mormonism & homosexuality

[Yorda]

So what I was asking is whether god actually detests (the act) of homosexuality -(as written in leviticus), or whether that's a written error by man, and several millennia later the pope realises this error and changes it.

If God detested homosexual acts, don't you think he would stop them?

I'm sorry, but this is complete gibberish.

Lions can sense impure people.

Yes he did.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant which you must keep between myself and you, and your descendants after you; every one of your males must be circumcised.

I think you're confusing the Bible with God. The Bible is a book, God is not a book.

If it was good for man to be sinless, he would have already been made sinless by god in his mothers womb.

Yeah, but he IS sinless when he is in his mother's womb!

In the context of this dicussion, this is a contradiction.

Actually it isn't, even if it sounds like it.

Christ obeyed God's will. So those who really want to be called Christians should also try to do the right thing.
It's not important to do good, but to decrease the daily mistakes we make. Then we'll automatically be good.

Ah well that causes a few distinct problems. Namely when a christian comes to my door how would I tell whether he is the former or the latter? Tell me Yorda, how can I tell them apart?

Do you want Me to tell You how to tell the difference? You have your own views, your own ways. The Lord said: "My ways are not your ways!" What use do you have for My views on Your own path? Haven't you heard "Christians", how they talk and behave? Some of them are good, some of them are bad, I'm sure you can tell the difference. This doesn't mean that you have to judge them. It's enough if you know that the world must consist of good and bad people.

God's laws are eternal, so sayeth you, and yet on the other hand think you're in a position to just change them whenever it suits you. One minute you need to be circumcised, the next you don't, one minute you can't under any circumstances eat pork, the next you have it on a daily basis and so on.

I have said it before. No one can change God's laws. But when we learn more, we also learn more about God's law, so it seems like it has totally changed. A parable: Newton discovered the gravity. So the laws of gravity stood there for a few hundred years, but then later Einstein "changed" all that because he showed more exactly how gravity works.

The laws haven't changed but we're able to understand more of them so they seem different. So it's like this with the other laws of God also, "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not judge" etc. Some of them are still valid as you see, some of them will "change", some of them will never "change". Every human can tell the difference between right and wrong because the human body is a temple of God.

Well who knows, maybe one day you'll all just decide that worshipping god isn't needed anymore and stop doing it. Doesn't matter what god thinks about that, because from the looks of it he doesn't get a say in the matter anyway.

Yeah, worshiping God isn't important. What is better than a belief in God, is a belief in oneself. The people of the West may still have to worship God for a while, but many people in the East already understand that the meaning of life is to know ourselves, and then be ourselves.

According to who? Would a nazi jew hater agree with you? While the majority might agree with you, not everyone would. There are those that would consider it 'better' if Hitler had have lived so he could be served justice. Death can be seen as the easy way out to some. And so your opinion is a personal one, and one that cannot be justified by god's laws.

Nazis have personal views and personal thoughts, otherwise they wouldn't think like that. Of course they wouldn't agree with me because they've lost themselves, they only listen to their person and not to their inner voice which never lies.

People should obey themselves because the self is self. Nothing bad can happen to a good man, (which is clearly nonsense). Listen to yourself and you are listening to yourself.

Yeah, now you just have to know what the self is.

Look at the woman who stoned her kids to death. the god within her, (her self), told her to do it, and if that voice within her is god then he did tell her to kill her children.

No, the woman didn't listen to her inner self or the voice of God or the conscience, she was listening to religious scripts which told her to stone her children. Again, you're confusing God with religious scripts.

All 'voices' come from the brain. Voices do not come from the body. You don't see your arm lift up and talk to you.

The brain is a part of the body, so the person and all thoughts and feelings comes from the body. The self has no thoughts, no feelings, nothing, and not that either.

 

[Xylene]

The major problem I see with religion, in terms of its attitude towards gay people, is their massive level of hypocracy. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of William II and his successor Henry, was the one responsible (in England at least) for the the order that priests should be unmarried. Even to the extent of telling married priests to put aside their wives. The upshot of that is that the churches are now filled with gay people.

There are some people, so I've heard (couldn't say who they were) who have a theory that Jesus himself might have been gay, anyway. So what does that do to the Church's attitude to gay people?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Xylene: The major problem I see with religion, in terms of its attitude towards gay people, is their massive level of hypocracy. Anselm, the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of William II and his successor Henry, was the one responsible (in England at least) for the the order that priests should be unmarried. Even to the extent of telling married priests to put aside their wives. The upshot of that is that the churches are now filled with gay people.

There are some people, so I've heard (couldn't say who they were) who have a theory that Jesus himself might have been gay, anyway. So what does that do to the Church's attitude to gay people?
*************
M*W: Jesus was not gay. Jesus was a married man who was desparately in love with Mary Magdalene. Together they brought the perfect communion -- male and female he created them. The only true resurrection -- the only true life was one that embodied the male (Jesus) and the female (Mary Magdalen). The truth about Christianity is that Jesus (male) was the embodiment of Mary Magdalene (female). The only salvation is the embodiment of male+female.

 

[SnakeLord]

If God detested homosexual acts, don't you think he would stop them?

Of course not. Where is the choice then? That's what christianity teaches. I am an atheist, so whatever version pleases you is of little value to me. However, in the bible - which the majority hold to be the word of god, and even you mentioned it being "inspired" by god in your last post, it clearly states, (supposedly in god's own words), that he finds it detestable. Doing so doesn't mean he instantly extinctifies it, as any real christian will tell you.

Lions can sense impure people.

Complete and utter hogwash.

I think you're confusing the Bible with God. The Bible is a book, God is not a book.

Hmmm.. I see... So we can ignore the bible? One must wonder where you came up with this then:

The laws haven't changed but we're able to understand more of them so they seem different. So it's like this with the other laws of God also, "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not judge" etc. Some of them are still valid as you see

Other laws of god? Where did you find these "other" laws of god, of which "some" are "still" valid? Could it perhaps be the book you're confusing to be god? And then with what right do you state which are valid and which are no longer important? It would seem you're using the same source, but then trying to dismiss the laws you don't happen to agree with.

Now while it's ok to say; "god is not a book", does that instantly mean he doesn't have the ability to write? And if he does have the ability to write, and decided to write some laws for the humans to follow, why do you think you can just go against it?

Yeah, but he IS sinless when he is in his mother's womb!

You obviously didn't understand what I was getting at. Read it again.. or not.

Actually it isn't, even if it sounds like it.

Actually it is, even if you don't want it to be.

It's not important to do good, but to decrease the daily mistakes we make. Then we'll automatically be good.

Nonsense.

Do you want Me to tell You how to tell the difference?

I thought the "tell me Yorda", would be a bit of a giveaway.

You have your own views, your own ways.

I am aware of that, thank you, but I'm here to hear and debate other views, not mine.

What use do you have for My views on Your own path?

You sound like you suffer from deep paranoia. I'm interested, I'm not a man in black. Don't panic.

Haven't you heard "Christians", how they talk and behave? Some of them are good, some of them are bad

They all sound the same to me.

This doesn't mean that you have to judge them.

Uh... but you do.

It's enough if you know that the world must consist of good and bad people.

Eh? Everyone on the planet knows there's good and bad people. It has no relevance here.

I have said it before. No one can change God's laws.

O..k, and what are these never changing laws of god? I would consult the bible but it's apparently useless. So I'll leave it upto you to make a list for me.

A parable: Newton discovered the gravity. So the laws of gravity stood there for a few hundred years, but then later Einstein "changed" all that because he showed more exactly how gravity works.

No offence, but you really can't use gravity as a comparison to gods laws.

Every human can tell the difference between right and wrong because the human body is a temple of God.

You actually believe that? ...

Yeah, worshiping God isn't important.

I could name a few billion that disagree with you. I don't of course - being an atheist. There simply is no god to worship in the first place.

What is better than a belief in God, is a belief in oneself.

Sure, but then you come across as only being half way there. You mention "god within us", and other such statements. You're like a wannabe atheist who didn't quite make it.

Nazis have personal views and personal thoughts, otherwise they wouldn't think like that. Of course they wouldn't agree with me because they've lost themselves, they only listen to their person and not to their inner voice which never lies.

And of course those are your personal views and thoughts. Are you claiming you're right, they're wrong? It would certainly seem so considering you've already labelled them as "lost".

Yeah, now you just have to know what the self is.

Astound me oh wise one.

No, the woman didn't listen to her inner self or the voice of God or the conscience, she was listening to religious scripts which told her to stone her children.

How do you know? She said god told her to, not that a book told her to. You're confusing god to be a book.

Again, you're confusing God with religious scripts.

Actually it would seem you're doing that. Or just calling her a liar for the sake of it.

The brain is a part of the body, so the person and all thoughts and feelings comes from the body. The self has no thoughts, no feelings, nothing, and not that either.

What are you trying to say? You seem to be somewhat confused and stuck between a place of religion and non-religion. One minute you mention god, the next the self, the next the "inner" self, whatever that might be, and so on. Give it to me clearly.. Is there a god? Isn't there? Oh, and kindly list today's "real" sins for me, I can never keep up.

 

[Yorda]

M*W: The only true resurrection -- the only true life was one that embodied the male (Jesus) and the female (Mary Magdalen). The truth about Christianity is that Jesus (male) was the embodiment of Mary Magdalene (female). The only salvation is the embodiment of male+female.
*************
Yorda: What in Paul's holy name are you talking about? A male and female can never melt together because they're not complementary opposites. Both bodies are made of matter, so they offer resistance. Scatter 100 coins on the ground and you'll see 50 heads and tails. Now, these represent the male and females on earth. They try to balance themselves even though they can't melt together. But lift one coin and you'll see that it actually has two sides, both the male and female in it, it's just that the two can never be visible at the same time, instead the other side is hidden in the unconscious mind, under the coin.

 

[Yorda]

However, in the bible - which the majority hold to be the word of god, and even you mentioned it being "inspired" by god in your last post, it clearly states, (supposedly in god's own words), that he finds it detestable. Doing so doesn't mean he instantly extinctifies it, as any real christian will tell you.

Read the first chapter in the Gospel of John, it says that Christ is the word of God, not the Bible. I'm not saying that the whole book is full of crap. I'm saying that the Bible consists of good and evil. The trick is to know what is true in the Bible and what is not. There's more truth in the Bible than lies, about 75% truth maybe. But you'll come closer to God with your muscles than with the Bible, Quran and the Vedas. How could the whole word of God fit in a book? The real word of God is within.

Now while it's ok to say; "god is not a book", does that instantly mean he doesn't have the ability to write? And if he does have the ability to write, and decided to write some laws for the humans to follow, why do you think you can just go against it?

The self/God expresses itself through all things, he expresses itself through humans, so in a sense, he can write. Moses hand wrote those laws, but the divine self expressed itself through him. But all religions are corrupted by man.

O..k, and what are these never changing laws of god? I would consult the bible but it's apparently useless. So I'll leave it upto you to make a list for me.

The list is endless, I can't write it down, but Jesus has mentioned the two most important.

And of course those are your personal views and thoughts. Are you claiming you're right, they're wrong? It would certainly seem so considering you've already labelled them as "lost".

No, they're not my personal views, but they come from the impersonal self which lives and expresses itself through me.
I have no opinions, I just operate by instinct.

Astound me oh wise one.

Why do you call me wise? No one is wise except God, the center and source of all things.

One minute you mention god, the next the self, the next the "inner" self, whatever that might be, and so on. Give it to me clearly.. Is there a god? Isn't there? Oh, and kindly list today's "real" sins for me, I can never keep up.

There is no God, there is only you. Nothing else. A human consists of three parts, the body, the reflection coming from the body (the person), and the self - the way, truth and life. I don't know what is sin, I only know what is not sin.

 

[SnakeLord]

Read the first chapter in the Gospel of John, it says that Christ is the word of God, not the Bible.

That serves no purpose. You were the one who told me the bible is written by man and has errors, but then when you try and validate any comment you make, you go directly to the bible - as if it were the true word of god. How do you justify picking and choosing what is legit and what isn't? I'd really like to know.

I'm not saying that the whole book is full of crap.

I noticed. Instead you just say whatever anyone else quotes from the bible is crap.

The trick is to know what is true in the Bible and what is not.

Apparently so. So, astound us all.

How could the whole word of God fit in a book?

I don't see anybody saying it has to be the "whole" word of god, but that wouldn't negate it as being the real word of god now would it? But alas, it seems if I use the bible to debate against the religious, you'll claim I happened to pick up on the 25% lies that are in it, whereas everytime you use the bible it's the 75% truth. That's simple idiocy.

Ok, no more so than your "lions can detect impure people", or the nonsensical garbage you've just spouted at MW, but it is still idiocy.

But all religions are corrupted by man.

Yeah, just the parts you disagree with.

The list is endless, I can't write it down, but Jesus has mentioned the two most important.

The list is endless heh.. I guess then that would include circumcision, which is in the bible. You have yet to show why that isn't a rule anymore other than to say you alone personally know whats true and what's not and to ignore the bible, (but only the parts you disagree with).

But all religions are corrupted by man.

I have no problem with that statement, but would add that in all honesty you are doing more than your fair share.

No, they're not my personal views

Yes, they are your personal views/opinions. Putting a nice little name to it does not change that fact.

but they come from the impersonal self which lives and expresses itself through me.

And again, dressing it up in nice clothes and a fancy hat doesn't change the fact that it's a personal view/opinion.

Why do you call me wise?

It was sarcasm. See, you weren't using your inner self.. lol

There is no God

Strange hearing you say that given your other statements:

"No one is wise except God" <-- In which case you might aswell have just said nobody is wise.

"God expresses itself through all things, he expresses itself through humans, so in a sense, he can write."

"How could the whole word of God fit in a book?"

And so on.

You do come across as being confused.

A human consists of three parts, the body, the reflection coming from the body (the person), and the self - the way, truth and life.

Complete tripe.

I don't know what is sin

Strange, a minute ago you did.

I only know what is not sin.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.......

So, if you know the not-sins, it wouldn't be that difficult for you to also know what is sin. Want me to help out a little? Ok.. Basically what you do is look at everything that isn't a sin, because you know them, and then whatever isn't in that list obviously is a sin.

See, pretty simple really.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Yorda: Read the first chapter in the Gospel of John, it says that Christ is the word of God, not the Bible.
*************
M*W: Possibly, the only truth in the Bible is the Gospel of John and Revelations.

 

[Yorda]

M*W: Possibly, the only truth in the Bible is the Gospel of John and Revelations.
*************
Yorda: Yeah, it's easy for lions to sense what is right and wrong in the Bible.

 

[Yorda]

So, if you know the not-sins, it wouldn't be that difficult for you to also know what is sin. Want me to help out a little? Ok.. Basically what you do is look at everything that isn't a sin, because you know them, and then whatever isn't in that list obviously is a sin.

You yourself list up some things and I'll say if they're good or bad.

EDIT:

It was sarcasm. See, you weren't using your inner self.. lol

I know it was sarcasm

 

[SnakeLord]

You yourself list up some things and I'll say if they're good or bad.

k.

1) smoking

2) Not being circumcised

3) Working on a weekend

4) Using bad language.

That's sufficient to start with.

 

[cole grey]

Snakelord,

My relationship with god is pretty selfish, but through this relationship I am influenced in positive ways. My caring for those I have sinned against, and those I have not, have both increased. There are some things in the bible that seem to me unchange-able. Since the arrival of jesus there have been no killings or evil deeds ordained by God. There is still the question of where the lines are drawn, but like you pointed out, situation is an important factor in interpreting a law. However, anyone that says "God is good, but he has told me to do evil", is living a logical impossibility. They can point to some thing that God said to the jews, a different people, in a different environment, in a different time and use this as justification. That is even assuming they can make sense of the reference at all, much less claim it to apply to them. This is crap. Some things have changed in the bible from old testament to new testament. Anyone who denies it hasn't looked into it. That doesn't mean the old testament is not valuable, but as a logical human being I will have my allegiances in some sort of a heirarchy or I will find nothing but confusion. The mistake you make in talking about the 75%, 25% right and wrong is the same mistake fundamentalists make. The book must be interpreted, it seems that the whole thing cannot be interpreted literally. The onus is on you and God to figure it out, or not figure it out. Don't pretend there is only one way to read it.

Do you want me to say you, or I, have something to offer to God? Maybe we do, but it is never going to be as much as God offers us. It will never be an equal relationship of give and take.
God gives, I take. This gives me a stronger desire to give to others.
God loves, I receive. This gives me a stronger desire to love others.
If I am delusional, the delusion I am having looks exactly like everyone else's delusion. Problems, good things, etc. If I happen to ascribe meaning to it that you do not, it just means I am making connections you are not. Whether the connections I make have any basis in reality, other than their positive effects on reality, is far from being shown.
Also, I think there is even more to the spiritual life than the future life and the things I have described above. The other things may take more time for me to figure out exactly, but it is not just, I'll get my pie in the sky.
Also, people definitely deal more with this life than the next. As a matter of fact, most people deal more with basic functioning of this life, than even any depth of this life. They hardly have time to deal with the next one.

 

[bbcboy]

Hate to bring science into it folks but humans have been around a long time before the bible and any concept of god as we perceive it today.
When did marriage start?
When men chose to own women?
When did sex before marriage become a sin?
When it was made part of the edict of marriage that the woman must offer her spouse conjugal rights? (i.e. sex on tap is easier than looking for it. Cue all ugly guys queueing up to get hitched!)
Marriage is just another way of men exerting dominance over women.
The idea of Gay marriage never needed to be observed for this reason.

 

[Yorda]

Snake

1) smoking

It's not good for your health.

2) Not being circumcised

Nothing wrong with that.

3) Working on a weekend

Nothing wrong with that.

4) Using bad language.

Usually it's not good because it doesn't sound nice in other people's ears.

 

[SnakeLord]

My relationship with god is pretty selfish, but through this relationship I am influenced in positive ways.

I would like to ask how. You go on to give one such example, which is that your caring for people you have sinned against, or not, has increased. How do you 'care' any more than you did before finding this 'relationship'? What is different about it exactly?

Since the arrival of jesus there have been no killings or evil deeds ordained by God.

You're not in a position to say this. While you can say there have been no killings included in the bible since jesus, you can't say there has been no killing. I see no justification to state that god didn't cause the bubonic plague, (just like he did the ten plagues), because Europeans were big bad sinners or any earthquake, flood or volcanic eruption for that matter. Just because there is no prophet around to write god's activities doesn't mean he should instantly be discluded from them.

Nothing has changed.. there are still 'plagues' and so on, we just apply a different answer to it. This is no different to the writers of old, who assigned an answer that they understood, but just because we don't personally see the giant hand causing it, seeing the past actions in the bible it would be more apparent to say he is causing it.

Of course I offer you the chance to try and refute that, and then offer the chance to support the words of the science-ignorant men of the past.

However, anyone that says "God is good, but he has told me to do evil", is living a logical impossibility.

This would then include the majority of characters in the bible.

They can point to some thing that God said to the jews, a different people, in a different environment, in a different time and use this as justification.

Hmmm the jews, a different people, a different environment, a different time.. But that is the god you're worshipping. A god of a different people, in a different environment, in a different time. Of course "they" can point to it, because that is the god you and they worship. You worship the god who said "I am god of the jews". His son was also a jew, and although perhaps snubbed by the jewish people, doesn't make jesus any less the son of a jew god.

If god says get circumcised, he isn't saying "only jews from that time, place and environment", but all generations of his people, (i.e the people who worship him and obey his laws).

This is the god the christian world believe in. A jewish god of another time and place. It's hysterical to watch a christian try and cuss a jew when he himself is worshipping that jews god.

The would be christians back then didn't have any 'solid' god to worship, and so created a character that the jews hated, causing the jews to be swept aside while the would be christians stole the jews beliefs for their own.

However, casting aside something because you don't personally see the merit in it anymore, does not excuse it as being one of god's laws. How long will it be till you decide 'thou shalt not murder' is a redundant law aswell?

Some things have changed in the bible from old testament to new testament. Anyone who denies it hasn't looked into it.

Such as, (with reference to the laws)?

The mistake you make in talking about the 75%, 25% right and wrong is the same mistake fundamentalists make.

What 'fundamentalist' mistake was that? All I said on the subject that was whenever I use a biblical quote Yorda would see that as (his suggested) 25% wrong, but if he were to quote he undoubtedly views it as (his suggested) 75% right.

Where did I do anything even remotely to mistakes made by fundamentalists? I didn't come up with the 75%/25% crap, Yorda did.

The book must be interpreted, it seems that the whole thing cannot be interpreted literally.

Ah, that's your interpretation of it.. right?

The onus is on you and God to figure it out, or not figure it out. Don't pretend there is only one way to read it.

But this is just a valueless opinion based upon your interpretations and beliefs.

Do you want me to say you, or I, have something to offer to God?

Eh? I'm an atheist.. Simply put, there is no god to offer anything to in the first place. I'm simply watching you believers squirm and scurry trying to justify obeying whatever laws you decided you want to, while happily dismissing any you don't personally like as "for old jews, in old environments, in old times".

God gives, I take. This gives me a stronger desire to give to others.
God loves, I receive. This gives me a stronger desire to love others.

And so clearly, you do need god. Personally I don't need the clouds to give or love, but hey, we're all individuals - some need the incentive.

If I happen to ascribe meaning to it that you do not, it just means I am making connections you are not.

No, it means you're making a fantasy that I am not.

We can both play that game. Give it a rest.

 

[SnakeLord]

Yorda:

It's as I suspected, (which is why I used those examples). Purely out of interest:

Did you know the two that are featured in the bible you said there was no problem with. The two that aren't in the bible you do have a problem with.

Are you satan?

However, let's look at the first one closer...

1) smoking

It's not good for your health.

So something being bad for your health is considered a sin? Why is that? Perhaps it's better to call the cigarette a sinner for causing harm to others. In the way you regard this, you might aswell consider driving a sin. Driving is decidedly bad for your health. Do you know how many people crash and die each year, or for that matter the amount of toxins and poisons released into the atmosphere by cars?

So Yorda, is driving a sin?

I suppose not brushing your teeth is also a sin then.

Anyway, it's an odd way of looking at it.

Might I ask whether you are a smoker or not?

 

[cole grey]

Questions -
Do you know what christians believe?
Do you think there is one belief system for all christians?
Do you know how many christian sects participate in judaizing their practitioners?
Do you think this is a valid argument?
Do you think you are making me squirm by attacking a religion you are demonstrating little knowledge of?
Are you just goofing around and hiding the knowledge you do have, in order to try to make someone squirm in the least effective manner?

I can't teach you what is different about the new testament. It contains a whole new religion. I can't give you a whole exposition of my belief system, although I have done a little bit. I am not an evangelist, nor am I an apologist, I am not here to have an argument. If you want to pretend that the bible can be read literally throughout, you are either a fool or a zealot. I think more highly of your posts so far than to believe you actually think it is possible. Maybe you haven't taken the time to watch the movie you are critiquing, so to speak. Or you just want to throw out views that are not universally accepted as an attack against my beliefs. Sorry. I hope you continue to help in God's work by attacking the hateful, illogical, and anti-scientific beliefs some people hold.

Also,
1)God is not owned by any one group of people.
2)You do not know what I need, or do not need. You do not know my level of functionality with or without God.
3) "most of the characters of the bible" did not use, "God said to", as an excuse.
4) all right, no evil deeds have been ordained by God and it was only human need for an excuse that put it in that light. Cool with me.
5) christian morality is a paradigm, not a list.
6)You ignore the things I give you to show that I am not coming from some holier than thou bullshit, and you take offense at what I am saying. Why should I even bother, if you are going to be antagonistic? I am not a crusader.

 

[Gambit Star]

How can you limit the expression of love when you want to be with that person?

Homosexuality and sex outside of marriage is still based on loving that person or loving the act of "love making" anyway.

Considering that alot of world leaders/Scientist/astromers/cooks/doctors/petrol station attendants/song writers/artist/people were more than likely "un-planned babies" just goes to proove that it is all about the act of love itself.

I believe mormons have every right ot their beliefs, but on the other hand, the beleifs should not conflict with a majority in society that shares the beliefs of love and happiness for us all.

 

[Yorda]

So something being bad for your health is considered a sin? Why is that? Perhaps it's better to call the cigarette a sinner for causing harm to others. In the way you regard this, you might aswell consider driving a sin. Driving is decidedly bad for your health.

Did I ever say it's a "sin"? I'm not sure what a sin is, I only know the difference between good and bad. I really wouldn't call a smoker a "sinner"! Old things pass away, then comes the new. Today, it's not important to use the word sin anymore. Smoking is not a sin, it's simply "not good for your health!"
Driving is not good, but today, it seems necessary for people. Also there are better ways to brush teeths than using toothpaste and such. You know, if we smoke, if we do something that isn't good for our health, we hurt people, at least ourselves.

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life.

 

[SnakeLord]

Cole:

You know, right at the bottom of your post, just by number 6, you start with; "you ignore..."

It reminds me that you've ignored every question I posed to you on my last post. If you want to blame me of something that's more than fine, but try not to be guilty of it yourself because it makes you look like a hypocrite.

The one I was mainly interested in was:

“ Some things have changed in the bible from old testament to new testament. Anyone who denies it hasn't looked into it. ”


Such as, (with reference to the laws)?

Anyway, while I await an answer, I will look at your questions..

Do you know what christians believe?

The virgin birth, the identity of jesus and his ressurrection. That jesus died, (albeit temporarily), for the sins of mankind. They generally believe that jesus will return and the world will eventually be destroyed after satan has his way and jesus rules for 1000 years, and that the good folk will end up on a new earth in a golden city while the bad folk go to the second death under the ground with a big red guy who carries a pitchfork.

Do you think there is one belief system for all christians?

Of course not, it's a free for all, and for centuries the different sects have been trying to prove that they're right by beating everyone elses heads in.

Do you know how many christian sects participate in judaizing their practitioners?

Ah, so truth is determined by the amount of people participating in something?

Do you think this is a valid argument?

Sorry, do I think what's a valid argument? Using the OT and asking why people ignore the laws written therein? Actually yes I do, which is supported by jesus who said he had not come to abolish the laws, but to complete them - and anyone who infringes any of those laws will be the least in the kingdom of heaven.

But if the OT is such a problem for you we can concentrate on the NT instead.

Do you think you are making me squirm by attacking a religion you are demonstrating little knowledge of?

Probably a little. Otherwise I'm sure you'd be able to answer the questions I asked instead of ignoring them. As for your amusing little end part there, if you seek some kind of "I know more than you" competition, go right ahead.

Are you just goofing around and hiding the knowledge you do have, in order to try to make someone squirm in the least effective manner?

While this is certainly amusing, I'm still wondering whether you're going to answer my questions or just continue piling irrelevant ones on me.

I can't teach you what is different about the new testament. It contains a whole new religion.

Of that there is no doubt. But while religion changes, god doesn't change - so sayeth he, and as a result his laws undoubtedly still stand. god part II, (jesus), even agreed with that, and it seems more pertinent to state that it is simply your choice to ignore certain laws that conflict with your personal feelings, rather than ignoring them because god actually sat down and told you to.

I am not here to have an argument.

Oh, so you posted merely to tell me what's right, what's wrong and done with it? Oh, not to mention briefly trying to compare me to a fundamentalist, before you go on your merry little way?

If you want to pretend that the bible can be read literally throughout, you are either a fool or a zealot.

Charming. But tell me then, who get's to decide what's literal and what's not? You? Even your own kind will undoubtedly disagree on certain parts, which leaves us with a distinct problem.

It seems however, that your only problem comes with laws and rules. You'd happily state that Adam and Eve were real and were naughty, or that god flooded the world and killed everyone but Noah, but when it comes to the law... oh no.. "It's not literal.. uhh.. we don't have to obey laws". And that's how you proceed, dismissing all laws as "for old jews", while claiming everything that doesn't have a law attached is literal.

What it does is break god down into a giant pick and mix. Let's look in the NT quickly..

"---women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."( 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 )

It's disgraceful for a woman to speak in church. Do you agree with that? If not, we must question whether you disagree because god said it's not important anymore, or because you realise that society beliefs are right, whereas the bible, (and your god), are wrong.

And so, we can happily dismiss it now as "not literal". It's just an ancient god joke, funny guy that he is.

The only seemingly worthwhile justification for going against these laws and rules is because you don't personally agree with god.

Or you just want to throw out views that are not universally accepted as an attack against my beliefs.

Yeesh, you guys see everything as an attack. I don't care what you believe or what you do with your life, I don't know you, and nor do I want to know you. I specifically sought out a place where I could discuss these issues, give and hear opinions and thoughts concerning these things. It's not an attack, it's interest and debate. I generally put many questions in my posts, which signifies a desire to get answers. You can hardly blame me because you ignored the questions.

Right now I'm asking how one justifies ignoring certain laws of god, from either the OT or NT. Right now your only justification to that is that they are for "old jews". All the "if you believe this you're a fool or a zealot" helps nothing if you can't support and show why, which parts are literal, and which are not. Right now the 'not literal' seems to only apply to laws.

Sorry. I hope you continue to help in God's work by attacking the hateful, illogical, and anti-scientific beliefs some people hold.

You know, I generally try to get along pleasantly with people, but it is certainly a hard thing to do when they shove this in my face, along with trying to compare me to a fundamentalist and so on. But I can live with that. What really get's on my tits is when people ignore questions I ask, instead preferring to just post the crap from your quote.

1)God is not owned by any one group of people.

Thanks for the clarification.

2)You do not know what I need, or do not need. You do not know my level of functionality with or without God.

Nor do I care.

3) "most of the characters of the bible" did not use, "God said to", as an excuse.

Hmm..

Abraham goes to kill his son - because "god said to"
Noah builds a boat and buys a few pets - because "god said to"
Moses went and had a go at the Egyptians - because "god said to"

etc etc etc yada yada.

The only 'characters' who seemingly differ from that would be Adam and Eve who ate the apple - because "god said not to"

The entire bible is a "god said to" excuse.

4) all right, no evil deeds have been ordained by God and it was only human need for an excuse that put it in that light. Cool with me.

Nothing has been ordained by god, whether good or bad. god's very existence is only a human need for an excuse.

5) christian morality is a paradigm, not a list.

Christian morality isn't a list, it's a free for all pick and mix.

6)You ignore the things I give you to show that I am not coming from some holier than thou bullshit

I have answered every single question you've asked. Have you even managed that much? And you dare say I ignore? Ah but this isn't about questions.. You state i've ignored you because.. I haven't agreed with what you've "given" me. No idea why, but it really sounds like some of that holier than thou bullshit to me.

and you take offense at what I am saying.

Which part exactly? The fundamentalist part, the fool and zealot part, the part where you seemed to be trying to point all that 75/25% shit on me even though it was someone else who said it, or what? To be honest I take them in my stride. What does offend me is when people can't take the time to answer simple questions, but can take the time to poke fingers in my eyes.

Why should I even bother, if you are going to be antagonistic? I am not a crusader.

What way exactly do you expect someone to be when you ignore all their questions while happily giving them as many derogatory labels as you can muster? Now remember, I didn't ask you to talk to me, but if you intend to do so, it would be courteous to leave out the labels and instead just answer the questions.

---------------

Yorda:

Did I ever say it's a "sin"?

One would assume so. I asked you to give me a list of sins, to which you said I should make a list and you'd tell me. That was the very nature of the discussion. What, you think I didn't know smoking was bad for your health? Did you tell me something new? I don't think so. What I asked, and what you know I asked, is whether they would be classified as a sin or not.

Wake up.