Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
I predict that no fundamentalist will disagree that there must be absolute rules (and of course that they interpret the rules correctly).
I predict that the more liberal Christians will have non-literal interpretations or spiritualizations or rationalizations for the Biblical prohibitions.
Holy books are inherently malleable for cherry picking and twisting of meaning. The Bible is no exception. Each of the 4000+ Christian denominations takes full advantage of that.
My denomination would for instance cite chapter, book and verse concerning why miracles stopped with the Council of Nicea, and signs and wonders are not for today, and why there is not a separate experience of receiving the Holy Spirit and why there is no "gift of tongues" as a signifier of receiving the Holy Spirit, and any apparent "gift of tongues" is a counterfeit experience promoted by Satan. Charismatics and Pentecostals will quote chapter, book and verse for the opposite. Both are totally convinced of their rightness. So it goes. Rinse and repeat for any desired topic.
I predict that no fundamentalist will disagree that there must be absolute rules (and of course that they interpret the rules correctly).
I predict that the more liberal Christians will have non-literal interpretations or spiritualizations or rationalizations for the Biblical prohibitions.
Holy books are inherently malleable for cherry picking and twisting of meaning. The Bible is no exception. Each of the 4000+ Christian denominations takes full advantage of that.
My denomination would for instance cite chapter, book and verse concerning why miracles stopped with the Council of Nicea, and signs and wonders are not for today, and why there is not a separate experience of receiving the Holy Spirit and why there is no "gift of tongues" as a signifier of receiving the Holy Spirit, and any apparent "gift of tongues" is a counterfeit experience promoted by Satan. Charismatics and Pentecostals will quote chapter, book and verse for the opposite. Both are totally convinced of their rightness. So it goes. Rinse and repeat for any desired topic.
And being able to use both the old and new testament just adds in even more choices to cherry pick.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
I predict that no fundamentalist will disagree that there must be absolute rules (and of course that they interpret the rules correctly).
I predict that the more liberal Christians will have non-literal interpretations or spiritualizations or rationalizations for the Biblical prohibitions.
Holy books are inherently malleable for cherry picking and twisting of meaning. The Bible is no exception. Each of the 4000+ Christian denominations takes full advantage of that.
My denomination would for instance cite chapter, book and verse concerning why miracles stopped with the Council of Nicea, and signs and wonders are not for today, and why there is not a separate experience of receiving the Holy Spirit and why there is no "gift of tongues" as a signifier of receiving the Holy Spirit, and any apparent "gift of tongues" is a counterfeit experience promoted by Satan. Charismatics and Pentecostals will quote chapter, book and verse for the opposite. Both are totally convinced of their rightness. So it goes. Rinse and repeat for any desired topic.
Mordant has become a true prophet of this forum. Here is my favorite quote:
"The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD - 180 AD), Meditations
You can read a more detailed explanation of my view here:
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context. The Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel - ancient Israel. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Because of Jesus I don't have to obey it to be righteous.
But...and get this, because it's actually kind of tricky.........homosexuality is denounced in the New Testament, too. Yes--believe it or not, it's called sexual immorality and it's wrong.
Now....I'm sure you and the rest of the usual suspects on this thread will completely miss my point....but I figured it was worth a shot. At least maybe some lurkers will get it.
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context. The Mosaic Law was given to the nation of Israel - ancient Israel. I'm not an ancient Israelite. Because of Jesus I don't have to obey it to be righteous.
But...and get this, because it's actually kind of tricky.........homosexuality is denounced in the New Testament, too. Yes--believe it or not, it's called sexual immorality and it's wrong.
Now....I'm sure you and the rest of the usual suspects on this thread will completely miss my point....but I figured it was worth a shot. At least maybe some lurkers will get it.
What I get from it is the New Testament can be, and usually is, as wrong as the Old.
T I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality.
Back up. It's not. You don't need to be at a loss. It's not an abomination according to their book. They quote 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, into which Biblical translators have injected the word "homosexuals", which is a word that was only invented in the 1890s. The original Greek, in that passage, μαλακός ("catamite"), which is a boy used as a sex toy to adult men. 1 Corinthians says nothing about two consenting adults of the same sex. Their call of homosexuality being an abomination is NOT according to their book, it was made to look what way by homophobic biblical translators who personally disliked homosexuality, and created a passage in the bible against it, where there had been none.
Here's what it says in King James Version:
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Whaddaya know? Nothing about homosexuals. That was just sort of slipped in there in the past century, replacing "effeminate" in the hopes that nobody would notice, and sure enough, nobody did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
..homosexuality is denounced in the New Testament, too. Yes--believe it or not, it's called sexual immorality and it's wrong.
Cite some references that show that the authors of the Bible must have been talking about homosexuality when they said "sexual immorality", instead of just saying you think that is what they meant because that's what you mean and they must have meant just what you meant. For example, do you think a man using a young boy as a sex toy is wrong, and is sexually immoral? Really? OK, then how do you know that's not what the NT authors meant? Show us your sources.
Is this what you call "homosexuality"? Grounds for divorcing a wife?
Matthew 5:32 ESV But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
And write to the biblical scholars who are working up the draft of the new versions of the bible, and point that out to them. Tell them to use "homosexual" instead of "sexually immoral", and put an end forever to all this bickereing. They'll be so pleased to hear from you.
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context.
But...and get this, because it's actually kind of tricky.........homosexuality is denounced in the New Testament, too. Yes--believe it or not, it's called sexual immorality and it's wrong.
You really ought to learn to grasp the concept of context.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality. If some god declares it verboten (again, I do not) then who are mere mortals to argue with their god? The same could be said for a whole host of issues, such as bible literalist ignoring the laws of their Old Testament, even they are the rules of their god or they aren't. Either you have absolute rules or you engage in a slippery course of ever changing and subjective morality. So perhaps theist can explain how this works.
But did some god declare it as such? Or did humans (as they are oft to do) decide they know the will of God?
Also, here's the problem with equal rights laws. I figured this out after alot of thought.
We have equal rights by birth. It's only laws that change this fact.
That's right, the problem with liberal agenda, is that it covers up the real truth of the matter, that if everyone quit with their prejudices, we wouldn't need such action.
Maybe times have changed, and people actually now eat pork (which was not eaten then because people didn't know how to cook it properly) and have mixed-fiber clothing. But what hasn't changed is that all are born with the same rights, until they get taken away by favoritism.
Theist on these boards often ask the question as to how atheist can come to an objective sense of morality without the rules coming from on high, yet theist have a strange way of interpreting their book to meet the requirements of many contemporary issues. For example, I am without a doubt an advocate of equal rights for gays and lesbians but I am more than willing to accept the fundamentalist claims that homosexual is an abomination according to their book that being the case, I am at a loss as to the validity of theist gay and homosexual demands that religious denominations accept their homosexuality.
Jesus was a revolutionary. He advocated a revision of religious dogma, thereby legitimizing continuous revelation. Christians don't like to talk about it, but Paul revised Jesus, and Nicaea revised Paul, etc. Continuous revelation was the general order of even allegedly eternal Christian belief through much of its early history. There is practically no one who advocates a religious belief system these days (other than religions created in the modern era) that reflects the actual dogma of the religion's origination. There will always be reactionaries driven by fear who resist change, but in the modern era there's no long-term quarter for such backwards thinking.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is my favorite quote:
