-->
@Mopac
The definitions whenever originally asserted were thrown out because they assume their conclusion, which is not valid nor sound.
I am Gay - if your god told you to murder me, would you murder me?
Posts
Total:
458
-->
@Theweakeredge
I dispute your claim that Oxford's definition contradicts Merriam-Webster.
I also am not interested continuing this argument, because I am not going to budge on my position, and it is clear to me that you are making the choice to be incredulous. It certainly isn't a reasonable thing.
-->
@SirAnonymous
Another related point is that the Bible condemns extrajudicial killings. Thus, if I were to hear some voice tell me to go murder that person, I would immediately know that it wasn't from God because God condemns murder.
So in this hypothetical where God talks to us and we don't have a heart attack, if he says something that contradicts the bible you are more willing to dismiss it as Satan that acknowledge that the Bible could be flawed?
-->
@Lunatic
I believe that the Bible is God's Word, and that God does not lie and does not change. So if some voice claimed to be God and told me something that contradicts the Bible, then I would know that it wasn't God. That doesn't necessarily mean it would be Satan - it could just be me going insane - but I would be sure that it wasn't God.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I believe that the Bible is God's Word, and that God does not lie and does not change. So if some voice claimed to be God and told me something that contradicts the Bible, then I would know that it wasn't God. That doesn't necessarily mean it would be Satan - it could just be me going insane - but I would be sure that it wasn't God.
You don't think there could be any human error in the Bible? I mean if God really approached you and had a good long talk with you and corrected many points that could have been lost in interpretation, or mis-understood, or even said the whole thing was outright not his word, you'd be more willing to dismiss it as a hallucination then accept the fact that an ancient book translated and passed down multiple times through many generations could have a single flaw in it? I find that a bit perplexing.
-->
@Lunatic
You don't think there could be any human error in the Bible?
Depends what you mean by human error. I don't think the originals had any human error. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am. The copies that we have today definitely have some errors in them. No matter how good a translation is, there will always be some meaning lost or gained in translation. Also, there are going to be some copyist errors introduced along the way. However, there are a lot of old copies of the Bible, or parts of it, that go back really close to when it was written. Relatively speaking, that is. For example, Julius Caesar's history of the Gaulic wars only has 9 or 10 copies from 1000 years after it was written. The New Testament has thousands of copies, many of which are from only a few hundred years from when it was written. Scholars estimate that the New Testament is 99% accurate to the original. The Old Testament is similar, though not quite as good. None of the passages that aren't certain have any serious theological impact.
I mean if God really approached you and had a good long talk with you and corrected many points that could have been lost in interpretation, or mis-understood
I'd definitely believe that. It's not only possible but certain (well, virtually certain, anyway) that my interpretation or understanding of the Bible isn't 100% correct. I'm not infallible, and neither is anyone else on the planet.
or even said the whole thing was outright not his word,
In that case I wouldn't believe that the person talking to me was God, unless I was dead and there was absolutely no question about it.
then accept the fact that an ancient book translated and passed down multiple times through many generations could have a single flaw in it?
I think I answered that part already.
I find that a bit perplexing.
There's a verse in the Bible that says that if Christ didn't rise from the dead as we Christians believe, then we are to be pitied as fools. So if I'm following a God who isn't real, or if there is a God and I'm following the wrong one, then I am absolutely a fool, and you are right to be perplexed at my folly.
-->
@Theweakeredge
The definitions whenever originally asserted were thrown out because they assume their conclusion, which is not valid nor sound.
You might find this article interesting...
-->
@SirAnonymous
Relatively speaking, that is. For example, Julius Caesar's history of the Gaulic wars only has 9 or 10 copies from 1000 years after it was written. The New Testament has thousands of copies, many of which are from only a few hundred years from when it was written. Scholars estimate that the New Testament is 99% accurate to the original. The Old Testament is similar, though not quite as good. None of the passages that aren't certain have any serious theological impact.
How does something report as a fact from that long ago? I am thinking in terms of humans as a species. Do we report things accurately, especially in a time where there's no way for people to be fact checked? When they write stuff down how much of it has political or learned social biases in the narrative? A lot of people dismiss the roswell saucer sightings, bigfoot sightings, lochness sightings etc. Obviously without seeing something ourselves it's hard to validate any of that. But as a human we are prone to exageration or relaying information based on interpretation rather than what actually happened. If you tell a story to your friend Bob, and Bob tells the story to Kate, and Kate to Terry, you might notice quite a different story from what you originally told by the time Terry get's around to telling the story back to you. Classic Telephone game they play with kids in elementary school shows us how social interpretation influences a narrative, and thats usually with a small class object group of like 25 kids or less.
Now take that same story from the bible, translate it quite a few times, and pass it a long through thousands of years, I don't see how you can rely on that information safely, even assuming the person who originally made the narrative was 1. Telling the truth, 2, Not exxagerating, and 3. Not inserting social or politically learned biases into his narrative.
In that case I wouldn't believe that the person talking to me was God, unless I was dead and there was absolutely no question about it.
I once read this book about Witches and Wizards who can run trolley's through invisible walls in train stations and end up in a magical realm where they can go to school and learn magic. If anyone tries to tell me that isn't real, they are probably insane. Especially if it's some majestical belief defying being.
I know that phrasing sounds like I am being a Dick (I am not trying to be, I promise) but that's just a point I am making to highlight how wierd it would be to trust a book like that over something that looks and feels like an actual God telling you otherwise. I can't comprehend how you wouldn't take the word of God instead.
-->
@Mopac
.
Mopac,
YOUR QUOTE OF BIBLICAL IGNORANCE HAS NO BOUNDS!: "Perverts should be grateful that the laws are so relaxed, because they certainly are not wntitled to be treated so kindly. If people who cheated on their spouses were prosecuted, I would say the cheaters had it coming. "
As the membership can see, you will continue to be the biblical fool because you just can't help it! That being said, when you stated "Perverts should be grateful that the laws are so relaxed' relative to homosexuals, IS NOT what Jesus proposed, DO YOU UNDERSTAND BIBLE FOOL?! Jesus stated with specificity that homosexuals are to be put to death, and their blood should be upon them, period! (Leviticus 20:13). Jesus then stated though Peter that we should obey Jesus, instead of man (Acts 5:29). Therefore, we obey Jesus even if a society says that homosexuals are not to be murdered. DO YOU UNDERSTAND SIMPLE BIBLICAL AXIOMS?! If you don't understand this more than simple grade school understanding, then you should pack your bags and leave this prestigious Religious Forum, UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL?
Your biblical stupidity is equal to Tradesecrets, therefore, When do you plan on changing your moniker to prevent your continued bible stupidity being shown ad infinitum within this forum, that is, until we prove this point once again?
MOPAC = UNBELIEVABLE BIBLE STUPIDITY!!!
.
-->
@Lunatic
Do we report things accurately, especially in a time where there's no way for people to be fact checked? When they write stuff down how much of it has political or learned social biases in the narrative? A lot of people dismiss the roswell saucer sightings, bigfoot sightings, lochness sightings etc. Obviously without seeing something ourselves it's hard to validate any of that. But as a human we are prone to exageration or relaying information based on interpretation rather than what actually happened.
I agree. Humans are definitely capable of being wrong, even when they are being honest. They are also capable of misinterpreting what they see. What makes the Bible different is that God was inspiring the Biblical writers. He ensured that what they wrote would be accurate.
If you tell a story to your friend Bob, and Bob tells the story to Kate, and Kate to Terry, you might notice quite a different story from what you originally told by the time Terry get's around to telling the story back to you. Classic Telephone game they play with kids in elementary school shows us how social interpretation influences a narrative, and thats usually with a small class object group of like 25 kids or less.
Telephone and text are different. If I have 25 people copy something in text, it will turn out more accurate than if those same people communicated it verbally. It definitely won't be perfect, but it will still be better.
Now take that same story from the bible, translate it quite a few times, and pass it a long through thousands of years
Actually, it only has to go through one translation from copies that were only passed down a few hundred years. That's the advantage of having copies in the original languages that are relatively early. Now, that still sounds bad, but that's where science comes into it. The Bible isn't the only ancient book that's survived. Scholars can look at all the different copies and see what they have in common. If 50 copies say X and only 3 copies say Y, the 50 are probably correct, all else being equal. However, if those 50 copies are all from the same place and time, but the 3 copies are from different places from earlier times, the 3 copies would be preferred because the 50 likely share the same error. It gets pretty involved. The point is that the more copies you have from many different places as close to the time of the original writing as possible, the better. In that respect, the Bible is far and away the most reliable ancient document. To put that in numbers, the NT has 20,000 usable copies (most don't have the whole thing) and the OT 5000 (iirc). The next best is Homer's Iliad at 600. In short, if we can't trust the copies of the Bible we have today to be accurate to the originals, then we may as well toss the entirety of ancient literature.
I know that phrasing sounds like I am being a Dick (I am not trying to be, I promise)
I know you're not. It's cool.
I once read this book about Witches and Wizards who can run trolley's through invisible walls in train stations and end up in a magical realm where they can go to school and learn magic. If anyone tries to tell me that isn't real, they are probably insane. Especially if it's some majestical belief defying being.
There's a fundamental difference between that book and the Bible: the Bible claims to be true, whereas that book claims to be fiction. Now, claiming to be true isn't evidence that it is true; however, if something admits to being false, then we can eliminate it without a second thought (unless you're Snopes fact-checking the Babylon Bee). If it claims to be true, then we have to analyze whether it is true (which is a whole other, much longer discussion).
but that's just a point I am making to highlight how wierd it would be to trust a book like that over something that looks and feels like an actual God telling you otherwise. I can't comprehend how you wouldn't take the word of God instead.
Because I am taking the Word of God instead. I'm not trying to be snarky with that, but that's why. I have something that I'm sure is God's Word. If something were to look and feel like God, but said things that contradicted what I know God has said, then I know it's not really God.
-->
@Mopac
If I'm being incredulous to you, then I could just say the exact same thing in response. That's not a valid argument, just because your opponents don't agree with you that doesn't mean their "incredulous" as you put it.
Funny how the only people who insist that we should be stoning people to death are the non-Christians.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I know what I believe.
I also know that my use of the word is in line with BOTH Merriam-Webster and Oxford.
Since you say that these two dictionaries which are both very authoritative disagree, reason makes it very clear that you are the one who is confused, not me.
-->
@Juice
If I were an Islam, you'd be six feet deep in soil.If I were a Christian, you'd not enter heaven and burn for eternity.
I can't speak for the Muslim. But that is an inaccurate assessment of the Christian position.
True, there are many homophobic Christians, indeed there are many homophobic people everywhere - from Muslims, atheists, and even some gays are homophobic. It is part of human nature to be fearful of things that they do not understand.
The conservative Christian position is that homosexuality is sinful. The progressive Christian position is that homosexuality is not even mentioned in the Bible in a express manner. They would indicate that homosexuality and orientation is not sinful.
My position is that homosexuality is sinful. Yet it is not the unforgiveable sin. There will be homosexual people in heaven and there will be homosexuals in Hell.
I do not think that the GOD of the Bible would ever ask an individual to kill someone just for the sake of them being homosexual. And given that I hold to the Bible as the voice of God, it never in any place tells individuals to go out and kill homosexuals. It does indicated in the OT that in the theocratic nation of Israel that homosexuality is a sin worthy of death. Yet even in this situation - death was the maximum penalty - and it was a matter for the STATE to determine how this was going to prove and to implement. It also indicated that God's mind sees homosexuality as sin.
But God would not condone individuals assaulting, hurting, slandering, defaming, or killing homosexuals. Assault is sin. Defamation is sinful. Murder is sinful. Slander is sinful.
The NT position changes things somewhat in the church. The church is not a state. It does not have the power to kill people physically. Individual Christians NEVER have had the power to kill or take the law into their own hands. The Church of course has the power to excommunicate. And this is the strength of its power - hence it ought to stop people from coming to the table - when they are living in sin. In fact it is its obligation to do so. Yet, even the churches cannot do that without proper evidence to support its actions. It also has the power to hand the sinner over to Satan. This means - relieve that person of their membership and request that they do not come back until they have repented of their sins. At which time - they can be received again into the membership. This is covenantal death.
And at the end of the day, if the church or the state or the family exercise such authority without legitimacy they will be judged by God.
-->
@Tradesecret
So if I'm gay and am atheist (so cannot ask God for forgiveness), God will cast me into a pit of fire for eternity for my sin. Is this correct.
-->
@Juice
So if I'm gay and am atheist (so cannot ask God for forgiveness), God will cast me into a pit of fire for eternity for my sin. Is this correct.
If you're an atheist and don't believe in God, the I assume you don't believe in Heaven or Hell either. It would be pointless for me to respond to you.
God NEVER sentences someone for Hell just because they are homosexual. There will billions of heterosexuals in Hell. For God it is about treason. Are you loyal to him or not.
This has always been the issue. If you don't want to be loyal to him, you will need to examine the implications of such treason. That at the end of the day is a matter for you.
-->
@SirAnonymous
I'll respond tomorrow btw, was about to post my response and got relieved from work before I can finish and it all got erased. Gonna focus on mafia and BDO for now
-->
@Lunatic
got relieved from work before I can finish and it all got erased.
That stinks.
-->
@Mopac
Funny how the only people who insist that we should be stoning people to death are the non-Christians.
You obviously weren't paying attention, there are entire sects of Christians who think that homosexuals should be murdered by the government.
Also, the oxford is put together not only experts, but an entire academic institution, hence why we should prefer it: Not to mention, the oxford dictionary does not support your definition, you use a certain definitions that do not aptly fit the definition as given, and the Merriam is explicitly quoting religious individuals, not expertly putting the word together, but again, even if it was the definition, it would still be begging the question
-->
@Tradesecret
"...no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.
Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)
Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
-->
@Theweakeredge
Murder is an unlawful killing.
If the government prosecutes those who engage in sodomy, even punishing them by execution, that would be a lawful killing.
But in case you didn't know, I am orthodox. These sects are not with the church. Not being with the church, it would even be a stretch to call them Christians. They are heretics and schismatics. Heterodox.
I'm not interested in debating language with you. You don't know what you are talking about. I have long sinced dismissed your argument as sophistry. Language happens to be one of my areas of study. You are not going to convince me.
If the government prosecutes those who engage in sodomy, even punishing them by execution, that would be a lawful killing.
But in case you didn't know, I am orthodox. These sects are not with the church. Not being with the church, it would even be a stretch to call them Christians. They are heretics and schismatics. Heterodox.
I'm not interested in debating language with you. You don't know what you are talking about. I have long sinced dismissed your argument as sophistry. Language happens to be one of my areas of study. You are not going to convince me.
-->
@Mopac
"...no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.Be not ye therefore partakers with them.For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret."
Absolutely, all of these things are the fruits of an unloyal heart towards God. Yet each person who comes to God is not yet perfect. The Spirit of God works in and changes each person to become more like Jesus. This is the process of sanctification.
-->
@Mopac
Well then you must know nothing of psychology or philosophy, regardless if you've gone to dismissing my arguments, then I suppose I should do the same.
We can agree to disagree.
Have a nice evening... morning... night.... whatever time it is.
-->
@Tradesecret
So lets make it clear then.
An unrepentent and practicing homosexual is an idolater, and has no place in the Kingdom of God.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You obviously weren't paying attention, there are entire sects of Christians who think that homosexuals should be murdered by the government.
Christians like any other group in society are able to lobby the government to seek it to go in a particular direction. Progressives do not have a monopoly on making laws and providing morals.
If Christians believe that homosexuality ought to be an offence against the State, then they certainly have a right to lobby for it. Yet, in a democracy, they still need to obtain a majority to support this position - at least by representation in parliament. At least going through the state legislature is a legal and ethical way of bringing about change.
If the Government agrees to the change in law, it would not be murder of homosexuals. It would need to be lawful and sanctioned by the state- I don't think it is too disimilar to the state murdering babies every year in abortion. Now that is real murder. Where the innocent and vulnerable persons in society have no rights - no say and are treated like subhumans. Gee many people even refuse to call them human.
If gays wants my support - then they ought to put their hand up and support the vulnerable. I would more sympathetic to them if they showed some compassion to the real victims in our society.
-->
@Mopac
So lets make it clear then.An unrepentent and practicing homosexual is an idolater, and has no place in the Kingdom of God.
An unrepentant sinner of any description has no place in the kingdom of God.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are a 16 year old. You haven't even finished high school. You make pretense of having an education because you are arrogant, not because you are educated.
It would be better for your own education to abandon this idea that you are educated, and adopt a more humble approach.
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, yes they do. They live in a democracy after all.
should the government ever have the power to kill innocent people? No.
Also, really, that's your example, abortion. If you want to use your own example, then as you admit, abortion isn't murder.
How about this - you can call abortion murder, and I can call what those sects want murder.
Sound fair?
-->
@Mopac
I don't consider myself fully educated. I also don't take the words of random people I meet online that their experts because they say they are and copy and paste quotes. Maybe you are an expert, I wouldn't know and never have claimed to, and I have been as humble as can be. I've repeatedly asked for you to prove your point and you don't. You say you study the language and yet you don't understand what begging the question is, how its pretty important that each word of a definition be defined as the definition that applies most topically. Constantly insult me and fail to ever have a proper conversation. I respect you wishes and end the debate, and yet here you are still insulting me because apparently that wasn't good enough.
-->
@Mopac
You know what, no, how about you get off your high horse and come be civil with the rest of us. You have literally said, over and over again, that nothing will change your mind.
You are the one being arrogant here, and ought to be more humble. I have admitted that I could be wrong, I even tried to grant your positions and you failed to take advantage. Any perceived arrogance is strictly you projecting.
I'm pretty tired of you doing all of this fallacious talk and not backing up what you say, as well as making groundless accusations of me and other people. Whenever i give you an
out or a way to be charitable, you don't respond in kind.
Please get down here from you oh so heavenly position and be like the rest of us mortals. A good example of this is Tradesecret, though he was a little bit eh, he's been respectful throughout the discourse. You could learn a thing or two from him about language and such.