Ive seen that guy on the History Channel numerous times. He basically believes the accounts written in numerous religions are true, but the people of those times were actually witness to aliens instead of the works of a god.
What does the Bible *really* say about same-sex relationships?
- Thread starter Flynn
- Start date
I am going to drop out of this Flynn. The overall condescension in your posts is a little off setting. Telling me and others that we are falling into a trap because we dont share your conceptions is blatantly rude.
You wanted to debate but I think what you meant is that you wanted a chance to belittle people who do not share your very own fallacious view.
I respect opinions but at this point I can already tell you have zero interest in actually debating them.
I am now backing out just because I dont have time or inclination. I am on mobile right now and for the next few hours so I am going to just leave this thread.
You wanted to debate but I think what you meant is that you wanted a chance to belittle people who do not share your very own fallacious view.
I respect opinions but at this point I can already tell you have zero interest in actually debating them.
I am now backing out just because I dont have time or inclination. I am on mobile right now and for the next few hours so I am going to just leave this thread.
Sorry. man. I didn't intend on showing you disrespect, or saying something condescending. After re-reading, I know I did... but it wasn't intentional.
My primary intent was to draw focus to the fact that the "telephone game" analogy just doesn't hold water when trying to claim the Bible isn't a reliable source of information for some things. It's a claim that I think has become very popular, but if you do the research, credible historians will tell you that the Bible is certainly strong evidence for some historical claims. For example, the Bible actually is a very strong historical source in terms of showing facts about Jesus. There are many parts of the Bible historical critics would argue are 'embellishments', but there are also things in the Bible they agree are actually credible historical facts.
That's my point. Because something *may* be a non-historical, non-verifiable claim, that doesn't mean *EVERYTHING* in the Bible is non-historical, and non-verifiable, or reliable.
Truly, man, I appreciated your comments and respect your attitude. I don't blame you for dropping out of this one, but I will try to be less condescending. I also didn't mean my words to be an attack on you, but on the position... and sometimes, that can sound more personal than I intend. Again, sorry man. My mistake.
Last edited:
Whatever theological truths the Bible may contain, it is never-the less, an artifact, the work the hand of man as flawed as man himself, and I will not bow down and worship it. I leave the doctrine of ignorance and the infalibility of the holy scriptures to the simple-minded. Religion is our conduit to the infinite, and it is wise not to dwell too much on the the quaint mythologies that have grown up around each particular one. Only one without sin is qualified to judge sin. For others to do so, according to the Bible, is to risk damnation. "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you." All have sinned and come short of the glory of God, Mr. Flynn, to err is human, to forgive, divine. Compassion rather that judgment should be the order of the day.
True.
Where's the evidence or proof of this assertion?
Makes two of us... but I will bow down, and worship the one I believe breathed the words of that book into it, because the creator of all, who paid the price for my iniquities is worthy of such.
Horrendously naïve position to take. Some of the greatest minds of the past and present have believed in God, and Biblical inerrancy. An atheist teacher of science actually pleaded with his atheist students to keep up with the theists, because it was embarrassing to him that the theists were the more intellectually bright. That's not to say all atheists are ignorant/dull intellectually, but those who make such sweeping claims (as yours) certainly imply they might be. That's a terribly naïve position, and one which is also demonstrably false.
Opinion I see no reason to share.
Agreed. Truth exists. Relativism is false. Therefore, not all religions/teachings can possibly be correct... but one of them can be. And so far, this thread shows many good, sound arguments and bits of evidence that suggest it's perfectly reasonable and rationale (perhaps even intellectually superior) to believe in a God. There are also good reasons *NOT* to believe in many other world religions, like the far east religions, or Muslim beliefs.
Depends. We are not to judge one's salvation, but something which is plainly explained as a sin in the Bible is something I'm not only justified to judge in other Christians, but it's something I'm *supposed* to do. Christians are supposed to keep other Christians accountable. So from that perspective, I'm not only qualified, but commanded to judge... but am I 'judging' their salvation? Well no, of course not. That's not in my hands to do... but to judge behaviors of those in the church is not only allowed, but required. We are to sharpen iron with iron. We are to keep each other accountable... and the Word is clear about homosexual behavior. Christians need to understand that, regardless of pop-culture ramifications.
I Corinthians: 9-13
The greatest commandment of all is to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, mind, and soul. Followed closely by loving others. When you see your brother walking over a cliff, and your father told you not to walk that way - is it "love" to tell your brother, "yes - you go ahead with and walk over the cliff. I support you. I'm compassionate towards you.", or is it loving to say, "our father told us not to do that, and it could kill you to do it. Please, listen to our father."?
Again, Christians are not to point fingers at those outside the church... they know not what they do... but the ones in the church, we most certainly are supposed to keep each other on track:
"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
- I Corinthians: 9-13
Like with most Christian doctrines, there's a balance. If we judge others, we should expect equal judgment upon us... and frankly, I do. If I'm wrong, and I'm off in my belief - I don't want to hold to something false. I don't want placation. I want correction. I want to be judged. I need it. I want and need iron to sharpen iron. I'd rather be told 100 times I'm wrong (lovingly) then be told I'm right ONCE when I'm not... even if the intent is one of love.
illiniguy called me out on some crap that I was guilty of. He was right. Sometimes, I get so focused on trying to convey a point, I lose sight of being properly respectful, and properly honoring to others. I admit it. I make mistakes there all the time... and I need the people I love and care about to correct me on those things, not *just* "tolerate" them.
Last edited:
Oh, okay, he's just saying stuff I've already heard. I thought maybe he was taking a new approach, contrary to the usual teachings.
I have tried to have intelligent discussions about spirituality on this forum before, and I've found it impossible, so I don't even try anymore. I'll just say that I believe in God, but I'm not a literalist/fundamentalist when it comes to reading the Bible. I'm glad that I've found a way to have one without the other.
You see the problem with your argument, then. You begin with the unspoken assertion of the "infallibilty of the holy scriptures" straight out of the Southern Baptist Convention, and it the basis and foundation for all subsequent discourse, as far you're concerned. You seem oblivious to the fact others don't share this belief, this blind faith of yours, and stoically plod on with your theological assertions to refute arguments, from people who do not share your beliefs.
I hadn't heard it quite framed like this, plus I really liked that he broke it down into 12 key arguments from the other side, which just aren't accurate. I also like that he kept it an "in-house" conversation. This video is meant for Christians, or people with a really open mind about what Christians actually believe, and why.
Honestly, I think that some people are capable of good conversations here, but yeah, the track record ain't great. It's a difficult topic to discuss without feeling personally attacked when there's a disagreement... so many people can get super defensive, and then the communication breaks down.
As for not being a literalist/fundamentalist when it comes to reading the Bible, what do you mean by that?
I believe Flynn makes a good point about God and homosexuality. God doesn't condemn the person but the act of homosexuality. It is just like any other sin, it can be forgiven. So just because someone is gay, they are not condemned. It is a gay persons cross to bear, and with Gods help they can resist the temptation to commit the act just like any other sin.
Last edited:
Yeah, it gets pretty polarized, and people dig in. It's too bad. It's a very complex subject, but people treat it so blithely.
By "literalist" reading, I mean reading everything in the Bible as if it is a historical account of what literally occurred. The Bible is not a single book; it is a collection of books, and the books have different authors and genres. Some of them are literal, historical accounts of what happened. But other books are better understood as other types of writing (for instance, allegory, poetry, proverbs, letters, saga). So, for instance, I don't read the Genesis account of Adam and Eve or Noah's flood as a literal description of events that actually, literally occurred -- it is a religious allegory, a story, a myth (not in the sense of being "made up," but in the sense of being a story that helps explain or illuminates spiritual truths). Joseph Campbell was the first one to clue me into this, but I've since learned that it a way of reading the Bible that goes back to the early Church fathers.
A non-literalist reading would also acknowledge that, although much of what it contains is spiritually inspired, it was recorded by human beings, who are fallible in a hundred ways and also subject to the conditioning of their times. This helps me understand parts of the Bible that (for instance) talk about how it's okay to beat your slaves, because they are your property.
Don't really want to get into an argument about it, though. You've got enough on your hands, and I've never seen these debates end well.
Actually trying to rationalise an argument for the existence of a Christian god, based upon a series of old books.
That will be all.
That will be all.
This is false. The "infallibility" of the scriptures has never been any part of any argument, premise, or bit of evidence that I've discussed... neither spoken, nor unspoken. I make no assumptions of that kind, and there's no hidden premise like that for any of the arguments, or bits of evidence I brought to the table.
All my premises and arguments are backed with either philosophical, scientific, evidentiary, or evidence of some other kind, but NONE of them rely on any unspoken premises, and certainly not some assumption that the scriptures are "infallible". That's just nonsense.
What gives you that impression? Obviously countless others don't share that belief. That's not relevant to the arguments, the evidence, or the point of this thread though.
What do you consider 'blind faith'? It's not a theological conclusion that the universe had an ultimate beginning... that's a scientifically and philosophically backed conclusion. It's not a theological conclusion that objective morality exists, that's a philosophical conclusion. It's not a theological conclusion that our universe is uncharacteristically fine-tuned for life, that's a scientific and philosophically backed conclusion.
No, there's no "blind" faith here. There's informed, aware, earnestly seeking faith... but not 'blind'.
What arguments? Nor you nor any other atheist to come to this thread has presented any. But even if you had (which you haven't), I'm not making any theological assertions. I'm presenting premises based on philosophical, scientific, evidentiary truths. If the premises are true, it follows logically and inescapably that the conclusions are true - even if they have theological ramifications.
For example, the kalam cosmological argument. Unless you can show that the premises of that argument are false, you cannot deny the conclusion. It's like when a mathematician says, "A=B. B=C. Therefore, C=A". If the first two statements are true, the third follows logically and inescapably. You can't deny the conclusion on your own assertions, you have to find a problem with premises, and you haven't done that... much less present any arguments of your own.
So yeah, pretty much off the mark on all accounts there, Hammer.
Makes sense. You hit on something which is extremely important: hermeneutics. That is, how was something "meant" to be taken, as it was written?
What troubles me is when people making sweeping claims one way or the other, like "everything in the Bible is literally true" - well, of course not. Not all manuscripts were written with that intent. Similarly, when people go to the other extreme, "everything in the Bible is just stories, myths, and parables" - well, that's obviously false as well. Some books were most certainly meant to be biographical in nature.
Obviously poetic books of the Bible hold no (or *very* few) literal accounts, but they're not designed/written to. Additionally, books which are meant to be historical accounts (like the book of Luke) still contain some apocalyptic imagery, and phrases which are not necessarily meant to be taken literally. I say "not necessarily", because it's not always known - but that's why we need to look at the scriptures through the eyes of hermeneutics to determine what the author's intent was when it was written.
Now, if you're a Christian, and you believe that Christ is who He claimed to be, then you need to take seriously that the Bible is the Word of God, that it was indeed inspired/breathed by God... but it's not as if your salvation depends on that doctrine. "Mere Christianity", as C. S. Lewis called it, is simply accepting that Christ was God, and that He died for our sins, and we need Him as our savior. As long as that's believed, the rest is just "in-house" discussions.
...which, ironically, is something I was trying to shoot for with this thread. It was meant to be an "in house" discussion among believers... but I'll always engage those who don't believe, even if it's in a thread that gets a bit derailed by it.
TI ENAI I ALITHEIA? Well there he goes again. Basing his arguments on ultimate truths for which he has no proof, save for the arguments of like-minded individuals. Welcome to the wonderful world of relatavistic theological discourse, where no unspoken truths are necessarily believed.
This is false, though, and I really need to press you on it.
You assert "ultimate truth", not me.
You claim "no proof", but I never argued any of the evidence or arguments I brought to the table were "proofs", but merely evidence.
You claim "relativistic theological discourse", but there's nothing relativistic in my claims. In fact, it's the atheist who needs to worry about relativism, not the theist. The theist is well protected from the irrationality of relativism.
It's a very nonsensical post, man. You clearly aren't understanding what's been written.
Let's take the kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God:
It's very simple:
Do you deny premise #1? Do you deny premise #2? If not, then #3 is true... and the cause of the universe cannot be temporal, material, "in time", or "in space".
I think it's really easy to acknowledge the truth of premise #1. Obviously everything which has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence... so really it's only premise #2 that there's any dispute about.
So then, do you dispute #2?
It's very simple:
- Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
- The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore: - The universe has a cause of its existence.
Do you deny premise #1? Do you deny premise #2? If not, then #3 is true... and the cause of the universe cannot be temporal, material, "in time", or "in space".
I think it's really easy to acknowledge the truth of premise #1. Obviously everything which has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence... so really it's only premise #2 that there's any dispute about.
So then, do you dispute #2?
What if the Bible is wrong? What if God really has more compassion and understanding that the people who wrote those lines you quoted at the beginning of this thread? What if Godreally doesn't care about such things which may have only been the expression of the predjudices of the times?
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(For we walk by faith, not by sight)
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
and finally.........
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
(For we walk by faith, not by sight)
But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
and finally.........
By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
If the Bible is wrong, that doesn't dis-prove God.
If God has "more compassion and understanding" as you claim, I think you grossly underestimate the compassion and understanding that the God of the Bible offers. He's both infinitely compassionate/loving, but also infinitely just... so if you think the God of the Bible isn't "compassionate" or "understanding", I'd have to ask - what Bible are you reading? Where do you get that impression?
As for your final question, the beauty of God as I know Him is that He cares deeply and intimately about everyone... and the smallest step away from Him is something He cares about. The God I know loves His creation so much that He sent His son to die for us, and all our failures, that we may be reconciled with Him.
The only religion in all of mankind that completely reconciles perfect justice with perfect grace is Christianity. No other religion does that, and therefore, every other religion has a flawed and incoherent definition of God. Let's take the Muslim God, "Alah" for example. Not only is the Quran wrong about Jesus (proably, historically inaccurate), but the God of the Karaan demands people 'earn' salvation. This kind of a God is neither all loving, nor all just. The Quran claims that God does not love those who do not love Him. Jesus teaches us that even the worst of mankind do that... so therefore, the love of the God in the Quran is not perfect. It is conditional, and it is flawed. God is also not just, because he allows sinners into Heaven. You see, the punishment for sin is death... and if God lets a sinner into Heaven without that death being paid - He's not an all JUST God. So clearly, that God is not a coherent God.
The Christian God, as described in the Bible, is both all merciful and all loving. No other religion has that, and it's one of the most elegant, and beautiful things about the Christian faith that humbles me every time I think about it.
Seriously, Hammerclaw - honest question - do you believe in God?
Last edited:
All I know is this, no religious based scripture and belief should stop the legalization of same-sex marriage. You can believe what you want, but you can't deny people certain rights because of it either. Imagine if the Amish controlled the government or something. New microsize that into something one group of people want but can't have because of what a majority choose to believe.
I believe in a directed universe as opposed undirected one. I've never seen anything particularly scientific about clapping one's hands like a delighted child and crying "Oh happy chance!" "God is beyond our comprehension. God is truly alpha and omega. Understand, I do not think of God as portrayed in much of the scriptures as that petulent and vindictive deity worshipped by the twelve tribes. Man took the concept of God and refashioned it in his own image. There is more than one kind of idol that can be worshipped. The Christ knew this, as did the Prophet.
Personally, I hold on to a definition of marriage that precludes me from ever voting for "same-sex marriage", because the phrase "same-sex marriage" is an oxymoron. It's like saying that I want math to include "round squares", it's illogical. It's incoherent. Change the properties of the parts in a "marriage", and it's not a "marriage"... it becomes something other than a "marriage". A person who loves his pet can't "marry" his pet. A person who loves his sister cannot "marry" his sister. A person who loves his car cannot "marry" his car. A "Marriage" is a union, under God, between one man and one woman. Therefore, as long as "marriage" is on any legal proposal that comes my way, if it involves anything other than "one man and one woman", I'll have to say "no".
That said, God proved to us that we don't change people by mandating laws. God himself did that with the ten commandments, and no one could live up to that... so yeah, I'm not for impressing Christian morality on secular law. More importantly, though, I'd never want the government to tell me what a "marriage" is. Frankly, I know what I have with my wife is a marriage, and no person or government could take that away from me. I don't need the government to do that. No, what I need the government to do is recognize a legal union that I have, and give me the rights that union should afford me... and I'd fight to get unions approved for all legal adults... not just same sex unions, but polygamous unions, and even incestuous unions.
I'd happily toss my legal/government issued "marriage" license, and get a "union license" tomorrow if I could. That's really the only truly fair way for everyone to get what they want. Christians shouldn't have to be bullied into saying a gay union is a "marriage", but gay people who wish to form loving unions to be productive in our society deserve to be recognized for those unions, and given the rights that today's "marriage" affords them.
Take the word out of the legal proceedings, and everyone wins. Christians can keep claim to the definition they hold, Same-sex relationships get the rights and liberties they deserve, and the Government stays out of the business of defining a religiously charged word.
Last edited:
