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.
Keats and Arnd are not inspired. Not sure what your point is.
weird, considering how you're putting your thoughts down on an internet forum, so you can "enlighten" others.
Keats IS Inspired. His works are considered by many to be at the forefront of romantic aestheticism. Read his works sometime. Yes, it takes inspiration to ride to the top.
I don't think Paul was inspired at all. I think Paul was suffering from hallucinations related to seizures, and I have enough medical and psychological (scientific) evidence to go with that. You on the other hand have Zero evidence that Paul was spoken to by any god .
As for the Blues Brothers clip , I am saying "Sell me your women" The Old testament says that you can. I think if you learned to laugh a little more then you may be a happier person.
As for Matt Dillahunty, he is a great orator and his debates DO represent critical thinking. He has a similar background to mine, grew up in a Texas Baptist church, was active from an early age, then at some point started questioning everything, seeking answers and finding the answers to his questions...and that led him out of religion.
My late uncle, also a Baptist preacher and one who spent the last years of his life volunteering at the Pulpit until he physically could not go on, once remarked that people who attend church almost always check their questions at the door. They do not think or analyze, they conform and take what is told to them. I remember when we were discussing cults once he said "Well if you want to see brainwashing, go to any church on Sunday"
Some of us, when we hear something, take time to critically think about what is happening. That is why you do not see me in a church anymore, although I do contribute financially to some community faith based food banks and shelters.
I have looked back on things I have seen and heard in churches, all the different ones, and I can say that there is just no evidence that this magic book, the Bible, is somehow written or authored by a deity. Nor can I se any practical use for it.
But again, I do not force others to conform to my views, and I am not afraid of differing opinions. Nor am I afraid of change, but remember, I think, and am interested in seeing all points.
So far, Dillahunty and crew have the best argument by far.
OK - I was thinking in terms of today - you are right about the incarnation.
You could say that He came more for sacrificial purposes than revelation purposes - but I wouldn't argue either way.
I consider God's word as direct - as those who wrote were directed by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21) who is One with the Father.
Not strictly direct as its always been through the medium of man/writers/scribes/priests etc, but yes I agree with you about the inspiration, however depending on the different time/season there will be a different interpretation/revelation and we need to distinguish the meaning from the narrative/ritual/dogma that is like clothing/covering/husk which was to keep it intact until the times of fulfilling..... until the “appointed” “determined” time is reached
There is succession going from first to last (in time) .... and then there is the last that shall be first (In quality and importance)
He came for both, but we need to look in the correct places for the information on both of those roles
I believe I've seen this before, but it never ceases to amuse me.
I'd never seen it, but it's great and entertaining. I've seen a couple debates on Christians and the gay issues and can't find the one I want but it had this guy in it, who is quite literate and IMO presents a really good case:
I'd never seen it, but it's great and entertaining. I've seen a couple debates on Christians and the gay issues and can't find the one I want but it had this guy in it, who is quite literate and IMO presents a really good case:
So I found everything. Wow - this was 6 years ago. Here's the video.
Here's what I posted here and here. I will copy the posts below.
Post #1
So I watched the first 10 minutes of this.
He explains what he calls the traditional teaching for the first few minutes. I didn't hear anything that was wrong with what he said.
Then he got into how he would be excluded from a loving relationship, spending life with someone etc. because of his orientation. I stopped at 10 min., but he seemed to be setting up a straw man. He is not excluded from anything. The guy excludes himself and limits God's power. As he sets up his straw man, he doesn't understand the transforming power of God - and he believes that God would want him in a hetero relationship while retaining his homo tendencies. That's not how it works.
I will see how it goes tomorrow.
Post #2
So I watched this. I will give a running commentary. On the whole - his content is from the slippery serpent - delivered with a persuasive speaking voice.
At 11:40, He quotes the Scripture about denying ourselves and taking up our crosses and follow Him, and follows with a "but"... and starts going into some traditional interpretation mumbo jumbo. Anything after that the "but", is off track. Maybe the cross of Christ is traditional mumbo jumbo to him as well.
At 12:30, he quotes Matt. 7:18 about the good tree bearing good fruit and bad tree bearing bad fruit. Then he says good teaching will have good consequences. He goes on... Then he says good teaching will not result in emotional devastation and loss of self esteem. I'm sure Jesus was not concerned with Peter's self esteem when He called him Satan. The extrapolation continues... he now says the teaching on homosexuality has not brought forth good fruit in their lives - therefore, the traditional teaching must be challenged. Do you see the bait and switch here... the sleight of hand, or voice in this case? The end game is NOT glorifying the Lord, or living biblically - it's good fruit, interpreted as high self worth, and high self esteem. Sounds like the same fruit that Satan was selling Eve.
His other main problem focuses on Genesis 2. He focuses on "suitable partner". For most people it's man needs a woman. For gays, men need men, and women need women. Gays are forced to be alone, and that's not good - he says. Remember the good fruit theory above.
Sodom and Gomorrah - He says the issue is gang rape, not homosexuality - and cruel treatment of outsiders. He references the Sodom reference in Jude 7 and dismisses it as gang rape, and not necessarily a monogamous homosexual relationship. You can apply both sins (gang rape and homosexuality) to the situation. Nice try.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - Declared as secondary in lieu of NT. Then he starts diluting the issue with other laws that don't apply. For me - the penal code does not apply. The Lord's standard remains. If you are interested in following the Lord - not as law but as a commitment to the Lord, then homosexuality must be considered as sin. Homosexuality is still sin in the NT.
Romans 1 - I had to laugh at this. He reads the verses and explains the traditional viewpoint - very well I may add. Then he looks at the audience for a second, and starts asking questions. This is straight out of the Genesis 3 satanic handbook. Satan asked Eve - did God REALLY say that you shall not eat from any tree. And then Satan questioned God's intent. What did this guy do? He asks - "How solid of an interpretation is that?" He then questions Paul's intent - did Paul really mean to reject loving relationships for gay people. It is right out of the handbook.
Here's another Romans 1 angle he took - it's another bait and switch. He focuses on the natural and unnatural terms. He first says natural and unnatural refers to Genesis - men and women were natural. Men and men, women and women were unnatural. This is correct. He then focuses on the context of idolatry, and says that there must be an exchange - the people exchanged what they knew for idolatrous practices. So for gays who were born that way - IT'S NATURAL (since there was no "exchange"), and they can't change (which is a lie from hell as well). So he casts aside the biblical definitions of natural and unnatural, and ascribes his own meanings of the terms in order to make his point. He completes the bait and switch by saying that because it's natural for some to be gay, it's a sin to turn from that. How about that one?
So to wrap up - the Bible describes the ACT of homosexuality. Men shall not lie with men. Women shall not lie with women. These relations are described as unnatural, shameful, and an abomination. This guy focuses on relationships - and says gay Christians should have the same privileges as straight Christians. Sorry. Homosexuality is sin. You can have great relationships without being sexual... without corrupting God's institution of marriage. God can transform gay people to have hetero relationships. The problem is gay people don't want that. They want what they want, and they want God to bless it, and they want people to approve it. You want relationships with same sex people - fine, go ahead. If you are interested in following the Lord... Don't do the act of homosexuality. Don't call it marriage.
I've always wanted to own a Canadian!!!...The following excerpt was taken from a friend's status because it's brilliant...
On her radio show, Dr. Laura said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Schlesinger, written by a US man, and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as quite informative:
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman,
Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia
P.S. (It would be a shame if we couldn't own a Canadian
Isn't it great that we have been released from the law Floorist.
Yes. The Bible is absolute. But no, these statements were not made to all men. They were made to men and women living under a specific covenant at a specific time.
So, these statements are absolutely binding to any orthodox Jew who lives under the Mosaic Law. But thankfully, the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled by Jesus, who obeyed it 100% and then died on the cross to give righteousness to those that have faith in him.
I'm obedient to those things by virtue of my faith in Jesus, who did obey them.
So what you're saying is that those laws were based on the culture of the time, not God's eternal word.
So I found everything. Wow - this was 6 years ago. Here's the video.
Here's what I posted here and here. I will copy the posts below.
Post #1
So I watched the first 10 minutes of this.
He explains what he calls the traditional teaching for the first few minutes. I didn't hear anything that was wrong with what he said.
Then he got into how he would be excluded from a loving relationship, spending life with someone etc. because of his orientation. I stopped at 10 min., but he seemed to be setting up a straw man. He is not excluded from anything. The guy excludes himself and limits God's power. As he sets up his straw man, he doesn't understand the transforming power of God - and he believes that God would want him in a hetero relationship while retaining his homo tendencies. That's not how it works.
I will see how it goes tomorrow.
Post #2
So I watched this. I will give a running commentary. On the whole - his content is from the slippery serpent - delivered with a persuasive speaking voice.
At 11:40, He quotes the Scripture about denying ourselves and taking up our crosses and follow Him, and follows with a "but"... and starts going into some traditional interpretation mumbo jumbo. Anything after that the "but", is off track. Maybe the cross of Christ is traditional mumbo jumbo to him as well.
At 12:30, he quotes Matt. 7:18 about the good tree bearing good fruit and bad tree bearing bad fruit. Then he says good teaching will have good consequences. He goes on... Then he says good teaching will not result in emotional devastation and loss of self esteem. I'm sure Jesus was not concerned with Peter's self esteem when He called him Satan. The extrapolation continues... he now says the teaching on homosexuality has not brought forth good fruit in their lives - therefore, the traditional teaching must be challenged. Do you see the bait and switch here... the sleight of hand, or voice in this case? The end game is NOT glorifying the Lord, or living biblically - it's good fruit, interpreted as high self worth, and high self esteem. Sounds like the same fruit that Satan was selling Eve.
His other main problem focuses on Genesis 2. He focuses on "suitable partner". For most people it's man needs a woman. For gays, men need men, and women need women. Gays are forced to be alone, and that's not good - he says. Remember the good fruit theory above.
Sodom and Gomorrah - He says the issue is gang rape, not homosexuality - and cruel treatment of outsiders. He references the Sodom reference in Jude 7 and dismisses it as gang rape, and not necessarily a monogamous homosexual relationship. You can apply both sins (gang rape and homosexuality) to the situation. Nice try.
Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 - Declared as secondary in lieu of NT. Then he starts diluting the issue with other laws that don't apply. For me - the penal code does not apply. The Lord's standard remains. If you are interested in following the Lord - not as law but as a commitment to the Lord, then homosexuality must be considered as sin. Homosexuality is still sin in the NT.
Romans 1 - I had to laugh at this. He reads the verses and explains the traditional viewpoint - very well I may add. Then he looks at the audience for a second, and starts asking questions. This is straight out of the Genesis 3 satanic handbook. Satan asked Eve - did God REALLY say that you shall not eat from any tree. And then Satan questioned God's intent. What did this guy do? He asks - "How solid of an interpretation is that?" He then questions Paul's intent - did Paul really mean to reject loving relationships for gay people. It is right out of the handbook.
Here's another Romans 1 angle he took - it's another bait and switch. He focuses on the natural and unnatural terms. He first says natural and unnatural refers to Genesis - men and women were natural. Men and men, women and women were unnatural. This is correct. He then focuses on the context of idolatry, and says that there must be an exchange - the people exchanged what they knew for idolatrous practices. So for gays who were born that way - IT'S NATURAL (since there was no "exchange"), and they can't change (which is a lie from hell as well). So he casts aside the biblical definitions of natural and unnatural, and ascribes his own meanings of the terms in order to make his point. He completes the bait and switch by saying that because it's natural for some to be gay, it's a sin to turn from that. How about that one?
So to wrap up - the Bible describes the ACT of homosexuality. Men shall not lie with men. Women shall not lie with women. These relations are described as unnatural, shameful, and an abomination. This guy focuses on relationships - and says gay Christians should have the same privileges as straight Christians. Sorry. Homosexuality is sin. You can have great relationships without being sexual... without corrupting God's institution of marriage. God can transform gay people to have hetero relationships. The problem is gay people don't want that. They want what they want, and they want God to bless it, and they want people to approve it. You want relationships with same sex people - fine, go ahead. If you are interested in following the Lord... Don't do the act of homosexuality. Don't call it marriage.
You do a nice job of excoriating this beautiful young man. You illustrate precisely why society continues down the path of secularism. Your hate and refusal to accept, that maybe homosexuals, are in fact born that way. The self-righteousness and Pride, is so typical of many Christians, who also ignore this was precisely the kind of sin Lucifer was guilty of, and thus marked the worst sin of all. More people today, than ever recognize the biological and scientific basis of sexual orientation; that homosexuality is not sin. That it is innate. It is an immutable part of who we are. We have a president that understands us, who is not impressed with, or courts the religious right. The religious right is losing its power; its ability to put fear into people, and it’s ability to brainwash. Since the Enlightenment, many years ago, then more so, evolving to the Scientific Revolution people are not bestowed to the ancient myths, particularly from a people who had so little understanding, they understand reason. So many churches have closed. Eventually, we will have all our legal rights, as your influence continues to diminish.
“Don’t judge, so that you won’t be judged. For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brothers eye, but don’t consider the beam that is in your own eye.” (Matthew 7:13)
Keats IS Inspired. His works are considered by many to be at the forefront of romantic aestheticism. Read his works sometime. Yes, it takes inspiration to ride to the top.
I don't think Paul was inspired at all. I think Paul was suffering from hallucinations related to seizures, and I have enough medical and psychological (scientific) evidence to go with that. You on the other hand have Zero evidence that Paul was spoken to by any god .
Define "Inspired". We're not on the same page here.
Quote:
As for the Blues Brothers clip , I am saying "Sell me your women" The Old testament says that you can. I think if you learned to laugh a little more then you may be a happier person.
I'm sorry..at the time I posted my response I didn't see a movie clip. I saw a link. As a general rule I don't like to follow youtube links because some folks tend to argue by youtube.
I do like the Blues Brothers and I like that scene. Don't be so quick to judge me.
Quote:
As for Matt Dillahunty, he is a great orator and his debates DO represent critical thinking. He has a similar background to mine, grew up in a Texas Baptist church, was active from an early age, then at some point started questioning everything, seeking answers and finding the answers to his questions...and that led him out of religion.
He is biased. When presented with a dichotomy by Matt Slick, meaning he HAD to choose one or the other, he chose a third option that he made up. He will do anything he can to avoid saying God did something. He just isn't a good critical thinker.
Quote:
My late uncle, also a Baptist preacher and one who spent the last years of his life volunteering at the Pulpit until he physically could not go on, once remarked that people who attend church almost always check their questions at the door. They do not think or analyze, they conform and take what is told to them. I remember when we were discussing cults once he said "Well if you want to see brainwashing, go to any church on Sunday"
OK? And?
And on the other hand, a good church with good elders will compare what is taught to the Bible. If/when a discrepancy is found they'll confront the pastor. I've seen it done, and I've also been one to ask my pastor questions on occasion. The pastors I know of have said they appreciate it. They want to know someone is listening.
The issue is that you can't seem to grasp that there is a set of people that check their brains at the door, so to speak, when consuming videos by someone such as Dillahunty. He says what they want to hear, so they don't question. They just sit there and say "Amen"
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.
