|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on May 23, 2004 2:31:30 GMT -5
We'll i will argue that practicing my faith means spreading it. likewise you are not given the right to be free from me spreading my faith. Wrong. Freedom OF religion also means Freedom FROM religion.
|
|
|
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 23, 2004 3:55:25 GMT -5
Theres no law that says i can not spread my faith. well, there should be. there's laws against e-mail spam, telemarketing calls, and public nuisances. i find it equally annoying to find flyers on my car, witnesses at my door, and people bothering me on the street. i'm curious though. to all the "wholesome christian soldiers" out there who dutifully go out and spread your faith, how do you feel when some whacky cult member tries to recruit you into their doomsday group? (feel free to replace "whacky cult member" with "witch", "satanist/devil worshipper", "log cabin republican", or whatever else offends you most) now imagine those groups were just as numerous and persistent as protestants are. (i have yet to be religiously spammed by muslims, jews, catholics, buddhists, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Colliohn on May 23, 2004 17:30:42 GMT -5
mmmm... spam...
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on May 24, 2004 9:57:03 GMT -5
I love it. I find few things more stimulating than an interesting religious and philosophical argument, and I would enjoy it greatly if lots of these witches, satanists, devil worshippers, and log cabin republicans came to my door, because I would have fun discussing things with them. I would like them to extend the courtesy to listen to me, so I will extend it to them.
Why? I am confident in my beliefs, so I don't have to be afraid of these people.
So would you take away the right of choice from people? Must we all stay the way we were born, and never have a chance to change religions?
|
|
|
Post by sanmiguel98 on May 24, 2004 12:36:32 GMT -5
who's taking away choice? as far as i know, i'm still free to choose any religion i want. being able to choose for myself is precisely what i'm arguing for! i'm perfectly capable of making my own decisions, and a thousand baptist flyers won't make me sign up with them any more than a thousand e-mail messages advertising viagra would make me buy any.
when people knock on your door, you have the comfort of knowing you can close the door anytime you want, and that's the last you'll need to hear from them. when christians come to power, they start enforcing all their christian rules and morals on everyone.
school prayer- only christian prayers are made. jews, muslims, hindus, etc. must pray along or stand outside. no jewish, muslim, hindu, etc. prayers are made where christians have to stand outside.
gay marriage- christian politicans are controlling who people can legally love for life. what's next? soon they'll be choosing what color my next house can be, or what i can legally have for dinner.
abortion- heh...you were saying something about taking away choice from people? there's always the "it's wrong to kill" argument, but here's something interesting... most pro-lifers support capital punishment, while most pro-choicers are against it. i'll never figure that one out. by the way, this morning i had a chicken omelette. yep, an adult scrambled in an embryo.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJihadFace on May 27, 2004 22:01:36 GMT -5
when people knock on your door, you have the comfort of knowing you can close the door anytime you want, and that's the last you'll need to hear from them. when christians come to power, they start enforcing all their christian rules and morals on everyone. school prayer- only christian prayers are made. jews, muslims, hindus, etc. must pray along or stand outside. no jewish, muslim, hindu, etc. prayers are made where christians have to stand outside. gay marriage- christian politicans are controlling who people can legally love for life. what's next? soon they'll be choosing what color my next house can be, or what i can legally have for dinner. You are absolutely dead on here. I smell pwnage. tee hee. by the way, this morning i had a chicken omelette. yep, an adult scrambled in an embryo. hahahahahahaha
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Jun 1, 2004 10:15:02 GMT -5
Yes, exactly! That is why I support the separation of church and state - just not in the way you see it. The problem is not anything fundamentally wrong with he Christian message, it is rather human nature that gets in the way. Humans want power, and when they get it they tend to misuse it.
It is perfectly fair to look at the Christian repressions, but how about examining the atheist ones? When the Communists came to power in Russia, the oppression was just as brutal as any under the Roman Catholic Church. The same can be said of Nazi Germany.
It is quite probable that if atheists had power in this nation they would be just as restrictive and oppressive as any Christian group, it would just be in a different way. The extremes on both sides want autocratic rule; the difference is the reason for it. Conservatives want to restrict some books because they teach bad morals; liberals want to restrict some books because they teach morals at all. Conservatives want to restrict some religions because they are of the devil; liberals want to restrict some religions because they stop progress.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that no religious group - or philosophy - should have control of the government.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 4, 2004 3:26:22 GMT -5
just a bit off topic - the homosexuality thing - another interesting verse is Galations 3:28:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
This is interesting, as it necessitates that sexual expression between woman & man (hetero), and between woman & woman or man & man (homo) cannot be differentiated in Christianity.
|
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Sept 4, 2004 15:27:32 GMT -5
Just for some context, I will quote the whole passage:
"You are all sons of God though faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3, 26-29)
Now the question here is what Paul is speaking of. Does he mean that all humans are the exact same, and there is no difference between them? No.
He is saying that in Christ, with salvation, there is no difference between Christians.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 4, 2004 15:39:21 GMT -5
I'll suffice to say that were I a professor who taught hermeneutics and exegesis, I would fail you Shiggy. You fail to take that verse in its proper context. In Galatians 3:26-29, it is clear that Paul is talking about how despite whatever racial, social, or gender distinctions one may possess, ALL may come to faith in Jesus Christ and become a part of God's family.
To argue for homosexuality in that verse is, therefore, ridiculous. It also fails to account for the many other verses in the New Testament that condemn homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27, I Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10)
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 4, 2004 20:39:58 GMT -5
Fine, you may choose to completely ignore all the refutations of the points you have just posted by Mike a few posts ago if you like, but they're still there. As JohnnyJihadFace said earlier, this argument has already been won.
My point was that the issue of homosexuality is murky and that by relying on the Bible alone, there are verses which support either view.
I think Mike's (I think it was Mike's) point earlier about "masturbation" appearing in earlier Biblical translations in places where we today read "homosexuality" was an excellent point.
What do you consider the Church's position on masturbation today? (If you say it's not a sin, then you're contradicting earlier Bible translations!) Have fun ;D
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 4, 2004 23:07:10 GMT -5
Fine, you may choose to completely ignore all the refutations of the points you have just posted by Mike a few posts ago if you like, but they're still there. As JohnnyJihadFace said earlier, this argument has already been won. My point was that the issue of homosexuality is murky and that by relying on the Bible alone, there are verses which support either view. I think Mike's (I think it was Mike's) point earlier about "masturbation" appearing in earlier Biblical translations in places where we today read "homosexuality" was an excellent point. What do you consider the Church's position on masturbation today? (If you say it's not a sin, then you're contradicting earlier Bible translations!) Have fun ;D If there are verse that are pro-homosexuality in the Bible, as you claim there are, then show them. Until you can provide them, that's a baseless argument. As far as the word masterbation appearing in earlier translations where we now read homosexuality is ridiculous. I don't know who posted that, or where its posted, and I have no idea where something so ridiculous could come from. The word masterbation is partially derived from the Greek word "mezea". Yet no where in the New Testament can one find that word or any word that would be a derivative of it. Instead one would find the Greek word "arsenokoites" which means homosexual. It is derived from the Greek word "arsen" which is a primitive word meaning "male", and from the Greek word "koite" which means "bed". The word "koite" is further derived from the Greek word "keimai" which is a verb meaning "to be laid, lie". So I hope it is painfully obvious that when we look at 1 Timothy 1:10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 we find that the word describes men having sex together. If you doubt me, get a Greek New Testament and learn Greek! Now, if you wish to know what I think of masterbation, I'll tell you. When masterbating, I'm not sure how it's possible for one not to be lusting at the same time. Therefore, it is a sin. And because of that sin or any other sin, we are all worthy of eternal seperation from God. Thankfully, though, God decided to give us a another chance. Because God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins, we can be forgiven of the sins we have committed, no matter how big or small, and recieve eternal life with Him.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 5, 2004 4:23:13 GMT -5
If there are verse that are pro-homosexuality in the Bible, as you claim there are, then show them. Until you can provide them, that's a baseless argument. As far as the word masterbation appearing in earlier translations where we now read homosexuality is ridiculous. I don't know who posted that, or where its posted, and I have no idea where something so ridiculous could come from. Personally, I am not a biblical or liguistic scholar, so I can't comment on the validity of what you said. Sure, it did sound compelling, but I've heard many other arguments in the other direction which are, too. The post I spoke of is on this board a few pages ago. Read it and see what you think. Sorry to take this argument to a more meta kind of level, but shouldn't these "obvious" meanings be visible to everyday men and women? I don't want to have to learn Greek to find out the truth of what God means in his word. And, if that's not possible, then I don't think the religion is as accessible as it should be (or would be if it was true). I don't want to have to trust what you say, based on authority alone. There are many Christians who believe that, according to the Bible, homosexuality and masturbation are not sins. Sure, masturbating does mean lusting, but lust in itself is (according to the Bible) wonderful in marriage. I have a problem with the psychological implications of this rule. Like a switch, it is off until one marries, and is then turned on. The human psyche is not suited to this because, whether you'll admit it or not, there will be guilt associated with lust from all the years of not masturbating, and this is often the cause of marital sexual dysfunction. Most sexual problems are of psychological origin, which is usually guilt associated with sexual feelings, often originating from strict Christian upbringing.
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Sept 5, 2004 14:01:56 GMT -5
Personally, I am not a biblical or liguistic scholar, so I can't comment on the validity of what you said. Sure, it did sound compelling, but I've heard many other arguments in the other direction which are, too. The post I spoke of is on this board a few pages ago. Read it and see what you think. Sorry to take this argument to a more meta kind of level, but shouldn't these "obvious" meanings be visible to everyday men and women? I don't want to have to learn Greek to find out the truth of what God means in his word. And, if that's not possible, then I don't think the religion is as accessible as it should be (or would be if it was true). I don't want to have to trust what you say, based on authority alone. There are many Christians who believe that, according to the Bible, homosexuality and masturbation are not sins. Sure, masturbating does mean lusting, but lust in itself is (according to the Bible) wonderful in marriage. I have a problem with the psychological implications of this rule. Like a switch, it is off until one marries, and is then turned on. The human psyche is not suited to this because, whether you'll admit it or not, there will be guilt associated with lust from all the years of not masturbating, and this is often the cause of marital sexual dysfunction. Most sexual problems are of psychological origin, which is usually guilt associated with sexual feelings, often originating from strict Christian upbringing. As a Bible scholar, I can assure you of the validity of what I've said. Once again, I would ask you to find Bible verses that are pro-homosexuality, because you have yet to produce them. Secondly, these "obvious" meanings ARE available to regular men and women. I clearly pointed to the fact that our english translations correctly translated those words from the Greek. The meaning, therefore, is clear: just as the Greek word "arsenokoites" means "homosexual", so does the English word "homosexual" mean "homosexual". Also, if Christians choose to ignore the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality and lust, then what can they base their faith on then? The Bible is the foundation for that faith. Be careful with confusing "christians" and true Christians. Where does the Bible say that lusting is "wonderful in marriage"? This is a rhetorical question since the answer is known to me already: no where. The Bible clearly condemns lusting. If you can find these mysterious, hidden passages you refer to, be sure to accept my invitation, once again, to show them.
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Sept 5, 2004 21:26:38 GMT -5
As a Bible scholar, I can assure you of the validity of what I've said. Once again, I would ask you to find Bible verses that are pro-homosexuality, because you have yet to produce them. You are not the only Biblical expert in the world, and your beliefs about these issues are not universal. There is disagreement around the issue. The fact that educated disagreement exists means that the answer is not yet concrete. The verses which you say condemn homosexuality have been translated differently by different people at different times in history, such as the masturbation example I gave earlier; thus, once again, the answer is not set in stone. Secondly, these "obvious" meanings ARE available to regular men and women. I clearly pointed to the fact that our english translations correctly translated those words from the Greek. The meaning, therefore, is clear: just as the Greek word "arsenokoites" means "homosexual", so does the English word "homosexual" mean "homosexual". -When I said everyday men and women, I meant those with no knowledge of ancient language and Biblical history. Thus, the verse I DID provide earlier (no male nor female, etc) can and HAS BEEN taken in the way I took it. Is not the fact that I (as an everyday person) disagree with you in my interpretation of the Bible valid?In the absence of expertise in this field, then, the Bible is interpretable as contradictory and ambiguous on issues of homophobia. I see this as a problem. Also, if Christians choose to ignore the Bible's condemnations of homosexuality and lust, then what can they base their faith on then? The Bible is the foundation for that faith. Be careful with confusing "christians" and true Christians. So if someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was crucified for the forgiveness of their sins interprets the Bible as saying that their sexual orientation is a valid and beautiful expression of their created uniqueness, they are not a "true Christian"? Give me a break. There are many Christians (who in your opinion are not truly believers) who don't share your views. Where does the Bible say that lusting is "wonderful in marriage"? This is a rhetorical question since the answer is known to me already: no where. The Bible clearly condemns lusting. If you can find these mysterious, hidden passages you refer to, be sure to accept my invitation, once again, to show them. *sigh* okaaay, I'll make it clearer: lusting sfter one's SPOUSE (eg., fantasising about them, becoming sexually aroused by their touch, etc.), ie, sexual expression, is encouraged in marriage by the Bible - sexual pleasure in marriage is a celebration and consummation of romantic love: -The whole book of Song of Songs - Proverbs 5:18-19 "May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. (19) A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you be ever captivated by her love." Even if you now argue that "lusting" is not the same as "sexual expression in marriage" (which I disagree with), it is still true that this "sexual expression" is sinful before marriage, which just brings us back to my original point.
|
|