Sexuality; What Are Your Views?

[pumpdoc 2]

Take off!

[jaq 0]

Take off!

It's interesting how Canada can be looked at as a role model. It' multiculture lifestyle continues to thrive in the recognition of the differences we all hold, and have learned to understand and respect one another. Great eh!

[funkejay 0]

Well well well, I've been gone for only three days, yet there's so much to respond to......

We now move to the homosexual disorder. It is a disorder because in the Bible, our belief system, God condone it and even destroyed a city because of it. Homosexuality is not normal, people aint born Homos. "for the carnal mind is enmity againts God, it is not subject to the law of God, and neither indeed, can be" Here's the catch. But be it far for me as human to judge anyone on this, for God sits alone and the throne and have the keys to judge, and thats what many people, including Christians get wrong. We can tel you it's wrong, but thats as far as we can go. a Homo can choose whatever he does with it, for if it does'nt come by revelation, he won't accept it. a Homosexual does not have any less respect than anyone else in my eyes, homosexuals can be good people, unfortunately being good does'nt bring you into heaven....

Despite your protests to the contrary, you are most certainly judging people my friend. You have singled out a particular behaviour that offends you, and then judge it a disorder, abnormal, and wrong (your words, not mine). You then conveniently supplant your responsibility in making such judgements by suggesting that it is [G]od himself who has done so, and that you are merely a worldly vessel of his "message".... (which, as Cav has already correctly pointed out, is an example of the argument from authority fallacy.....)

BTW - Has it never occurred to you that the biblical passages you rely on are based on a world view that is in all likelihood about 3000-4000 years old? There is no scientific evidence to suggest that Sodom and Gamorrah ever existed, and even biblical scholars disagree whether the story of the two cities is anything more than a metaphor, but the evidence shows that if a settlement ever existed in the area described by the biblical tale, it was most likely during the early bronze age, around 1800 BC to 2300 BC. Alternatively, most biblical scholars agree that Genesis (including the tale of Sodom and Gamorrah) was written around 900 BC, so it is an open question whether the book describes social attitudes at the time that Sodom and Gamorrah existed, or at the time that Genesis was written.

Either way, you are framing your current world view on a set of beliefs that are at least three millenia old......

I am openmind within my own belief structure.

Well that is tremendously open-minded of you isn't it? Essentially, you are saying that you are open to any idea, so long as it is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with your existing belief structure.

That is precisely the opposite of open-mindedness, my friend. An open-mind is one that is prepared to consider a competing idea on its merits, without pre-judging its validity or veracity, and accept or reject that idea based only on a fair and impartial evaluation.

Conversely, if you are prepared only to consider those ideas that fit within your existing belief structure, you are not being open-minded.

Do you know what I circumstances I come from? You have NO IDEA mister. Don't compare your highly intellect situation/upbringing to mine. Let's look at the word openminded in the dictionary: willing to consider new ideas; unprejudiced. Your willingness to except a new idea might not be the same as mine, I might accept more controversial ideas than you.....

With my work in advertising, I try to stretch ideas as far as they can go. If I belief a naked woman is the best way to compliment a product, I will use just that idea. Once again.....againts my narrowminded christian upbringing...get it????

So much to respond to in a single post......

No I do not know what circumstances you come from, nor do I care. For that matter, I am not attacking your belief structure - I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument(s).

Having said that, you seem to make an awful lot of assumptions about my situation and upbringing (of which you know nothing about either). Nevertheless, I am fairly confident (by virtue of what you've disclosed about your personal philosophy in this thread) that you would not readily accept the more controversial ideas I currently hold, little own consider any that are even more so.

As for your example of utilizing ideas within your profession that do not accord with your belief structure - this does not demonstrate your open-mindedness. What it does demonstrate however, is that you lack the courage of your convictions. If you believe that it is truly wrong to use the image of a naked woman for a commercial purpose, you are no more than a hypocrite if you employ such an image in your work. For you to be truly open-minded about such a practice, you would have to accept it is NOT wrong to do so.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't appreciate what it means to be open-minded.....

Wrong, a bible verse might take on different meanings, you might get something more or hidden than I do. I might say drinking alcohol is wrong because of it's addictive qualities, but you would say Jesus made alcohol, how can it be wrong. The inconsistency is there from the beginning. You have no idea what being a Christian is, first be a Christian b4 you judge. and Let me say this for the record. There are openminded Christian, and narrowminded Christian within their own belief structures. You blow hoollaaaaaahhhoooopppsss on what you think I do, judging homosexuals. look what you do. You basically state that Christians are entirely unthinking drones with no reasoned arguement. If you think God made us to be like that, you're sadly mistaken. Nice one Funkejay, I can hear the jury clapping....

BTW: I don't mean to offend, but are you in any way homosexual???

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions about me and my personal experience, and basing your assessment of my argument on those notions.... (which by the way is merely another variation of the ad hominem fallacy).

And as for your question about whether I'm a homosexual - my sexual orientation has nothing to do with a criticism of your arguments and the inconsistencies therein - but I suspect that if I were, you would immediately discount anything I might say.

Which is surely why you asked.......

[funkejay 0]

I've searched for the truth and I've found it. You can continue going in circles if you want ...but I think I've said enough. In my eyes, you're still searching ...good luck!

Which reasoning is more circular:

I am atheistic about a supreme being for whom no logical proof exists, or...

I believe in the bible, because it is the holy word of [G]od, and I believe in [G]od because the holy bible proves he exists.

As for your belief that I am still searching for something... well, you're entitled to whatever prejudices you wish to hold. I can only assure you that I am not searching for any type of spiritual comfort - if for no other reason than because I am entirely comfortable with the fact that science has not yet unravled all the mysteries of the universe, and that the capacity of human understanding may ultimately define the limits of what we can explain.

Simply put, I do not live in fear of that which I do not understand or cannot explain.....

I believe Jay would call that an 'argument from authority' and therefore a logical fallacy

True, I would (not to mention it is also a tautology).

Authorities, like everything are fallible. You may contend that religion is beyond the realm of logic, but you cannot claim that that is logical way of proving a point.

If only they saw that!!!!!

The term has an important medical meaning. If you choose to use it in a completely different context, it would be better if you were to invent another term altogether, for somwething that is a disorder according to the bible. You are misusing the term if you allege that something is a disorder because the bible says it is.

Indeed!!!!

Interesting take on it. While I agree that, at the time, women were viewed by most cultures as being inferior, Paul, who wrote about the relationship between husband and wife, looked on women as equals. He even put two of them as heads of churches. My analogy only goes so far, however, and stops short of 'obeying' like we 'obey' Christ as a Deity. We cannot 'obey' a fellow servant like we 'obey' a Deity, or have the same understanding of 'superiority'. We obey Christ because we love Him. He gave much to us and we love Him for it. That is the relationship that is to be emulated in marriage.

Strangely enough, if you practice that attitude of love and respect towards your significant other, that person will reciprocate. The Bible teaches sound philosophy there, regardless if you believe in God, Allah or nothing at all. I don't buy into the strict 'obey' that your friends follow. My wife would laugh her head off if I suggested it! I've found that if I practice my part in the marriage, as the Bible, in correct context, states that I should, my wife generally will agree to follow my 'lead'. There's no controlling there, just trust that I'll not take us someplace harmful. Is it chauvanistic to say that? Maybe, but somehow it doesn't work out that way....... In most relationships between men and women the male does take the dominant role...again, chauvanistic or simple observation....?

I've lost my point somewhere....I need a beer.....

Mike, there is nothing wrong with using the bible as a basis for your personal philosophy, but would you not also acknowledge that it is written in such a convoluted way that you essentially get out of it what you put into it? Whatever your pre-conceived prejudices and biases are, there's a biblical passage that can be found to reinforce it.

As a result, the bible is equally capable of fomenting attitudes of bigotry, intolerance, and condemnation (as we have seen in this very thread!!!). If it were truly a book that consistently taught a message of love, respect, equality and tolerance for others, it would not be such a controversial issue.....

As i have said before, i appreciate the fact you believe in something. In your case, god and the bible. My arguement has been that god and the bible should not and can not be allowed to set policy for all. If you wish to believe and live your life in this manner then I can accept that, but when it is said that all of society should accept and live life based on your beliefs I can not. I believe that homosexuality is as natual as heterosexuality, I believe women have the right to choose, i believe, as another example embryotic stem cell research is right, all of which your religion looks at as wrong. Governments should not be allowed to say same sex marriage is wrong, stem cell research is the taking of life, as is the abortion issue. These are just some of the important issues that society is now having to consider because today's society and beliefs have changed unlike your beliefs. I'm not saying your beliefs in the litteral sense I'm saying your religion.

In a society where every person is given a vote, it's for all people to vote their conscience and their beliefs....and the votes are tallied and the majority view prevails. I will not keep my personal beliefs out of my vote simply because you don't like them. I'm sure the world would be better, in your view, if everyone thought like you, but that argument goes my way as well.

Mike, do you not support the separation of church and state? That is what Jaq is talking about. If we are not vigilant about that separation, then there can be no meaningful freedom of conscience for any of us.

The simple truth is, Murray, is that to be a Christian, then you have to follow Christ and try to live your life as Christ-like as possible.

The problem pabloh is that most Christians already believe that they are living a "Christ-like" existence, to one extent or another (it is very unlikely that such people are willingly living lives that are inconsistent with their own moral views and beliefs).

The reality is that we are more likely to cast our personal beliefs in whatever light reflects most positively upon us. As a result, we are capable of rationalizing away most (if not all) of our daily trespasses (to use the vernacular).

Beautiful country.Isn't it?

Indeed!!!!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Well well well, I've been gone for only three days, yet there's so much to respond to......

Despite your protests to the contrary, you are most certainly judging people my friend. You have singled out a particular behaviour that offends you, and then judge it a disorder, abnormal, and wrong (your words, not mine). You then conveniently supplant your responsibility in making such judgements by suggesting that it is [G]od himself who has done so, and that you are merely a worldly vessel of his "message".... (which, as Cav has already correctly pointed out, is an example of the argument from authority fallacy.....)

BTW - Has it never occurred to you that the biblical passages you rely on are based on a world view that is in all likelihood about 3000-4000 years old? There is no scientific evidence to suggest that Sodom and Gamorrah ever existed, and even biblical scholars disagree whether the story of the two cities is anything more than a metaphor, but the evidence shows that if a settlement ever existed in the area described by the biblical tale, it was most likely during the early bronze age, around 1800 BC to 2300 BC. Alternatively, most biblical scholars agree that Genesis (including the tale of Sodom and Gamorrah) was written around 900 BC, so it is an open question whether the book describes social attitudes at the time that Sodom and Gamorrah existed, or at the time that Genesis was written.

Either way, you are framing your current world view on a set of beliefs that are at least three millenia old......

Well that is tremendously open-minded of you isn't it? Essentially, you are saying that you are open to any idea, so long as it is consistent (or at least not inconsistent) with your existing belief structure.

That is precisely the opposite of open-mindedness, my friend. An open-mind is one that is prepared to consider a competing idea on its merits, without pre-judging its validity or veracity, and accept or reject that idea based only on a fair and impartial evaluation.

Conversely, if you are prepared only to consider those ideas that fit within your existing belief structure, you are not being open-minded.

So much to respond to in a single post......

No I do not know what circumstances you come from, nor do I care. For that matter, I am not attacking your belief structure - I am merely pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument(s).

Having said that, you seem to make an awful lot of assumptions about my situation and upbringing (of which you know nothing about either). Nevertheless, I am fairly confident (by virtue of what you've disclosed about your personal philosophy in this thread) that you would not readily accept the more controversial ideas I currently hold, little own consider any that are even more so.

As for your example of utilizing ideas within your profession that do not accord with your belief structure - this does not demonstrate your open-mindedness. What it does demonstrate however, is that you lack the courage of your convictions. If you believe that it is truly wrong to use the image of a naked woman for a commercial purpose, you are no more than a hypocrite if you employ such an image in your work. For you to be truly open-minded about such a practice, you would have to accept it is NOT wrong to do so.

I'm beginning to suspect that you don't appreciate what it means to be open-minded.....

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions about me and my personal experience, and basing your assessment of my argument on those notions.... (which by the way is merely another variation of the ad hominem fallacy).

And as for your question about whether I'm a homosexual - my sexual orientation has nothing to do with a criticism of your arguments and the inconsistencies therein - but I suspect that if I were, you would immediately discount anything I might say.

Which is surely why you asked.......

funkejay, leave me alone willya....

My intention was never to offend, thats the truth. My previous employer is gay, and employed gay people, when I left there were about 10 in the company. I did open my eyes in some ways, but honest to God it never bothered me, and I hope I never offended them in some way. Yes, I've learned something from your post's, in time I might return to these points and post some, hopefully, valid arguements, but I'm quick-posting inbetween work at the moment and struggle to pay 100% attention....

[pabloh20 1]

The problem pabloh is that most Christians already believe that they are living a "Christ-like" existence, to one extent or another (it is very unlikely that such people are willingly living lives that are inconsistent with their own moral views and beliefs).

The reality is that we are more likely to cast our personal beliefs in whatever light reflects most positively upon us. As a result, we are capable of rationalizing away most (if not all) of our daily trespasses (to use the vernacular).

Well, without wishing to sound rude in any way, Jay, but it sounds to me like you don't know anything about the Christian life. I truly am not trying to be offensive, when I say that, but I can't say it any other way

Every Christian I have ever known is striving to live Christ-like, but you can never actually attain it, for obvious reasons, so it's an ongoing struggle where you are always trying to better yourself. So while you may not willingly, as such, be living a life that is inconsistent with your moral views or beliefs, the chances are that you will be doing that very thing, or should I say, will do on a fairly regular basis. Also, a true Christian will not rationalise away their trespasses or cast their personal belief in whatever light refelects positively on them, the opposite is more likely to be true in fact, but will ask for forgiveness for them and carry on striving to be more Christ-like. It is why I said the Christian life isn't easy.

I am probably not explaining it that well, but it's the best I can do, sorry!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Well, without wishing to sound rude in any way, Jay, but it sounds to me like you don't know anything about the Christian life. I truly am not trying to be offensive, when I say that, but I can't say it any other way

Every Christian I have ever known is striving to live Christ-like, but you can never actually attain it, for obvious reasons, so it's an ongoing struggle where you are always trying to better yourself. So while you may not willingly, as such, be living a life that is inconsistent with your moral views or beliefs, the chances are that you will be doing that very thing, or should I say, will do on a fairly regular basis. Also, a true Christian will not rationalise away their trespasses or cast their personal belief in whatever light refelects positively on them, the opposite is more likely to be true in fact, but will ask for forgiveness for them and carry on striving to be more Christ-like. It is why I said the Christian life isn't easy.

I am probably not explaining it that well, but it's the best I can do, sorry!

tis very hard yes...

[funkejay 0]

funkejay, leave me alone willya....

My intention was never to offend, thats the truth. My previous employer is gay, and employed gay people, when I left there were about 10 in the company. I did open my eyes in some ways, but honest to God it never bothered me, and I hope I never offended them in some way. Yes, I've learned something from your post's, in time I might return to these points and post some, hopefully, valid arguements, but I'm quick-posting inbetween work at the moment and struggle to pay 100% attention....

For what it's worth, my last post was typed out rather quickly, and didn't sound as tone neutral as I intended. I apologize if it came across somewhat sharply - that wasn't my intent.

And for what it's worth - I am not a homosexual - though I still don't understand the relevance of your question.

Well, without wishing to sound rude in any way, Jay, but it sounds to me like you don't know anything about the Christian life. I truly am not trying to be offensive, when I say that, but I can't say it any other way

I am more familiar with the "Christian" life than you might suspect...

Every Christian I have ever known is striving to live Christ-like, but you can never actually attain it, for obvious reasons, so it's an ongoing struggle where you are always trying to better yourself. So while you may not willingly, as such, be living a life that is inconsistent with your moral views or beliefs, the chances are that you will be doing that very thing, or should I say, will do on a fairly regular basis. Also, a true Christian will not rationalise away their trespasses or cast their personal belief in whatever light refelects positively on them, the opposite is more likely to be true in fact, but will ask for forgiveness for them and carry on striving to be more Christ-like. It is why I said the Christian life isn't easy.

I am probably not explaining it that well, but it's the best I can do, sorry!

The reality is that the bible is a convoluted tangle of competing philosophies and parables, such that there is support to be found within its pages for virtually any given social view. (An obvious example with which most of us are familiar - in one instance the bible tells us that if we are wronged, [G]od's message is that we are to turn the other cheek - yet in another we are told that if we are wronged, [G]od's message is that it is to be an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth. Granted this is an extreme example, but both passages are often quoted by Christian's to justify various social attitudes, and therefore serves to illustrate the point.) In the same way, most people will find their own prejudices and judgements validated through a selective examination of their faith.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Christianity is bad, nor do I believe that all Christians are intellectually dishonest hypocrites. What I am saying is that describing yourself as a Christian is largely meaningless in so far as it speaks to the consistency (or validity) of your beliefs, nor does it immunize you from criticism by suggesting that it requires some sort of unique personal insight to understand the complexities of your belief system.

[monza gorilla 1]

...if we are wronged, [G]od's message is that it is to be an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth.

Hammurabi's law, I thought.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Mike, there is nothing wrong with using the bible as a basis for your personal philosophy, but would you not also acknowledge that it is written in such a convoluted way that you essentially get out of it what you put into it? Whatever your pre-conceived prejudices and biases are, there's a biblical passage that can be found to reinforce it.

As a result, the bible is equally capable of fomenting attitudes of bigotry, intolerance, and condemnation (as we have seen in this very thread!!!). If it were truly a book that consistently taught a message of love, respect, equality and tolerance for others, it would not be such a controversial issue.....

No. There is a right and wrong way to understanding the Bible. You must have a working knowledge of the cultures involved, the correct translations (of which the King James is not) and the proper foundations in Judaism to correctly understand the Bible. If you lack any of those, you will come to wrong conclusions (such as the view that it is 'convoluted' or 'inconsistent').

Mike, do you not support the separation of church and state? That is what Jaq is talking about. If we are not vigilant about that separation, then there can be no meaningful freedom of conscience for any of us.

The separation of church and state is a good thing. No country has the right to establish a national religion (it would be well to establish here that the concept of 'separation of church and state' as we know it was a Supreme Court interpretation of the first part of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."). Going back to jaq's argument, George Bush isn't establishing a national religion or showing favor to any one religious body. There's a distiction between voting my beliefs and a leader establishing a religion. Indeed, there is a difference in a leader establishing a religion and a leader being religious.

Vigilance about that separation can take many forms. Taken to the extreme, you could use that 'vigilance' to forbid me to practice my religion. In the US we have eliminated a vast majority of religious thought and bias from our government establishments. That, certainly, is as far as we take this 'vigilance', no?

To assume that separation of church and state means I must table my religious views when I enter the ballot box would be going too far, I feel, and would be infringing on another valuable right in that fine 1st Amendment.

[pabloh20 1]

I am more familiar with the "Christian" life than you might suspect...

Well, from what you said, I wouldn't have guessed, because it didn't sound anything like any Christians I have ever heard. However, that's just my experience I guess

The reality is that the bible is a convoluted tangle of competing philosophies and parables, such that there is support to be found within its pages for virtually any given social view. (An obvious example with which most of us are familiar - in one instance the bible tells us that if we are wronged, [G]od's message is that we are to turn the other cheek - yet in another we are told that if we are wronged, [G]od's message is that it is to be an eye for eye, a tooth for a tooth. Granted this is an extreme example, but both passages are often quoted by Christian's to justify various social attitudes, and therefore serves to illustrate the point.) In the same way, most people will find their own prejudices and judgements validated through a selective examination of their faith.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Christianity is bad, nor do I believe that all Christians are intellectually dishonest hypocrites. What I am saying is that describing yourself as a Christian is largely meaningless in so far as it speaks to the consistency (or validity) of your beliefs, nor does it immunize you from criticism by suggesting that it requires some sort of unique personal insight to understand the complexities of your belief system.

In your example, a true Christian would turn the other cheek. And I can't really imagine a Christian quoting an eye for an eye to justify a social attitude, certainly none I have ever heard.

The only reason you believe that being a Christian is largely meaningless or that it doesn't require some sort of personal insight to understand, is because you have never been a Christian. Now, as I said before, I am not a practising Christian anymore so I don't claim to be one, but your comments do show a complete lack of understanding on what it is to be a Christian. Now, imagine if I made various comments on exactly what a Lawyer's life is like, but said I had never been a Lawyer and then said you don't have to be a Lawyer to have any real insight - how would you treat my comments? Well, I know exactly how you would treat my comments, actually You can judge from the outside, that's fair enough, but you don't have any real insight on what it is to be a Christian unless you are or have been a Christian, probably like many walks of life, I guess. It's really hard to explain exactly what being a Christian really means, so I am not even going to try and it's all getting far too preachy for my liking!

[Max Mosley 2]

1) Hammurabi's Law is interesting. Never knew about it before (the things a gorrila can tell you....) and it seems surprisingly feminist in places. ("If a man wants to separate from a woman who has given birth to his children, a part of land and money has to be given to her by the husband. When the children grow up, the wife can remarry.") Wonder what Father's for Justice would make of that.

2) I tend to agree with Jay that the Bible is not at all clear-cut. Mainly because even devout xians can't agree. Also why didn't God implant a sense of right and wrong within us, if He wanted us to know right from wrong? Perhaps He did - but then there seem to be genuine differences on so many issues it seems He didn't do a very good job.

3) On the separation of religion and voting-intentions, I agree there are issues that you can't separate like abortion or adoption, namely those areas where you are "protecting" a third party who can't defend itself. But what about the religious folks who try to restrict consenting adults' freedom, like on the right to euthanasia, or the right to enjoy offensive or blasphemous material (in ways which don't unreasonably force that upon believers I mean of course)?

[pabloh20 1]

1) Hammurabi's Law is interesting. Never knew about it before (the things a gorrila can tell you....) and it seems surprisingly feminist in places. ("If a man wants to separate from a woman who has given birth to his children, a part of land and money has to be given to her by the husband. When the children grow up, the wife can remarry.") Wonder what Father's for Justice would make of that.

2) I tend to agree with Jay that the Bible is not at all clear-cut. Mainly because even devout xians can't agree. Also why didn't God implant a sense of right and wrong within us, if He wanted us to know right from wrong? Perhaps He did - but then there seem to be genuine differences on so many issues it seems He didn't do a very good job.

3) On the separation of religion and voting-intentions, I agree there are issues that you can't separate like abortion or adoption, namely those areas where you are "protecting" a third party who can't defend itself. But what about the religious folks who try to restrict consenting adults' freedom, like on the right to euthanasia, or the right to enjoy offensive or blasphemous material (in ways which don't unreasonably force that upon believers I mean of course)?

As I said before, Murray, nobody ever claims it's an easy life. However, don't forget that many things are taken out of context in the Bible and there are many things that Christians, even from different denominations, do agree on as well

[Autumnpuma 0]

2) I tend to agree with Jay that the Bible is not at all clear-cut. Mainly because even devout xians can't agree.

This only proves that some fail to do the research needed to find out what the Bible is saying. Take one instance in the Bible that you feel isn't clear cut and I'll do my best to answer it.

Also why didn't God implant a sense of right and wrong within us, if He wanted us to know right from wrong? Perhaps He did - but then there seem to be genuine differences on so many issues it seems He didn't do a very good job.

Not so. The Old Testament talks about how God views some non-Hebrew peoples as knowing more about right and wrong, and living that way, than the Hebrew people themselves were living, even though the Hebrews had the Law and the non-Hebrews didn't. You'll find that the vast majority of people have very similar views on what is right and wrong.

3) On the separation of religion and voting-intentions, I agree there are issues that you can't separate like abortion or adoption, namely those areas where you are "protecting" a third party who can't defend itself. But what about the religious folks who try to restrict consenting adults' freedom, like on the right to euthanasia, or the right to enjoy offensive or blasphemous material (in ways which don't unreasonably force that upon believers I mean of course)?

I would say each person has the right to believe what they want to and to vote accordingly. That is the essence of freedom. It's not required that everyone think the same as you do to vote, though I'd imagine you'd think that was wonderful. All that is required is that you vote your conscience.

EDIT: As I said earlier, I would not vote if the sexuality issue appeared on the ballot, so I understand what you're saying, Murray (of course I wouldn't condemn someone else for voting).

[pumpdoc 2]

Why is this cluster-fuk, circle jerk of an argument still going, everybodys made thier points............

[Max Mosley 2]

As I said before, Murray, nobody ever claims it's an easy life. However, don't forget that many things are taken out of context in the Bible and there are many things that Christians, even from different denominations, do agree on as well

Yeah, very true Paul. Some people do clearly twist the Bible, you're right.

This only proves that some fail to do the research needed to find out what the Bible is saying. Take one instance in the Bible that you feel isn't clear cut and I'll do my best to answer it.

Thanks for your answer Mike. I wouldn't want to get into a long debate about the Bible if you don't want to. I appreciate it's a more sensitive issue for you than me. But what about the role of gays in Christianity for example? I mean, the Episcopalian Church in the US has a very different view (thankfully) to it's Anglican brethren here.

Not so. The Old Testament talks about how God views some non-Hebrew peoples as knowing more about right and wrong, and living that way, than the Hebrew people themselves were living, even though the Hebrews had the Law and the non-Hebrews didn't. You'll find that the vast majority of people have very similar views on what is right and wrong.

Yeah on the whole that's true, but there are undoubtedly disagreements between people on many moral issues and between what the Bible apparently advocates (depending on the interpretation) and what many of us think on many issues.

I would say each person has the right to believe what they want to and to vote accordingly. That is the essence of freedom. It's not required that everyone think the same as you do to vote, though I'd imagine you'd think that was wonderful. All that is required is that you vote your conscience.

Your cynicism cuts me to the quick Mike! Actually you're wrong anyway. If everyone agreed with me, how then could I be smug and superior?

EDIT: As I said earlier, I would not vote if the sexuality issue appeared on the ballot, so I understand what you're saying, Murray (of course I wouldn't condemn someone else for voting).

Ah OK so that's just what I'm talking about. In abortion or adoption debates I can accept religion entering because the needs of the child must be considered etc, but on issues purely to do with private, individual sexual actions for example, then I think religious (or any other, not directly involved) people have no right to interfere. I think that's a vital rule for a multicultural society to adopt: if an action only affects the individual concerned then he should be able to make his own choice free from anybody else's moral dictats.

[Schumikonen 2]

Yes it's easy to start to generalise here. But still, on average, religious people are far poorer than non-religious people, they die earlier and suffer more. This makes Schumikonen's point that God only performs miracles on those who believe seem somewhat implausible to me. Also it casts doubt on many other religious claims. Finally I agree with Jaq that some, but of course as you point out, by no means all, religious leaders exploit the poor.

I am back again.

No Murray people who believe in God is not supose to be poorer, the bible gives you some point that you should take in caount and if you do thoses things you will be poor, you will have a prosper life and I can tell right that this is being preach in most churches today, I can tell you about me, I came to USA and I was without a job I started to work and got my children back here to live with me, I rented an apartment for 800 dollars and 21 days later I lost my job and my wife too, during that time I never got late paying the rent, I got money even form people who didn't know what i was going throught and that include a check from church of 700 dollars, tha was on winter, I lost my job on 1-6-2006 the coldest part of the year my electricity was 460 dollars the bigest one and I had two childrens to feed, I can tell you that I always had food and the money to pay the bills even when I was without job, there was a reason for me being in that situation, my wife need to do something, I told her what she needed to do, she started doing it adn form that moment to this day I am working in the best I have had in USA and she is working too, I am not taking any food stamps, no wicks, and I am already planning to buy a house, I got my car, I got two salary raise in ten months, now I am waiting for a income tax return of more than 7,000 dollars wich is more than 224,000 in DR money enough to buy an apartment or a house in some places over there, and I can tell you from now that you will here bigger things from me in the economic field from now, thoses people that you see like poorer and not being taught well or they are not believing what is in the bible.

This is part of my story and there are still more in this field but this is not my biography.

[Schumikonen 2]

What miracle have you seen? Have you handled snakes and drank poison and not been hurt? The miracle i'd like to see is no more scripture, just your very own opinion.

I had already posted that in this and other thread, the biggest one that I saw was a leg that was shorter growing to reach the size of the other one, and there are evidence of this, this is on video, ut thoses things are better when they happend in your eyes, there are a lot peple that God use to do theses miracle I had posted some names, if you are really interest in watching a miracle you should try to go to one of thoses miracle crusade and you will see for yourself.

[funkejay 0]

Well, from what you said, I wouldn't have guessed, because it didn't sound anything like any Christians I have ever heard. However, that's just my experience I guess

In your example, a true Christian would turn the other cheek. And I can't really imagine a Christian quoting an eye for an eye to justify a social attitude, certainly none I have ever heard.

This is an interesting concept, and one I've certainly encountered before. Adherents distinguishing between "Christians" and "true Christians", as if those who call themselves Christians but do not share that particular adherents beliefs are not 'truly' Christian. Aparently there is even an heirarchy of piety amongst the believers....

The only reason you believe that being a Christian is largely meaningless or that it doesn't require some sort of personal insight to understand, is because you have never been a Christian. Now, as I said before, I am not a practising Christian anymore so I don't claim to be one, but your comments do show a complete lack of understanding on what it is to be a Christian. Now, imagine if I made various comments on exactly what a Lawyer's life is like, but said I had never been a Lawyer and then said you don't have to be a Lawyer to have any real insight - how would you treat my comments? Well, I know exactly how you would treat my comments, actually You can judge from the outside, that's fair enough, but you don't have any real insight on what it is to be a Christian unless you are or have been a Christian, probably like many walks of life, I guess. It's really hard to explain exactly what being a Christian really means, so I am not even going to try and it's all getting far too preachy for my liking!

I'm always surprised at the assumptions people will make about me based on nothing more than an argument I've proposed. What do you know about my personal history pabloh that would qualify you to make such a statement?

My point that the bible is not only capable of supporting competing philosophies, but actually does form the basis of differing interpretations, is self apparent, and requires no personal experience as a Christian to observe.

This only proves that some fail to do the research needed to find out what the Bible is saying. Take one instance in the Bible that you feel isn't clear cut and I'll do my best to answer it.

Mike, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but if I do, I'm surprised at what you're suggesting.

You're not actually claiming that there is only one correct interpretation of the bible, are you? Or that all Christians either agree with your interpretation or are mistaken? Most biblical scholars wouldn't even make that claim - such is the level of disagreement as to the meaning of vast portions of its text (not to mention the questionable accuracy of early translations and the vagaries inherent in the promulgation of hand made copies before the advent of the printing press).

You also indicated earlier that competing interpretations of the bible and Christ's teachings do not cause various Christian denominations to disagree on basic tenets of faith, by suggesting that the bible was open only to one correct interpretation. I'm somewhat surprised that you would say that, when there is no question that many Christians earnestly disagree on the very topic that we've been debating here.

For example, The United Church of Canada not only openly accepts gay congregants, but since 1988, has even ordaned a number of gay ministers. The United Church long ago affirmed their acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God regardless of sexual orientation. And this is no fringe element of the Christian community in Canada - quite the contrary - The United Church is Canada

[Autumnpuma 0]

Why is this cluster-fuk, circle jerk of an argument still going, everybodys made thier points............

Because we're bored.

Thanks for your answer Mike. I wouldn't want to get into a long debate about the Bible if you don't want to.

Truthfully, I don't want to.

Your cynicism cuts me to the quick Mike! Actually you're wrong anyway. If everyone agreed with me, how then could I be smug and superior?

I didn't mean it quite that way! I was making a point, but not a statement about you personally!

This is an interesting concept, and one I've certainly encountered before. Adherents distinguishing between "Christians" and "true Christians", as if those who call themselves Christians but do not share that particular adherents beliefs are not 'truly' Christian. Aparently there is even an heirarchy of piety amongst the believers....

All Christians are brothers. Any one that puts himself/herself above another is not following the religion correctly.

My point that the bible is not only capable of supporting competing philosophies, but actually does form the basis of differing interpretations, is self apparent, and requires no personal experience as a Christian to observe.

What you call 'different philosophies' are actually shoddy research. There are only correct translations and correct context. The Bible is like any book or piece of history and should be analysed the same way.

Mike, I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, but if I do, I'm surprised at what you're suggesting.

You're not actually claiming that there is only one correct interpretation of the bible, are you? Or that all Christians either agree with your interpretation or are mistaken? Most biblical scholars wouldn't even make that claim - such is the level of disagreement as to the meaning of vast portions of its text (not to mention the questionable accuracy of early translations and the vagaries inherent in the promulgation of hand made copies before the advent of the printing press).

Most differing interpretations of the Bible are based on incorrect translations. This is a linguistic aspect that is either right or wrong. Ditto for cultural misinterpretations. For example, All of Paul's writings are taken from letters....of which we only have his response to questions or situations put to him. If you didn't know that, you would have a far different interpretation of his words. Also, I'm constantly surprised at how many people quote individual verses without consideration of context and, indeed, without the knowledge that the original wasn't written in verse, as the King James has it. In the Old Testament there are a number of Psalms that begin with 'To the Chief Musician'. This is taken to mean Christ by most scholars, but those same scholars accept the placement of that phrase at the beginning of the Psalm in question rather than correctly place it (according to the Massorah) at the end of the preceding Psalm--and draw incorrect conclusions from the Psalm so erroneously titled. By placing this phrase correctly, it eliminates some contextual problems with the Septuagint's translations. It also brings those Psalms into harmony with the Psalm models of Isa. 38, 19-20 and Hab. 3.

You also indicated earlier that competing interpretations of the bible and Christ's teachings do not cause various Christian denominations to disagree on basic tenets of faith, by suggesting that the bible was open only to one correct interpretation. I'm somewhat surprised that you would say that, when there is no question that many Christians earnestly disagree on the very topic that we've been debating here.

The basic tenets I was referring to were Christ's nature and purpose here on earth. Even a Catholic and an Anglican can agree on that, and it's a 'basic tenet'. If you read much more into my statement than that, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to the depth that you took it.

For example, The United Church of Canada not only openly accepts gay congregants, but since 1988, has even ordaned a number of gay ministers. The United Church long ago affirmed their acceptance of all human beings as persons made in the image of God regardless of sexual orientation. And this is no fringe element of the Christian community in Canada - quite the contrary - The United Church is Canada

[jaq 0]

No. There is a right and wrong way to understanding the Bible. You must have a working knowledge of the cultures involved, the correct translations (of which the King James is not) and the proper foundations in Judaism to correctly understand the Bible. If you lack any of those, you will come to wrong conclusions (such as the view that it is 'convoluted' or 'inconsistent').

The separation of church and state is a good thing. No country has the right to establish a national religion (it would be well to establish here that the concept of 'separation of church and state' as we know it was a Supreme Court interpretation of the first part of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."). Going back to jaq's argument, George Bush isn't establishing a national religion or showing favor to any one religious body. There's a distiction between voting my beliefs and a leader establishing a religion. Indeed, there is a difference in a leader establishing a religion and a leader being religious.

Vigilance about that separation can take many forms. Taken to the extreme, you could use that 'vigilance' to forbid me to practice my religion. In the US we have eliminated a vast majority of religious thought and bias from our government establishments. That, certainly, is as far as we take this 'vigilance', no?

To assume that separation of church and state means I must table my religious views when I enter the ballot box would be going too far, I feel, and would be infringing on another valuable right in that fine 1st Amendment.

I never mentioned anything about George Bush eastablishing a national religion or favoring any one religion. My point was that G.B. is setting polocy based on his religious beliefs. He'd love to change the abortion law, in fact he'd like to abolish abortion, period, he's vetoed embryonic stem cell research, he's against same sex marriage. The list could go on. He's against anything that his faith believes is wrong.this crosses the separation of state and church. He believes what is good for him is good for all. it's wrong

[BradSpeedMan 6]

You go back to the Bible and rightly divide it with the correct translations, history and cultural awareness. One very big misconception is the 'rapture' theory. It isn't in the Bible at all and the verses used to explain it are misused and out of context.

Whats are you saying Mike??????

Now you really have me interested..... The rapture is detailed in Revelations....

[funkejay 0]

What you call 'different philosophies' are actually shoddy research. There are only correct translations and correct context. The Bible is like any book or piece of history and should be analysed the same way.

I agree with you on this Mike, but where you and I disagree is whether there can ever be a 'correct' interpretation of the bible. The best you can do is take a very educated guess at the meaning intended by each particular author, and where there is confusion, attempt to reach a consensus of opion. Even were you able to discern an absolutely precise translation from an original text of any given book of the bible (if such a thing ever existed) you would still have to 'interpret' much of what was written, if for no other reason than much of the bible is intended as a metaphor, and not as a literal truth.

There's just no getting away from it Mike, the bible is a metaphorical document, not a literal one, and understanding it is therefore an exercise in interpretation, as much as you may not want to admit it.

Homosexuality is a sin, just like many other sins. Christ forgives sins. Nowhere does the Bible state that a homosexual person is forbidden to be a minister, (though it does explain in Timothy how to be a Godly minister and that minister should try to be as sin-free as possible). It simply warns against that act as it does many sins that other humans (and ministers) commit. The churches that take a hard line against homosexuality cannot bring up any section about the topic that states homosexuality is any greater sin than any other sin. Churches get so enraptured with the 'abomination' talk in the OT and the NT admonitions against homosexuality that they completely forget that Christ forgives ALL sins and that we are not to judge another person.

Now I ask you, does your Church of Canada recognize homosexuality as a sin? If not, then it is not a correct teaching, according to it's own religious text that it reads from every Sunday.

It's actually called the United Church (the Canada part only dilleneates that it is the Canadian branch of that particular denomination) - and for the record, I do not, nor have I ever, belonged to it. I merely used it as a high profile example of one Christian denomination that accepts homosexuality without qualification.

Unless I am mistaken Mike, the UCofC does not consider homosexuality to be a sin any more than heterosexuality. As for the correctness or incorrectness of this view, you are certainly entitled to your opinion (based on your interpretation of the bible), but it is still only your opinion......

[Schumikonen 2]

Whats are you saying Mike??????

Now you really have me interested..... The rapture is detailed in Revelations....

What Puma is saying is true, there will be no rapture, at least, not like church is expecting today, that is a wrong teaching, there is a lot of info in the bible about this.

[pabloh20 1]

This is an interesting concept, and one I've certainly encountered before. Adherents distinguishing between "Christians" and "true Christians", as if those who call themselves Christians but do not share that particular adherents beliefs are not 'truly' Christian. Aparently there is even an heirarchy of piety amongst the believers....

My usage of true Christian was just to distinguish between a Christian and a non Christian, anything else is just your interpretation. If you have heard Christians making distinctions between different levels of Christians, then I would argue that they are not really a Christian, or certainly not acting like a Christian.

I'm always surprised at the assumptions people will make about me based on nothing more than an argument I've proposed. What do you know about my personal history pabloh that would qualify you to make such a statement?

Probably in the same way that if you heard somebody talking about being a Lawyer, who wasn't actually a Lawyer, you would pick up on it straight away. The things you said show a complete lack of understanding of being a Christian, whatever denomination.

My point that the bible is not only capable of supporting competing philosophies, but actually does form the basis of differing interpretations, is self apparent, and requires no personal experience as a Christian to observe.

With all due respect, I disagree. You were talking about the Christian way of life and of that you don't seem to have any basis in fact to talk about. Sure, you can have your opinions of the Bible, philosophies, etc, but you can't truly know about being a Christian unless you have been one. All you can do is have an opinion based on your perception of what it's like.