than likely on Wikki.
ippy
Wiki is ok, but this is better.
http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-videos/hydrothermal-vent-creatures
:)
-
Well there you go then.
Your original statement as written, and you do harp on about people not replying to what was written, indicated that on some other planet(s) in our solar system - there is no gravity.
I don't think that that was actually what she said though was it - to be fair? Sassy referred to gravity being different but don't remember here saying there wasn't any at all.
-
Yes maeght, it is considerably less than earth, about 1/6 of earth's gravity iirc.
Rose March 12, 2.43: That's not going to help the atmosphere in here though. Not if posters imply they don't like other posters, leaving it open to speculation.
True but no-one has to speculate if they don't want to. I've never understood how people can actively dislike someone they don't know, never mind express it. I do understand being a bit wary and avoiding a fellow poster - but we don't really know eachother that well, no matter how open we are about our lives and views.
-
I don't think that that was actually what she said though was it - to be fair? Sassy referred to gravity being different but don't remember here saying there wasn't any at all.
Science is the probably the greatest illusion that man has ever invented. Things work because they tell us they work.
Gravity for instance.... We see the affect of gravity but no one understands why it is here and not on every planet in our solar system.
http://goo.gl/O72TGi
-
Yes maeght, it is considerably less than earth, about 1/6 of earth's gravity iirc.
Yes, I know.
-
http://goo.gl/O72TGi
In the Sassy quote included by Sebastian Toe she didn't say no gravity, only different, and has elsewhere referred to the gravity on other planets. The apperent change suggested by the quote you include may be due to Sassy's somewhat unclear writting style or may be because she has since looked into it a bit more and realised she was wrong (not that she's ever admit that though), Either way she seems now to accept that the moon has gravity - so perhaps we should celebrate and encourage further such study and realisation.
-
Yes, I know.
I know you know, I promise I wasn't trying to teach you anything Maeght :-[, merely thinking out loud.
-
Okey dokey :)
-
Venus is the closest I believe, because it's mass is similar.
http://www.universetoday.com/35565/gravity-on-other-planets/
It just has an atmosphere that is poisonous to life ( as far as we know)
:)
I have heard it said that not only is the moon important to life on Earth but Jupiter also is because many meteorites/meteors end up crashing into it instead of the earth.
So I can see why someone could think all these things were arranged just so :)
Without the sun there would be no life on earth. So the moon and sun important to life on earth.
Do you think if the earth in constant darkness that Photosynthesis could take place?
The sun gives life to our planet. I do believe that we are the only planet with our gravity and with the gases which enable life.
I feel the heavens do declare the Glory of God and one that cannot be taken away from him. :)
-
I was put in mind of the following, a little light relief:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v--IqqusnNQ
-
Without the sun there would be no life on earth. So the moon and sun important to life on earth.
Do you think if the earth in constant darkness that Photosynthesis could take place?
The sun gives life to our planet. I do believe that we are the only planet with our gravity and with the gases which enable life.
I feel the heavens do declare the Glory of God and one that cannot be taken away from him. :)
No, you are right, I don't think we could survive without the sun :)
I think our planet is the only one in our solar system that has the right combination of factors to enable life to flourish as it does :)
🌹
-
It's good that you are trying to look into all this Sassy -so please do carry on. I wanted to ask though why you think the Big Bang would produce planets all the same though.
Read this:
(Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.
The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.
Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.
"The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.
Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp
There is no beginning or end to the universe is there. God has no beginning or end. God has revealed the end from the beginning. A God with time or space who is infinite.
So in the beginning was the word and that word came from the mouth of God.
The same word every man should live by. A God whom they can find no beginning or end to.
A little like the universe and the world. In line with the true God which created it.
-
I've read that, but nothing I wasn't aware of. It doesn't answer my question though nor does it lead to the statement of your religious belief which followed. So, can i ask again why you think the Big Bang would lead to all planets being the same?
-
I do believe that we are the only planet with our gravity and with the gases which enable life.
In our solar system or in our galaxy or in the universe?
-
In our solar system or in our galaxy or in the universe?
Without the sun there would be no life on earth. So the moon and sun important to life on earth.
Do you think if the earth in constant darkness that Photosynthesis could take place?
The sun gives life to our planet. I do believe that we are the only planet with our gravity and with the gases which enable life.
I feel the heavens do declare the Glory of God and one that cannot be taken away from him.
Isn't the earth orbiting sun in our solar system, the sun being one star of the many stars in our (milkway) galaxy and one galaxy of the many galaxies in the universe?
If so then God created them all and so far no other life has been found anywhere else, has it?
So all three apply. Like trinity, it appears you need all three...
Stubb your toe, did you? It is early morning been up two hours so will check what I wrote later.
-
Isn't the earth orbiting sun in our solar system, the sun being one star of the many stars in our (milkway) galaxy and one galaxy of the many galaxies in the universe?
If so then God created them all and so far no other life has been found anywhere else, has it?
So all three apply. Like trinity, it appears you need all three...
Stubb your toe, did you? It is early morning been up two hours so will check what I wrote later.
That doesn't follow at all! ::)
As for life on other planets in this vast universe, just because we are in a relative infancy where space exploration is concerned, doesn't mean we won't discover other intelligent life forms one day.
-
Oh my, we have another believer in Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2bjc6U0tjI
-
I've never thought it was impossible for there to be life on another planet, nor did I think it was a 'non-Christian' idea to think so. Is it? Nobody ever told me that.
-
Oh my, we have another believer in Klingons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2bjc6U0tjI
Is it impossible, in your view, that there is life anywhere else in the Universe?
-
I think it would be incredible if there wasn't life somewhere out there, but this is far from the topic of the OP. I will start a thread on life on other planets.
-
Well done, it's an interesting idea.
To tie in with the topic of this thread, what percentage of Klingons would be gay?
-
Well done, it's an interesting idea.
To tie in with the topic of this thread, what percentage of Klingons would be gay?
At least 50% of them, for sure. ;D
-
At least 50% of them, for sure. ;D
Hugely controversial subject
http://massivelyop.com/2015/05/31/star-trek-online-flame-wars-erupt-over-gay-backdrop-npcs/
-
There we have it! Never watched Star Trek online so not seen that.
-
There we have it! Never watched Star Trek online so not seen that.
George Takei - Played Zulu, is gay... ;D
-
George Takei - Played Zulu, is gay... ;D
Zulu
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Zulu-the-Most-Fearsome-Black-Warriors-79804.shtml#sgal_0
Sulu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Takei#/media/File:George_Takei_Sulu_Star_Trek.JPG
Can't you tell the difference Sass?
That explains sooo much!
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Zulu
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Zulu-the-Most-Fearsome-Black-Warriors-79804.shtml#sgal_0
Sulu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Takei#/media/File:George_Takei_Sulu_Star_Trek.JPG
Can't you tell the difference Sass?
That explains sooo much!
;D ;D ;D ;D
I got the spelling off a site. I looked up George Takei.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQrWHKP_9pw
Hence the reason I used the spelling. Maybe you could have asked...
-
George Takei - Played Zulu, is gay... ;D
Don't be silly, you are thinking of George Taco who played Napoleon Sulu
-
I got the spelling off a site. I looked up George Takei.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQrWHKP_9pw
Hence the reason I used the spelling. Maybe you could have asked...
Maybe you could have checked?
... as I said....
That explains sooo much!
-
Don't be silly, you are thinking go George Taco who played Napoleon Sulu
No, No, No
it's the Zoo Loo that she means!
https://www.flickr.com/photos/shricthism/2561436489
-
I got the spelling off a site. I looked up George Takei.
Don't believe everything you fnd on the internet Sassy.
-
George Takei - Played Zulu, is gay... ;D
Indeed he is, and proud. He has been through a lot (not just because of being gay), thank goodness now he is an old man he sees a better society. He always strikes me as being charming and dignified - maybe it's his deep voice which seems incongruous with his small stature :D.
I wonder if Mr Takei has or has had a long term partner? I'll look him up.
Edit: Yes, Brad Altman with whom he lived for donkey's years and married in 2008. That's good to know, I like George and would want him to be happy. Mr Altman took the name 'Takei'.
-
Maybe you could have checked?
... as I said....
That explains sooo much!
I guess my slip is a drop of water in the ocean compared to the tidal wave your lack of checking the bible when commenting on Christ and Christian things on threads. It would also explain why my little drop of water would explain so much to you. Pity you never saw your own tidal wave sweep your nonsense away... At least mine was a drop of water, you just got completely drowned with the deluge of your errors for not checking the bible when it comes to Christianity...
-
Little or big slips of water or making mountains out of molehills, this seems like a very petty thing to make a big deal out of. I wish people wouldn't worry so much about trivia. I'm sure George Takei (Mr Sulu in Star Trek), doesn't care, nor Zulu or Zoulu who played Mr Kono in Hawaii Five O. For the record, I watched Star Trek back in the day, just not seen it online.
Maeght is quite right, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.
-
Little or big slips of water or making mountains out of molehills, this seems like a very petty thing to make a big deal out of. I wish people wouldn't worry so much about trivia. I'm sure George Takei (Mr Sulu in Star Trek), doesn't care, nor Zulu or Zoulu who played Mr Kono in Hawaii Five O. For the record, I watched Star Trek back in the day, just not seen it online.
Maeght is quite right, you can't believe everything you read on the internet.
Yet they still made a petty thing a big deal. Simply because that is what they do. To try and hide their bigger blunders.
Like the moonlandings? Do you think the truth is out there?
-
I couldn't give a monkey's about moon landings but I do think fiction is more interesting than truth in some instances, which is why I prefer novels to factual books.
-
I couldn't give a monkey's about moon landings but I do think fiction is more interesting than truth in some instances, which is why I prefer novels to factual books.
Is the bible a factual book?
-
I'd have thought you would have known the answer to that one better than I, young Sass :D. You read it more than I do.
-
I'd have thought you would have known the answer to that one better than I, young Sass :D. You read it more than I do.
I cannot answer for you...
-
As an aside - in 1987 George was recruited as the Chieftain of my local (Bearsden and Milngavie) Highland Games.
I'd normally avoid these things like the plague, being a Scot who hates the sound of bagpipes and all the related 'white heather club' baggage, but I couldn't resist going along to see George and shake his hand - which I did - he was absolute gent and had time for everyone, signing countless autographs (this is well before the advent of 'selfies') and posing for pics - and lots of 'trekkies' from all across the UK were in attendance.
Mr Sulu in a kilt was a sight to behold (see pic in the link below - it cycles through various chieftains, which included Red Rum).
http://www.bearsdenmilngaviehighlandgames.com/about-the-games/
Everyone thought he was just great!
-
Like the moonlandings?
I did. I remember watching them live.
Did you like the moonlandings?
-
..........the deluge of your errors for not checking the bible when it comes to Christianity...
Where and when?
-
https://www.yahoo.com/style/teen-forced-wear-backpack-full-155600640.html
I have just seen this disgusting story on another forum. If true, it just goes to underline the depravity of anti-gay bigots. >:( It is them that are sick in the head and need a cure , not lesbians and gays.
-
People who go around suggesting somebody is gay are pathetic and repulsive. They obviously need to deal with their mental problems.
-
Gay or straight I hope that guy Jesus had a good consensual sex life.
-
Why don't you work on your own sex life and get you nose out of others.
-
Why don't you work on your own sex life and get you nose out of others.
I look forward to the day when Christianity along with other religions does the same.
-
Shaking,
Your looking forward to that are ya. So when that happens you will what, bake a cake , gobble down another bowl of boiled lentils, actually walk two blocks, scrape the glitter off your toenails? I haven't heard the pope nor my preacher suggesting anybody is gay. Neither of them have talked about my sex life either and I doubt they have mentioned yours.
-
Shaking,
Your looking forward to that are ya.
I are.
So when that happens you will what, bake a cake , gobble down another bowl of boiled lentils, actually walk two blocks, scrape the glitter off your toenails?
I shall rejoice that a major cause of needless misery in the world will have been done away with.
I haven't heard the pope nor my preacher suggesting anybody is gay. Neither of them have talked about my sex life either and I doubt they have mentioned yours.
No but they seem to have an abnormal degree of interest in sex lives if they're between two people of the same sex, or give rise to unwanted pregnancies. In those cases they're all over other people's sex lives like the white on rice. The cuddly, friendly, smiley Pope having been a staunch opponent of marriage equality in his native country, for example, regarding it as being inspired by Satan.
Happily Argentina ignored the fool and did the right thing.
-
I look forward to the day when Christianity along with other religions does the same.
Me too! Let them believe any daft stuff they like, but let them keep their evil thoughts about harmless people to themselves.