Community >> View Post
Post By

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,233
In Reply To

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Subj: Re: I would be careful with that Bible reading...
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 at 10:28:44 am EST (Viewed 606 times)
Reply Subj: Re: I would be careful with that Bible reading...
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2019 at 08:06:38 am EST (Viewed 558 times)

    I want to cycle back before I go into your things, because I addressed some points of yours at the start that you did not really address much at all. You are quite good at changing a topic altogether into somewhat related but not the topic at hand.

Because you and Silver Surfer ramble way too much and need to be more succinct. You cannot expect to hold a person's attention without getting to the point more quickly.

    Your initial points to Silver Surfer were that Christians have very solid reasoning for their beliefs. You go as far as to say that their religious text pretty much orders them to be that way. However, not all Christians are. I provided something questioning the verse you choose. You shifted the goalposts from their views being based on sound reasoning to what they believe.

Because it seemed irrelevant to me. It appeared that you were arguing that the original Greek texts in the New Testament could have been translated to mean something different than homosexuality. That is a debatable, complicated argument that you just can't expect most people to delve into. The vast majority of Christians will just accept the language that the Bible was given to them and trust that the translators of the time did a good faith effort to translate to the best of their abilities. Plus, the public is skeptical when others come 2,000 years later and only then start questioning what the Greek language really meant at the time. It comes across as an agenda to achieve a contradictory, desired outcome. People don't like that and are rightfully skeptical, so why should they be burdened with your argument? If they believe in the Bible's truth as written in English, they are morally justified and you don't seem to think so.

    So, your argument boils down to them being able to believe whatever they want to believe with whatever loose context they choose to believe it.

These are not loose texts. For example, the King James version had over 54 translators that were university graduates, many from Oxford and Cambridge. Other Bibles also have translators with impressive credentials. Why would people have reason to doubt the scholarly abilities that went into the translations?

    You also made a bunch of other claims about people that do not believe like you are weak minded idiots. A random judgement. Particularly considering the exact Bible quote you brought up was not translated that way until about 1946. Hardly 2000 years, like you were claiming.

Because it's so obvious that it was referred to before. Besides, you're an atheist, so I thought you would be quite happy that this is the case rather than arguing.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

King James Version (1611): "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

    There are over 2000 Bible versus on poverty and the poor. Only a handful on homosexuality. So any Christian defining the faith by that as a moral feature while ignoring the other teachers is acting shady.

That's not what we're arguing, though. You need to stay on point.

    Jesus himself never condemned it. The Old Testiment did. Hell, even arguing for the belief in traditional marriage from the Bible is bunk. If we take it at its word there is support for polygamy, marrying your rapist and so on. How often are those held up today as virtues?

It doesn't matter if Jesus didn't condemn it. Paul did, and I already made an argument in another thread of the connection between Paul and Jesus.


    As to your questions, which I will answer and not change the subject on you.

    2. That is not true, really. A person could have stopped running their business and been done with it. You also answered the question. The only question for you is do you think a person's religious rights overrides somebody else's rights. I imagine that you do, given that you seem to find it pretty compelling in your response to SS.

You didn't answer my question: In your opinion, should the bakery owner have been forced to make the cake or else have his business closed?

    I question at the core the reason why religious conservatives feel that way. The Bible has been used for numerous ends as a defense. This one is no different. People have had deeply held beliefs about horrible things and have corrupted the Bible to support it.

    This is much less horrible than those but the current iteration, but I would love for somebody to remind these folks of the Bible's numerous other stances. Ones that I am sure you would be opposed to, but seem to support people using when they back your views.

    The Bible is a contradictory book, but the teachings of Jesus are mostly pretty clear.

The teachings of the Bible and Jesus, in the Christian view, are one and the same. You're employing an underhanded tactic to carve the Bible into segments for belief, which is offensive to Christians and a non-starter.

Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software