Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
I agree with you that Christians are reasonable when they don't accept homosexuality. Even in the New Testament, the Bible attacks homosexuality. (Many people try to argue that rules against homosexuality are like the Old Testament laws about entering the temple, but that argument doesn't hold weight since homosexuality is talked about in the New Testament.) In any case, there is one other missing piece in your argument that you should clear up to make your argument solid. Some people will say that most of the Bible is written by God, but there are some cultural aspects which are really the opinion of the writer (by "writer", I mean Paul and other people who physically wrote the Bible). For example, the New Testament says that wives should submit to their husbands. I'm not a Christian (anymore), and this doesn't sit very well with me. Christians I've talked to have said the same reaction. It's not uncommon for a Christian to pull out the argument that these were the opinions of Paul, not God. Thus, women don't need to be in a subservient role to men. Well, that sounds fine, but now we've allowed for the possibilty that the Biblical writings aren't all divine. Thus, teachings against homosexuality may also be a reflection of the writer's bias, rather than divine law. My point in mentioning this is simply to point out that in order to arrive at the conclusion that "bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;", you need to either believe that the Bible is entirely divine (with no trace of writer's bias or culture), or you could believe that certain parts of the Bible have a personal or cultural bias, but that the teachings on homosexuality are an accurate reflection of God's opinion. ------------------------------------------ Well, let that be a lesson to you about going around throwing out bathwater without checking its contents first.
I'm not sure what the originator of this thread would say, but here's an explanation. As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. (Like you hadn't figured that out...;P) There is little* reason internal to the Bible for people to decide that wives submitting to husbands is something to ignore. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. In fact, most of them actually enjoyed the idea. (A common desire of everyone to be loved, accepted, and well-cared for could easily explain that.) Anyway, my point is that when the full family relationship system is in place, that idea is actually rather comfortable and not nearly as difficult as it is when taken as separate pieces and joined with common marital attitudes in our cultures today. So, that would be my answer to your question. I'm hoping that the others' answers would have been similar. * I only say little, because when people find something they don't want to believe, they generally look for rationalizations to back it up. ** ** You know, I like this footnote system that Paul Watson tends to use! John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm sorry to hear that.. one of the best ways, at least that i've found, is through people and experience. Instead of going to church on sunday (assuming you do) don't go, go serve breakfast/lunch to the homeless. Go on missions trips, they aren't ways to get free/cheap labor its pretty amazing about the people you meet and get to know, don't go into it with expectations go with an open mind and heart. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Instead of going to church on sunday (assuming you do) don't go, Actually I do go. I play guitar in a church music group. Perhaps you misunderstood the thought process behind the quote. In other times simple things like lightning, thunder, earthquakes, floods were thought to be Gods effort to straighten out an errant populace. Any would be preacher could claim to call down the wrath of God on he poor sinners head. Today there is very little left unexplained vis a vis natural phenomon and the so called priests and preachers are having to go farther and farther afield to find scare tsctics that work. And in most cases thats what makes converts to religion - fear of something. (Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Go on missions trips, they aren't ways to get free/cheap labor its pretty amazing about the people you meet and get to know, don't go into it with expectations go with an open mind and heart. My wife does Meals On Wheels on Thursday and we both do the gig on Saturdays. No ulterior motive - we can afford it and it just helps out the oldsters and when and if I get old and infirm maybe it will be payback time. Only takes about two hours to deliver hot homecooked meals to 10 people and have a little conversation with them. Sometimes it takes longer because the people generally don't need the meals as much as they do the conversation. Sad that we abandon our old folks so much. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: There are so many technical diffculties in contacting/visiting them, but I think it would be great to see how God has dealt with them through time. Well, finding other intelligences does raise a number of interesting questions from a Christian perspective. a) Did that intelligent species fall? If not, does that mean the notion of "fallenness" is a local phenomenon? b) If said intelligent species did fall, has God yet done a form of sacrifice similar to that of Christ? c) If said speciies has not had an atonement sacrifice, are they due one or are they dependent on the same salvation as that of humans? d) Alternatively, are they not to receive an atonement sacrifice at all? This also leads onto another question. If humanity can construct an artificial intelligence, is that intelligence "fallen" due it's origins in humanity, or not? Question c above applies again - would an artificial intelligence need to have a Robot Jesus to secure it's own salvation? :-D (I, being an atheist, am not actually that bothered about the answers, but it's interesting to speculate)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Being a sucker for sci-fi and having an even stronger interest in Bible topics, this was just too entertaining a post to leave alone. :D Ian Darling wrote: Well, finding other intelligences does raise a number of interesting questions from a Christian perspective. According to Revelation and 2 Peter, the entire universe will be replaced by a sin-free, better-than-we-can-imagine heaven and earth. Because of this, it is normal for Christians to assume that there is no life on other planets, and if there is life on other planets, that it would be like animal life here (without a living-forever soul). Otherwise, it is assumed that God would be punishing them for something they were not responsible for. Alternately, we could (somewhat baselessly) imagine scenarios where God created other physical* life with souls. This idea requires some mental gymnastics to support one of two concepts -- either they are isolated enough that the influence of people on earth can't reach them, or that they have fallen in a similar fashion to men. In either case, we would assume that God provides them with a set of information that clearly establishes their responsibility for the consequences they face, or that there is some other easily accepted reason for the destruction and replacing of the universe. (Something like is done with the angels, since they will live through that enormous event and accept it as part of God's dealing with humanity.) Anyway, this is all just some fun speculation, so don't go assuming that I've got some funky beliefs or that these ideas are in any way typical of most Christians... ;) * This excludes the Bible-revealed creation of angels and other spirit beings which are not "located" on the earth, but have purposes associated with heavenly or earthly activities. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
I think it's interesting that you are applying predicate logic (I think that's the name for it :~) to a non-logic based system. I hate to break it to you, but you won't get far doing that. -- Ich bin der böse Mann von Schweden.
I assume that you're basing this statement on a misunderstanding of "faith". (If not, the just ignore my ramblings, or explain what you were trying to really say.) All Faith != "blind faith". Blind faith certainly is that "stand on nothing, and launch myself into the void, expecting to be OK afterward". However, that is not the type of faith that intelligent Christians deal with. Real faith is much more like climbing to the top of the available evidence, seeing the conclusion, and casually stepping across the gap. Scientists (that you probably admire) use real faith all the time. The see certain behavior and they expect a certain result. On the basis of that faith, they then proceed to test their hypothesis. Every time you sit on a chair, expecting it to hold you, real faith is active. In essence, real faith is trust that you place in something that has given evidence that it is worth your trust. That is not a "non-logic based system" at all. Thus ends my treatise. ;) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ian Darling wrote: No, it's to try and work out what most likely happened. If we can work out what most likely happened to say, [edit - fixed spelling] Troy, then we can build up a fairly reliable picture of our history in that region based on that information and other things we have worked out. If new historical evidence crops up, then either the existing historical theory can accomodate it without problems, or the historical theory is modified. Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. Yes, but given the lack of perfect and complete information, you can't get to The Truth - all you can get is more and more accurate - at least in a historical context. And choosing a theory is nothing to do with aesthetics or how much we "like" it (which is what you've implied, even if you don't mean it). A theory is the explaination that best describes what the evidence it, regardless of what the consequences of that theory are. Scientists would quite like to get Truth, but they'll settle for (and only get to) Accurate. I suspect we'll never get to Truth (because there are an infinite number of facts, and you never know if we'll find something to contradict a theory without testing an infinite number of facts, which as we know, is very hard :-D)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
jhwurmbach wrote: force a int value (that's what TRUE is) into a bool Habit I guess...I don't think that bool is supported in serialization :) jhwurmbach wrote: But just last week some intern had to change the prototype? Intern? I am a one man show. :( jhwurmbach wrote: then he did also made the homosexuals Nope...At the risk of opening another can of worms, homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. And it is that way just because you want it that way? Despite reality? Sounds about right. All fundamental christians here and everywhere seem to think of an acive God that is constantly interfering with the world. There is no way why this God should not stop those poor, hellbound sinners from being homosexuals. Just that he may simply be unbelievable cruel. It must be very easy for this active omnipotent God do stop all sin. But he seems to actually like seeing people go to hell, he is not omnipotent - or he is not there at all. Pick your choice.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
-
I don't deny what the Bible says, in fact the Bible says that ALL sin is punishable by death...Eternal Death. However, you need to read the rest of the Bible not just the bits and peices that support your point. If you read the new testament, then you find out that Jesus came to set us free from the Laws you quoted and all the rest you didn't quote. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
How convenient! Just because an immortal being who knew he couldn't be killed hung around on a cross for a couple of days means that all of the laws set down by god himself are null and void! What a relief! I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. What a break for you Christians! You can slaughter as many old ladies as you want! You can rape as many nuns as you want! Jesus (an immortal who knew he was the son of god and thus could not be hurt by whatever silly little trials the romans had in store for him) "died" on the cross for you! What a pathetic cop-out. Did Jesus say that all of the prior laws passed down by his father - the Lord God- were now null and void? Or does the new testament (which was written over a period of several hundred years by pathetic mortals) say this?
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: That would make you typical of the majority of hypocritical christians. Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. The USA has it's origins in the UK, but it is a seperate entity with seperate laws. Try quoting the New Testament if you want to attack Christianity, then you'll at least have half a leg to stand on. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Terry, you've made a fool of yourself again. Telling a Christian to live by Leviticus is like telling you that you live by the laws of the United Kingdom. Yes my Christian brother. You are right - you have called your fellow man an idiot. You have called him a fool. And all because he believes different things than you do. I'm just kidding :) I know you are a typical hypocrite and I don't hold it against you - you loving saver of souls. Kisses.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
There was also the part with leaving unholy Sodom and the pillar of salt one... the city was full of sin mostly sodomny... I don't know the exact verses. Also, the one without sin throws teh first stone, where Jesus forgave the prositute .... he said for forth and sin no more, she screwed up and was forgiven. Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly A great point and one I can respect wholeheartedly. I just wish people had the balls to call themselves "spiritual Jesusists" instead of going through the life-long charade of pretending to be "Christians". Christians are members of established religious orders with rules, regulations and codes of conduct. I, myself, do my best to live by the teachings of Jesus since I consider his philosophy to be the one that, should all mankind adopt, leads to peace on earth. My problem is with those pathetic bastards that, instead of calling themselvfes Spiritual Jesusists, call themselves "Presbyterians" or "Baptists" or "Lutheran", etc., etc., etc. when anyone with half a brain can tell you that they do not live their lives according to the teachings of the documentation that ships with their "religion". They are hypocrites. They are not worthy of respect. They will wake up every day knowing that they plan on flirting with their secretary in hopes of fucking her. They instead use the cop-out "All mankind are sinners". Those pathetic bastards are going to hell according to their own religion. So why do they pretend to follow it? Because they were brainwashed as children and are silly little peons as adults.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
-
I am a Christian, I have to admit that some of us Christians (myself included) are bigoted, hypocrits, and short-sighted. For that, I am ashamed and I apologise to everyone. We Christians are human and we ourselves are not perfect and limited in our understanding of God. I just want to say that one of the major points in the OT (Old Testament) is to let everyone realise that EVERYONE, I repeat EVERYONE, is a sinner, and it is impossible for any human being to adhere to all the OT rules (which means you are sinless). The whole point of the New Testament is that God loves ALL, and He sent His Son to save EVERYONE. As Christians, which means we believe that Jesus is the Son of God and has saved us, we should not sin not because of the threat of hell (as we believe Jesus has saved us and He only needs to save us ONCE), but we should not sin as we begin to love back the Jesus that loves us and saves us. So trying not to sin is a result of love as we know that God hates sin and the only way we can be closer to him is not to do sin. Unfortunately, most of us are more content in bickering about not-so-important things, trying to see who is best (see example on when the disciples are arguing who is the greatest among them), and condemning other people to hell just so we feel more righteous than others. The message of Christ is love, God loves us and He wants us back. The bible says that God is love and I am glad to say that I have seen Christians that let us get a glimpse of what and who God is. I can only pray that the rest of us Christians can also be a clear window for everyone to see who God is instead of distorting His image. Thanks, Edbert P. Sydney, Australia. God is love, spread the word!
I don't agree with everything you've said there, but I have to give you a five for that. :rose:
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Putting the laughter back into slaughter
-
John Fisher wrote: Exactly. While aiming for the truth, you select the most likely choice given the current information. If the goal wasn't the truth of the situation, why change the theory if it sounds nice already? Maybe the current explanation has implications that we like. If someone comes up with evidence that the current explanation no longer is the best choice, why switch? The only way to figure the "best" theory is to have a goal -- the truth. Just because they aren't guaranteed to reach it doesn't mean they stop trying. Yes, but given the lack of perfect and complete information, you can't get to The Truth - all you can get is more and more accurate - at least in a historical context. And choosing a theory is nothing to do with aesthetics or how much we "like" it (which is what you've implied, even if you don't mean it). A theory is the explaination that best describes what the evidence it, regardless of what the consequences of that theory are. Scientists would quite like to get Truth, but they'll settle for (and only get to) Accurate. I suspect we'll never get to Truth (because there are an infinite number of facts, and you never know if we'll find something to contradict a theory without testing an infinite number of facts, which as we know, is very hard :-D)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Erm... It sounds like you think I said something you didn't agree with, but I can't see any basic difference between what you just said and the point I was making all along. The goal is to find the truth. *scratches his head a bit* John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship with God... unfortunitly it gets confused with church unfortunitly A great point and one I can respect wholeheartedly. I just wish people had the balls to call themselves "spiritual Jesusists" instead of going through the life-long charade of pretending to be "Christians". Christians are members of established religious orders with rules, regulations and codes of conduct. I, myself, do my best to live by the teachings of Jesus since I consider his philosophy to be the one that, should all mankind adopt, leads to peace on earth. My problem is with those pathetic bastards that, instead of calling themselvfes Spiritual Jesusists, call themselves "Presbyterians" or "Baptists" or "Lutheran", etc., etc., etc. when anyone with half a brain can tell you that they do not live their lives according to the teachings of the documentation that ships with their "religion". They are hypocrites. They are not worthy of respect. They will wake up every day knowing that they plan on flirting with their secretary in hopes of fucking her. They instead use the cop-out "All mankind are sinners". Those pathetic bastards are going to hell according to their own religion. So why do they pretend to follow it? Because they were brainwashed as children and are silly little peons as adults.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
I think one of the best songs that I've heard in relation to the hypocrits is "Stumble" by DC Talk (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/d/dc-talk/37744.html) Which begins with: "the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today Is christians who acknowledge jesus with their lips Then walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
-
How convenient! Just because an immortal being who knew he couldn't be killed hung around on a cross for a couple of days means that all of the laws set down by god himself are null and void! What a relief! I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. What a break for you Christians! You can slaughter as many old ladies as you want! You can rape as many nuns as you want! Jesus (an immortal who knew he was the son of god and thus could not be hurt by whatever silly little trials the romans had in store for him) "died" on the cross for you! What a pathetic cop-out. Did Jesus say that all of the prior laws passed down by his father - the Lord God- were now null and void? Or does the new testament (which was written over a period of several hundred years by pathetic mortals) say this?
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. Which only illustrates that you: A) Have not read the New Testament B) Did not understand what you read In any event, it appears that it is not possible to have reasoned mature communication with you. So I will stop trying. There is one thing that is certain, God loves you. And at the risk of opening myself up to immature insults, I love you. Peace be with you. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
John McIlroy wrote: think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
That's a fun debate... but it it gets a little tiring after the 200th time. But it is very logical to me... let's leave it at that. I was more interested in Eric's Biblical conditional statement.
-
How convenient! Just because an immortal being who knew he couldn't be killed hung around on a cross for a couple of days means that all of the laws set down by god himself are null and void! What a relief! I guess that means that is now OK for good god-fearing men to fornicate, commit adultery and murder since Jesus (an immortal who knew he would be only temporarily inconvenienced) hung out on a cross. What a break for you Christians! You can slaughter as many old ladies as you want! You can rape as many nuns as you want! Jesus (an immortal who knew he was the son of god and thus could not be hurt by whatever silly little trials the romans had in store for him) "died" on the cross for you! What a pathetic cop-out. Did Jesus say that all of the prior laws passed down by his father - the Lord God- were now null and void? Or does the new testament (which was written over a period of several hundred years by pathetic mortals) say this?
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
Wow! Did you read this post before you sent it? Quite the maniacal screed!
-
John McIlroy wrote: I think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, Well, yes - it's me, being obviously superior :-D Oh, you meant $DEITY exists? Please present the logic. Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
Ian Darling wrote: Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate. :laugh: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John McIlroy wrote: think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Hmmmm... How do we know that you haven't already redifined logic? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
Ian Darling wrote: Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate. :laugh: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: That's like saying, "Prove to me that 1+1 = 2, but you can't use numbers or mathematical ideas, since I don't like those arguments." Well, the argument from design is problematic - as it's quite reasonable for the properties of natural objects to arise from iterative application of simple laws (such as physics). The argument from incredulity goes along the lines of "Surely the universe can't exist without God!" The argument from nature is essentially "look at the pretty bunny - God created that" And the argument from The Bible is a form of circular reasoning. OTOH, 1+1=2 is something that can be validated and consistent within the mathematical framework, which is rigorous. It's like the common question asked on talk.origins which is never answered: "What is the scientific theory of creationism?" In the same way - what is the logical/scientific argument that God exists? If you're using logic or science - then you're within the bounds of naturalistic investigation. *That's* why the arguments I mentioned are inadequate or faulty - because they are either supernaturalistic and tharefore outside the bounds of human logic, or are naturalistic and inadequately supported by the evidence. 1+1=2 is an entirely naturalistic statement, and therefore can be investigated :-)
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
I'm not sure what the originator of this thread would say, but here's an explanation. As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. (Like you hadn't figured that out...;P) There is little* reason internal to the Bible for people to decide that wives submitting to husbands is something to ignore. On the contrary, the Bible teaches that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. In fact, most of them actually enjoyed the idea. (A common desire of everyone to be loved, accepted, and well-cared for could easily explain that.) Anyway, my point is that when the full family relationship system is in place, that idea is actually rather comfortable and not nearly as difficult as it is when taken as separate pieces and joined with common marital attitudes in our cultures today. So, that would be my answer to your question. I'm hoping that the others' answers would have been similar. * I only say little, because when people find something they don't want to believe, they generally look for rationalizations to back it up. ** ** You know, I like this footnote system that Paul Watson tends to use! John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: As with most ideas that have been around a while, there are plenty of people that pick and choose what they like and dislike. People are prone to ignoring the parts they don't like, and Christians are people. Well, that may be, but I'm just pointing out that the boolean function "GodWroteTheBible()" needs a little more elaboration in order to come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. All Christians would say "God wrote the Bible", but some would say that "all opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion" and other Christians would say, "most opinions expressed in the Bible are divine opinion". Now you can argue about who is right, but the boolean function is misleading because all Christian can agree with "God wrote the Bible", but disagree with "all opinions in the Bible are God's opinions". Hence, he needs to rewrite it as such:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( AllOpinionsInTheBibleAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
if ( TheBiblesStatementsOnHomosexualityAreGodsOpinions() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}
}You've talked about why people might have psychological reasons to ignore certain parts of the Bible. That is true, but it doesn't mean that they are wrong. Presumably, you are arguing that those people are wrong. But, then, whether they're right or wrong isn't really the point. The point is that they are acting rationally within their framework of belief. "Acting rationally within their framework of belief" is also the reason that I say Christians are acting rationally if they say homosexuality is wrong. John Fisher wrote: Of all the Christian women that I've heard discussing this topic, very few of them believed that submitting to a husband with that kind of love would ever bother them. Well, that may be true, but we run in different social circles. Ultimately, a lot of this discussion touches on one of my big problems with religion: a lack of verification. Theoretically, God doesn't need to write a book. He can talk to people directly. Instead, all religions have a book (or books) which are supposed to be the final say on the matter. But, peopl
-
Richard Stringer wrote: I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Hmmmm... How do we know that you haven't already redifined logic? John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.Because I am still using binary logic and don't need a third ambigious state (quantum logic perhaps ) for my state diagrams to function. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare