hahaha Bush says he doesn't believe in the Bible, does believe in evolution

[Minstrel]

dunno if it's just leviticus. i've heard a lot of christians refer to paul in romans 1 on the subject.

Paul, though, doesn't refer to homosexuality as an "abomination" in Romans 1. His comment is actually more cryptic than that.

Referring to homosexuality as an abomination, I believe, can only come from Leviticus.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

Sure it does.

I see significant portions of it in common law, US law, and modern philosophy, the civil rights movement, govt. policies, and more.

[[Citation Needed]]

Civil rights? Give me a break. The new testament encourages slavery and is fully against woman's rights.

P.S. I hope you know Homosexuals and Muslims count when you say "civil rights."

 

[Denny Crane]

[[Citation Needed]]

Civil rights? Give me a break. The new testament encourages slavery and is fully against woman's rights.

P.S. I hop you know Homosexuals and Muslims count when you say "civil rights."

I favor same sex marriage, and I have no issue with Muslims nor do I think anyone should basically be treated any less than anyone else. But hey, that's the "do unto others" thing in action.

It just so happens that the progressive movement is one of those I see these things from the old testament in:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b87308.html

Of course the civil rights movement itself (which I lived through and remember quite well:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionand...and-the-civil-rights-movement/background/335/

Then there's the whole "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" business, which isn't secular at all.

Communist philosophy is quite close to the scriptures, though they claim to be godless.

The whole "nation of laws" concept is based upon religion at its very core.

&c

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

I favor same sex marriage, and I have no issue with Muslims nor do I think anyone should basically be treated any less than anyone else. But hey, that's the "do unto others" thing in action.

It just so happens that the progressive movement is one of those I see these things from the old testament in:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/06/b87308.html

Of course the civil rights movement itself (which I lived through and remember quite well:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionand...and-the-civil-rights-movement/background/335/

Then there's the whole "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights" business, which isn't secular at all.

Communist philosophy is quite close to the scriptures, though they claim to be godless.

The whole "nation of laws" concept is based upon religion at its very core.

&c

Still waiting for your examples. Prove 10% of Leviticus still applies to humanity today. And show me somewhere in the bible that says what parts of Leviticus humanity is still supposed to follow I'd love it.

 

[BrianFromWA]

EVERYBODY LOOK, THIS IS WHAT A HYPOCRITICAL CHRISTIAN LOOKS LIKE!!!
If you were just a normal person you could get away with this. But no, you choose to claim holiness. You choose to claim a spot above others. You say sinners should live like you. Yet here you show the evil within you. You show your disbelief. You show that your faith is nothing but a front. You are every bit the stereotypical hypocrite.
I shall not dare challenge your knowledge of the bible, but your claim to know with certainty my knowledge of the bible. Wow. What a hateful example you show.

Um, where to begin. 1) I don't think that in any of my posts today that I have claimed a spot above others. Please stop lying. There are plenty of things you can challenge or disagree with me about without making things up.
2) I have evil within me. Never claimed I didn't.
3) I can't fathom where you get my "disbelief"
4) Sure, if you think I'm a stereotypical hypocrite it must be true. You are the arbiter of truth in your life, you've said. Who am I to argue?
5) You can challenge my knowledge of the Bible all you want to. I asked you not to answer out of your ignorance.
6) If my faith was a front, I would not be subjecting myself to this. It's easy to just place you on "ignore" and pray for you to find whatever you're desperately searching for. But I'm hoping that somehow this helps you or someone else understand the few of us who believe in Imaginary Friends.

Thank you for showing me Christ through you.

You're welcome. But my sarcasm meter is pegging.

 

[rocketeer]

Um, where to begin. 1) I don't think that in any of my posts today that I have claimed a spot above others. Please stop lying. There are plenty of things you can challenge or disagree with me about without making things up.
2) I have evil within me. Never claimed I didn't.
3) I can't fathom where you get my "disbelief"
4) Sure, if you think I'm a stereotypical hypocrite it must be true. You are the arbiter of truth in your life, you've said. Who am I to argue?
5) You can challenge my knowledge of the Bible all you want to. I asked you not to answer out of your ignorance.
6) If my faith was a front, I would not be subjecting myself to this. It's easy to just place you on "ignore" and pray for you to find whatever you're desperately searching for. But I'm hoping that somehow this helps you or someone else understand the few of us who believe in Imaginary Friends.

i wouldn't even bother discussing this with drink your milkshake. his first post in this thread(until he edited) said that if we exterminated all christians, the world would be a better place.

 

[Drink Your Milkshake]

i wouldn't even bother discussing this with drink your milkshake. his first post in this thread(until he edited) said that if we exterminated all christians, the world would be a better place.

Don't Christians believe the world would be a better place if all the sinners were removed? Why is it bad for me to think the same thing? Don't Christians pray for the rapture everyday? Isn't that about getting the fuck out of here? Shouldn't you be glad that someone wants you to go play with your god in Heaven Land?

 

[BrianFromWA]

Still waiting for your examples. Prove 10% of Leviticus still applies to humanity today. And show me somewhere in the bible that says what parts of Leviticus humanity is still supposed to follow I'd love it.

Happy to oblige. Don't trust me. From Scripture:
We are under the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28)

This is my blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins

not the old one(Romans 7:5-6).

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. Bu now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released form the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

under grace(Romans 6:14)

For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace

because Jesus is the end of the law(Romans 10:4)

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

.
Now whatever we do must glorify God(1 Cor 10:31ff)

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the Church of God, even as I try to please everybody in every way For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.

.

I don't know anything about you, DYM. I don't know who you've talked to, been around, been taught by, been wronged by, etc. It seems as if someone or something has been horrible to you, b/c of emotion you're showing. I'm sorry about that, and I genuinely care and feel bad at the same time. I'm trying hard NOT to be someone who is condemning, irrational, argumentative, legalistic, judgemental, or anything else. If that's come across, to you or anyone else, please accept my apologies. That is not my intention or my goal.

If there's anything I hope you take from this, it's this: I don't claim to be perfect or better than anyone. I was in a place of unbelief and questioning, much like many of you seem to be. I don't pretend to think I can change your mind--only God can do that. I'm hoping that you get a small glimpse that there are many "Christians" out there that are genuinely trying to live according to the principles of the Bible--that Jesus is Lord of our lives (so we try to do what He says), that the Bible is true, and that we are tasked with telling people about Jesus. The two greatest commandments are to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Paul, though, doesn't refer to homosexuality as an "abomination" in Romans 1. His comment is actually more cryptic than that.

Referring to homosexuality as an abomination, I believe, can only come from Leviticus.

Someone please enlighten me on why homosexuality is the hot button issue? I mean, for both Christians (some of whom seem to think it's diabolical or an abomination or whatever) or for non-Christians who think it's the hill they're going to stand and fight on. Why not other things? Sexual immorality? Divorce? Not caring for widows and orphans?

 

[BrianFromWA]

He is those things, too, but more of an "in the end" kind of way.



Use your Reason man!

The greek epics were about a very different (mulitple gods) kind of religion. Those depicted the gods as rather immature and more human than human. The actual humans? They were the most virtuous any human could possibly be.

The Bible is full of war and killing and punishments. If one were to truly take lessons from it, we'd have killed every last man, woman, and child in Iraq and taken everything as spoils. That's what the victors did in the biblical stories.

Actually, for a military mind reading the stories of the conquest of Canaan are actually eye-opening.

For some, it's uncomfortable...b/c it is a form of genocide. But you also see that unless the Israelites did exactly what God told them to do (to include how many men to take, how to fight the battle, what "spoils" to take, who to take prisoner or not, etc) they were also punished, many times with death or losing the battle. God has His reasons for everything, and disobedience is disobedience.

 

[Minstrel]

Someone please enlighten me on why homosexuality is the hot button issue?

No idea why it is a hot-button issue for Christians, so many of whom seem determined to inflict their beliefs on others, who aren't hurting anyone by their actions (or desired actions, that being marriage).

It's a hot-button issue for many non-Christians because the ability for many people who love each other to marry is at stake. That's pretty significant.

 

[Minstrel]

For some, it's uncomfortable...b/c it is a form of genocide. But you also see that unless the Israelites did exactly what God told them to do (to include how many men to take, how to fight the battle, what "spoils" to take, who to take prisoner or not, etc) they were also punished, many times with death or losing the battle. God has His reasons for everything, and disobedience is disobedience.

Heh. "Just following orders." The parallel you depict is striking.

 

[barfo]

God has His reasons for everything

Does He? How do you know? He certainly doesn't share his reasons with us. So what makes you think he has reasons? Maybe he's just throwing cosmic darts. Isn't it a little presumptuous of you to suggest that you know the mind of God well enough to know he has reasons for what he does?


barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

But it's relatively new, right? I mean, let's take the marriage part out of it for a second. Aside from that (and discounting the despicable-ness of hate crimes against people of any sub-culture), has anyone legislated against homosexuality? I admit, I'm a little ignorant on this.

My take is probably a little odd on this; there's nothing that makes a homosexual different than a heterosexual (I'll just use myself as an example here for clarity) other than the mode by which they have sex. We can read the same books, work the same job, have the same hobbies, love the same basketball team, wear the same clothes, etc. The only thing different is mode of sexuality.

Since we've talked online here about this before, Minstrel, let me say that I'm trying to develop why I feel what I do about homosexual marriages. I have been trying to see what the Scripture says about it, and it's not a whole lot. But it seems as if legalization of it would fall under the category of "helping lead one astray". Since I believe the Bible (and specifically the NT) does not condone homosexuality, my vote for gay marriage would be condoning something the Bible does not.

I can't speak for all Christians on this, so please don't take it that way.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Does He? How do you know? He certainly doesn't share his reasons with us. So what makes you think he has reasons? Maybe he's just throwing cosmic darts. Isn't it a little presumptuous of you to suggest that you know the mind of God well enough to know he has reasons for what he does?


barfo

I don't suggest any presumption. I quoted above what He said. Maybe He is throwing cosmic darts. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth on this?

 

[barfo]

I don't suggest any presumption. I quoted above what He said. Maybe He is throwing cosmic darts. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth on this?

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to understand your point of view. I didn't (and still don't) see the quote you are referring to. But this is a long thread and it is entirely possible I missed the connection.

Edit: but you did say God has his reasons for everything, and that's rather at odds with saying that maybe he is throwing cosmic darts.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Heh. "Just following orders." The parallel you depict is striking.

It's amazing, isn't it, that in the last century there has been a change for the first time in thousands of years of warfare to "soldier's rights" and "conventions", that were only followed by the "good guys"? The Japanese didn't abide by them, the Russians didn't abide by them, the Vietnamese didn't abide by them (though the despicable affair at My Lai is all that is remembered), the Iraqis in both wars didn't abide by them, the terrorists don't abide by them, etc., etc. etc. The US government has been at the forefront of making sure that there are codified "legal orders" (and conversely, "illegal orders"), and that disobedience of them are punished. Yet American military members are usually the only ones vilified, especially by Americans.

 

[Minstrel]

But it's relatively new, right? I mean, let's take the marriage part out of it for a second. Aside from that (and discounting the despicable-ness of hate crimes against people of any sub-culture), has anyone legislated against homosexuality? I admit, I'm a little ignorant on this.

In England, homosexuality was illegal until sometime in the 1960s, I believe. I think various states in the US have had laws against homosexuality (or "sodomy") in the past.

Since we've talked online here about this before, Minstrel, let me say that I'm trying to develop why I feel what I do about homosexual marriages. I have been trying to see what the Scripture says about it, and it's not a whole lot. But it seems as if legalization of it would fall under the category of "helping lead one astray". Since I believe the Bible (and specifically the NT) does not condone homosexuality, my vote for gay marriage would be condoning something the Bible does not.

But the legal system is not a vehicle for ensuring people follow the religious path you believe in. Syppose the country were majority Hindu, would you approve of them outlawing eating beef, since they feel eating beef would lead you astray by their religious beliefs? Suppose there were a religion that felt marriage in general was sinful, and they attained a majority in Washington...would you be comfortable with them abolishing marriage altogether, to keep you from going astray?

The legal system should be for preventing people from infringing upon the person and belongings of others (to simplify it). If people wish to drink, or have sex out of wedlock or marry a same-sex partner, why shouldn't they be able to, if they don't have the same beliefs as you? They shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from following your belief system, but why shouldn't they be allowed to live as they choose so long as it doesn't mean infringing upon others?

 

[BrianFromWA]

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was trying to understand your point of view. I didn't (and still don't) see the quote you are referring to. But this is a long thread and it is entirely possible I missed the connection.

barfo

No worries, here it is again:

"My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord.
'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 55:8-9

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.
Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and depart from evil." Proverbs 3:5-7

All I was saying was that, when asked why God does something or why He thinks a certain way, I can only honestly answer "I don't know". You guys would see through BS even if I wanted to lie or make excuses for God, which I don't (and He doesn't need). What does he require of me?

"And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" Micah 6:8

 

[Minstrel]

It's amazing, isn't it, that in the last century there has been a change for the first time in thousands of years of warfare to "soldier's rights" and "conventions", that were only followed by the "good guys"? The Japanese didn't abide by them, the Russians didn't abide by them, the Vietnamese didn't abide by them (though the despicable affair at My Lai is all that is remembered), the Iraqis in both wars didn't abide by them, the terrorists don't abide by them, etc., etc. etc. The US government has been at the forefront of making sure that there are codified "legal orders" (and conversely, "illegal orders"), and that disobedience of them are punished. Yet American military members are usually the only ones vilified, especially by Americans.

Well, this is a rather different issue, isn't it? Personally, I think ethical treatment of others, in war or not, is an imperative for all cultures. I am simply a part of this one, so I speak my piece for what I see as the betterment of our culture/society.

Ultimately, should our standards of conduct be the same as terrorists? Or the evil regimes we fight and claim to be (and, in fact, obviously are) better than? It shouldn't matter what Hussein's Iraq does, or what Al Qaeda does. We should have our own standard of ethics and want to be held to a higher standard, because we aim to be much, much, much better than tyrannies and terrorists. And we should be disappointed whenever we fail to meet our own standards, rather than take solace in the fact that the people we fight do bad things.

 

[barfo]

It's amazing, isn't it, that in the last century there has been a change for the first time in thousands of years of warfare to "soldier's rights" and "conventions", that were only followed by the "good guys"? The Japanese didn't abide by them, the Russians didn't abide by them, the Vietnamese didn't abide by them (though the despicable affair at My Lai is all that is remembered),

i.e., the Americans didn't abide by them.

the Iraqis in both wars didn't abide by them

Abu Ghraib

, the terrorists don't abide by them,

Gitmo

etc., etc. etc. The US government has been at the forefront of making sure that there are codified "legal orders" (and conversely, "illegal orders"), and that disobedience of them are punished. Yet American military members are usually the only ones vilified, especially by Americans.

We have high standards, and when they aren't met, there is a (small) price to be paid. You can't at once praise the US for setting high standards, and at the same time condemn it for being intolerant of failure to meet those standards.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

In England, homosexuality was illegal until sometime in the 1960s, I believe. I think various states in the US have had laws against homosexuality (or "sodomy") in the past.



But the legal system is not a vehicle for ensuring people follow the religious path you believe in. Syppose the country were majority Hindu, would you approve of them outlawing eating beef, since they feel eating beef would lead you astray by their religious beliefs? Suppose there were a religion that felt marriage in general was sinful, and they attained a majority in Washington...would you be comfortable with them abolishing marriage altogether, to keep you from going astray?

The legal system should be for preventing people from infringing upon the person and belongings of others (to simplify it). If people wish to drink, or have sex out of wedlock or marry a same-sex partner, why shouldn't they be able to, if they don't have the same beliefs as you? They shouldn't be allowed to prevent you from following your belief system, but why shouldn't they be allowed to live as they choose so long as it doesn't mean infringing upon others?

Great points. My personal, relatively uninformed response is that I have subjected myself to the laws of the United States. If tomorrow, 51% of people voted to outlaw beef, I would have an obligation not to eat beef ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"). I would vote against that legislation, because I do not feel it's right. If the law in CA would have passed, I wouldn't be bombing judges who performed the ceremonies (and I would condemn, obviously, anyone who did). Let's look at abortion. I'm opposed to that as well, but it's the law of the land. Would I vote to abolish abortion if it came up? Yes, based on my religious beliefs. The Christians in Rome were persecuted for their beliefs, and were thrown in jail for doing what God commanded. If the US voted to outlaw Bible-reading, I would probably either move somewhere else where it wasn't outlawed or accept the consequences of doing what God said to do.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Well, this is a rather different issue, isn't it? Personally, I think ethical treatment of others, in war or not, is an imperative for all cultures. I am simply a part of this one, so I speak my piece for what I see as the betterment of our culture/society.

Ultimately, should our standards of conduct be the same as terrorists? Or the evil regimes we fight and claim to be (and, in fact, obviously are) better than? It shouldn't matter what Hussein's Iraq does, or what Al Qaeda does. We should have our own standard of ethics and want to be held to a higher standard, because we aim to be much, much, much better than tyrannies and terrorists. And we should be disappointed whenever we fail to meet our own standards, rather than take solace in the fact that the people we fight do bad things.

I'm not saying we should have the same standards of those regimes...quite the opposite. My point in the post above was the the concepts of "rules of warfare" are a relatively recent development, and generally only followed by those who most would claim have the moral superiority in the conflict. So, to me it's kind of amazing that, if you showed the account of he conquest of Canaan to almost any person in history, only those who were raised in Western Europe/US in the last 100 or so years would have any problem with it. It's just the way it always was.

 

[barfo]

All I was saying was that, when asked why God does something or why He thinks a certain way, I can only honestly answer "I don't know". You guys would see through BS even if I wanted to lie or make excuses for God, which I don't (and He doesn't need). What does he require of me?

Ok, so I think your statement that "God has his reasons for everything" is not correct? Because you are saying that you don't know if he does or doesn't have reasons.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

My personal, relatively uninformed response is that I have subjected myself to the laws of the United States. If tomorrow, 51% of people voted to outlaw beef, I would have an obligation not to eat beef ("give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's"). I would vote against that legislation, because I do not feel it's right. If the law in CA would have passed, I wouldn't be bombing judges who performed the ceremonies (and I would condemn, obviously, anyone who did).

Yes, I understand that. The point here, to me, is the philosophy behind how laws should be made. Should we all be trying to use the legal system to impose our belief systems? Or should the law essentially be a minimal barrier; something that prevents activities that make society incoherent (like murder, theft, etc) but otherwise allow each man and woman to live as he or she desires?

Clearly, I lean to the second. I am "against" smoking. I think it's bad for individuals and I hate the idea of people (including myself) losing people they care about to the consequences of smoking. However, I don't think it's the place of the legal system to ban it. I'd vote against a ban on smoking, because I think it's a personal choice.

Let's look at abortion.

Abortion is a very different kind of issue, IMO. That one, at least, has a harm to another entity. In that way, I don't really see it as comparable to gay marriage.

 

[BrianFromWA]

i.e., the Americans didn't abide by them.
We have high standards, and when they aren't met, there is a (small) price to be paid. You can't at once praise the US for setting high standards, and at the same time condemn it for being intolerant of failure to meet those standards.

barfo

And I would submit that, in all of those cases (aside from Gitmo, which I think is a different issue altogether, but that;s for another thread) those who committed the crimes (which they were) were punished for them. What I'm trying to state above is that the Japanese, Russians, Vietnamese, terrorists etc. had no qualms about doing what criminals at My Lai or Abu Gharib did ALL THE TIME.

You'll never hear me say that those people who committed crimes should not be punished. My point was just that, from much of the talk/opinions of the most vocal part of our society right now, you would think that we're the country that doesn't abide by rules of war and conventions, not our enemies (or past enemies).

 

[Minstrel]

I'm not saying we should have the same standards of those regimes...quite the opposite. My point in the post above was the the concepts of "rules of warfare" are a relatively recent development, and generally only followed by those who most would claim have the moral superiority in the conflict. So, to me it's kind of amazing that, if you showed the account of he conquest of Canaan to almost any person in history, only those who were raised in Western Europe/US in the last 100 or so years would have any problem with it. It's just the way it always was.

Agreed. But don't you find it a bit odd that "God" mirrored the morals of the time, morals that our society repudiates? Shouldn't God, rather, have shown a new way, a more enlightened way? It seems a bit suspicious that God reflects the morals of the time, and seems to substantiate the idea that the Bible was authored by humans, who had the worldview of humans at the time.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Yes, I understand that. The point here, to me, is the philosophy behind how laws should be made. Should we all be trying to use the legal system to impose our belief systems? Or should the law essentially be a minimal barrier; something that prevents activities that make society incoherent (like murder, theft, etc) but otherwise allow each man and woman to live as he or she desires?

Clearly, I lean to the second. I am "against" smoking. I think it's bad for individuals and I hate the idea of people (including myself) losing people they care about to the consequences of smoking. However, I don't think it's the place of the legal system to ban it. I'd vote against a ban on smoking, because I think it's a personal choice.

We're starting to get into a philosophical realm that I admit I'm not that good at explaining, but I think the point of the legal system is to be a set of agreed-upon laws (by the majority of the populace) that provides for the common welfare. (Generalization alert!) I think that those who think that humans are, by nature, good generally think that there should be looser laws and more personal freedoms to follow their right to happiness. I think those that think humans are by nature sinful (like I do) feel that regulation of things that are told to us in our theology are "bad for the common welfare" or "against the teachings of whichever Imaginary Friend" is more appropriate, while still allowing each to "pursue happiness".

You won't find me ever condoning those who act in hate against people, whatever their religion, behavior, etc.

Abortion is a very different kind of issue, IMO. That one, at least, has a harm to another entity. In that way, I don't really see it as comparable to gay marriage.

I wasn't trying to draw the parallel of abortion to marriage, but of a law that I personally don't agree with but abide by.

 

[barfo]

My point was just that, from much of the talk/opinions of the most vocal part of our society right now, you would think that we're the country that doesn't abide by rules of war and conventions, not our enemies (or past enemies).

I don't think that's true. I think most rational people accept that the enemy is going to do whatever the enemy is going to do, and protesting against that is completely futile, because we don't, by definition, control them. On the other hand, we can change what we ourselves do, and we can be better.

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Agreed. But don't you find it a bit odd that "God" mirrored the morals of the time, morals that our society repudiates? Shouldn't God, rather, have shown a new way, a more enlightened way? It seems a bit suspicious that God reflects the morals of the time, and seems to substantiate the idea that the Bible was authored by humans, who had the worldview of humans at the time.

I don't understand why God chose military genocide to give Canaan to His chosen, instead of a plague or earthquake or whatever.

But I do think that what Jesus taught was so far away from the worldview of the time that it would meet the 2nd question you had. In addition, much of the OT (after Kings) talks about how prophets of God wanted the Kings to follow a different way, to not lean on their own understandings. To stop at Joshua, and base the suspicion on that, seems to pick and choose.