Ban organized religion, says Elton John

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Dion

Again I refer you to the Hebrew text as I mentioned earlier. Plus Photon already addressed that.

I never denied that the Hebrew doesn't mention the full range of homosexual acts. My point is the Romans passage leaves no question of God's opinion.

Look, It is clear we are never going to see eye to eye on this issue. I'm going to agree to disagree with you on this and leave it at that.

Thanks for the debate

Your welcome.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Kidder

Now to add to the discussion, and not to poke holes in anyone's theories, I would recommend to those debating over the issues to analyze some of the work by Rowan Williams. Here's a prominent figure inside the Catholic Church who suggests a perception of sexuality that incorporates the entire doctrine of Christianity rather than just on an "abstract fundamentalist deployment of a number of very ambiguous texts" as Williams discusses in "The Body's Grace".

http://www.igreens.org.uk/bodys_grace.htm

It just supplys a voice that some biblical fanatics might be more inclined to contemplate.

Rowan Williams is Anglican. His position on this issue has created a firestorm within the Anglican commune. There has been serious talk about a split by the african churches because of this issue. It still may happen.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The New Testament passage is clear. The reason you can find a link that questions its translation is because of political correctness invading weak churches. It would be convenient for some if it didn't say what it does. Homosexuality wasn't an issue when the first English translations came to be. They translated it without bias and all the same way. The notion that Paul was speaking of some pagan religious practice rather then the act is false. He mentions Idolatry before he mentions homosexuality but then goes on to mention many other sins. Read verses 28 through 32. He lists a whole range of sins including being disobedient to ones parents. Are all these sins tied into the same pagan religion? Can one conclude that disobedience to ones parents isn't a sin if it isn't done as part of a pagan ritual?

What you've stumbled upon is how great a lengths people will go to bend scriptures to their personal point of view.

I disagree, and there are many places where the translation from Greek is shown to be difficult and ambiguous. But I won't convince you. That's the fundamental problem with many religions; everyone thinks their interpretation is inspired and absolute and they are the ones that are correct (and 99% of the rest of people are wrong), no room for change. Never mind that each of these groups' interpretations conflict with the others. (i.e. what are the chances that out of 1000's of different groups the one you belong to just so happens to have hit on the exact right combination)

And what about the last part of that passage? Those sins are worthy of death according to Paul. Why isn't that part taken literally?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

I'll give you the second then. Doing something evil because someone else did something evil doesn't make it right. I never proclaimed to know how God sees things. I can see how my "sister" would want to abort the baby but I'm not going to say that it would be right, but again it is not my place to judge such a decision.

Yet you judge Homosexuals?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kobasew fan

The gene is a corruption of the original gene (mutation). People have urges to have extramarital affairs but God still wants us to ignore them. Is that unnatural?

a Corruption? Are you a closet scientist Koby?

[Cheese]

The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John represent nothing more than second century guesses by the early church fathers as to the identity of the evangelists. Of course, they guessed wrong.

Next we ask ourselves the obvious question, could documents written at least close to half a century after the death of its main character, by non-eyewitnesses, give reliable testimonies of that person's life. We ask whether the oral tradition gives us confidence in the gospels? The answer is a resounding "No." The elapsed period between the written account and the purported events certainly allow corruption of the stories.


Rejection of Pascals Wager

Belief in a Divine mission is one of the many forms of certainty that have afflicted the human race. I think perhaps one of the wisest things ever said was when Cromwell said to the Scots before the battle of Dunbar: 'I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.' But the Scots did not, and so he had to defeat them in battle. It is a pity that Cromwell never addressed the same remark to himself. Most of the greatest evils that man has inflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false. To know the truth is more difficult than most men suppose, and to act with ruthless determination in the belief that truth is the monopoly of their party is to invite disaster. Long calculations that certain evil in the present is worth inflicting for the sake of some doubtful benefit in the future are always to be viewed with suspicion, for, as Shakespeare says: 'What's to come is still unsure.' Even the shrewdest men are apt to be wildly astray if they prophesy so much as ten years ahead. Some people will consider this doctrine immoral, but after all it is the Gospel which says 'take no thought for the morrow'.

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I disagree, and there are many places where the translation from Greek is shown to be difficult and ambiguous. But I won't convince you. That's the fundamental problem with many religions; everyone thinks their interpretation is inspired and absolute and they are the ones that are correct (and 99% of the rest of people are wrong), no room for change. Never mind that each of these groups' interpretations conflict with the others. (i.e. what are the chances that out of 1000's of different groups the one you belong to just so happens to have hit on the exact right combination)

There is no difficulty within the entire New Testament with the vocabulary. You can get more insight by refering to lexicons and some times looking at it word by word but, it isn't a mystery. Your telling me that the 52 translator who worked on The KJV and the men who made the many translations before and since are wrong and this politically correct fellow is right. I'm saying he has motivation to bend scriptures. Those who translated the bible in the 17th century and before didn't. His argument about Paul not using the word Eros is faulty. He obviously didn't see homosexual activity as motivated by love. You can pretend that I am just following my churches line if you want. The fact is my church encourages self study and I have many books and some familiarity with Greek.

And what about the last part of that passage? Those sins are worthy of death according to Paul. Why isn't that part taken literally?

You have to understand how the bible uses the word "death". "Death" means "separation". If you die your Spirit is separated from your body. If you die without Christ you will also experience a second death which is hell. In Hell you are separated eternally from God. The Bible says "it is appointed unto man once to die and then judgment". If Paul was talking about the first death his statement wouldn't make since being as all men are under the curse of death. We all die. What Paul was talking about was the second death: eternal hell.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

There is no difficulty within the entire New Testament with the vocabulary. You can get more insight by refering to lexicons and some times looking at it word by word but, it isn't a mystery. Your telling me that the 52 translator who worked on The KJV and the men who made the many translations before and since are wrong and this politically correct fellow is right. I'm saying he has motivation to bend scriptures. Those who translated the bible in the 17th century and before didn't. His argument about Paul not using the word Eros is faulty. He obviously didn't see homosexual activity as motivated by love. You can pretend that I am just following my churches line if you want. The fact is my church encourages self study and I have many books and some familiarity with Greek.



You have to understand how the bible uses the word "death". "Death" means "separation". If you die your Spirit is separated from your body. If you die without Christ you will also experience a second death which is hell. In Hell you are separated eternally from God. The Bible says "it is appointed unto man once to die and then judgment". If Paul was talking about the first death his statement wouldn't make since being as all men are under the curse of death. We all die. What Paul was talking about was the second death: eternal hell.

The Old OR New Testamant are both full of Fallacies. Its obvious you try and pick and choose which post to comment on to try and make yourself and your choice look better. A great number of posters have destroyed your ideas with nothing more than "simple" logic...even your own Christian brethern have questioned your ideas posted within this topic.

Heres some Manuscript Fallacies

I wont waste much more time with you because I find you to be devoid of reason....unlike many of your Christian cohorts who I genuinely enjoy having a rappaport with. Maybe take a lesson from Textcritic who understands dogma and Christianity far better than you could ever hope to. Even Firefly, a devout Christian, has called you out as to the perversion of your thoughts. I genuinely feel sorry for your children...to be raised in a world where bigotry and hate rule, is something I wouldnt wish on my worst enemy.
To raise your children with fear is inhumane.

Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand-in-hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by the help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a fit place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John represent nothing more than second century guesses by the early church fathers as to the identity of the evangelists. Of course, they guessed wrong.

Next we ask ourselves the obvious question, could documents written at least close to half a century after the death of its main character, by non-eyewitnesses, give reliable testimonies of that person's life. We ask whether the oral tradition gives us confidence in the gospels? The answer is a resounding "No." The elapsed period between the written account and the purported events certainly allow corruption of the stories

You've got no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were written a half a century after Jesus' death and ressurection. This is just more of your positive atheist thinking. Someone told you and you placed your faith in that person because it is what you want to believe.

The church Fathers as they are called were pastors of different churches in different locations. They never came together in order to write some fiction for their new found religion. The religion was already there. The bible was already being quoted by them and the epistles and gospels copied. A few were first or second hand witnesses to the lives of the Apostles. Many knew which Apostle planted their church. By these early pastors we know how and when the Apostles died. Sorry, but once again you are wrong.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

[/i]

You've got no evidence to suggest that the Gospels were written a half a century after Jesus' death and ressurection. This is just more of your positive atheist thinking. Someone told you and you placed your faith in that person because it is what you want to believe.

The church Fathers as they are called were pastors of different churches in different locations. They never came together in order to write some fiction for their new found religion. The religion was already there. The bible was already being quoted by them and the epistles and gospels copied. A few were first or second hand witnesses to the lives of the Apostles. Many knew which Apostle planted their church. By these early pastors we know how and when the Apostles died. Sorry, but once again you are wrong.

LOL...no my friend...you have placed your entire FAITH in the bible. You have closed your mind to reason and hence you do not see that there are literally thousands of documents suggesting exactly what I have posted. Religious scholars would march out ANYTHING to prove otherwise if they could...but they cant, because what I stated is fact.
Dont you think it would behoove the church to bring out every possible piece that proves what I say is false? Reciting passages from the bible is NOT proof.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

The Old OR New Testamant are both full of Fallacies. Its obvious you try and pick and choose which post to comment on to try and make yourself and your choice look better.
Heres some Manuscript Fallacies

Your web site is junk. It attempts to show the contravercy about biblical texts from one side and it isn't even honest enough to acknowledge there is other camps. It ignores the text families and automatically assumes the KJV is written from an inferior text that is full of errors because it doesn't compare faviourably along side the Alexandrian texts and bibles. I could educate you on the origin of the different text families and why I believe the Textus Receptus to be accurate but, that would be a waste of time. Your hatred leaves no room for reason.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Your web site is junk. It attempts to show the contravercy about biblical texts from one side and it isn't even honest enough to acknowledge there is other camps. It ignores the text families and automatically assumes the KJV is written from an inferior text that is full of errors because it doesn't compare faviourably along side the Alexandrian texts and bibles. I could educate you on the origin of the different text families and why I believe the Textus Receptus to be accurate but, that would be a waste of time. Your hatred leaves no room for reason.

No BornAgain...please do bring out your facts...Im sure many of us here would LOVE to rip those to shreds as well.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

LOL...no my friend...you have placed your entire FAITH in the bible. You have closed your mind to reason and hence you do not see that there are literally thousands of documents suggesting exactly what I have posted. Religious scholars would march out ANYTHING to prove otherwise if they could...but they cant, because what I stated is fact.
Dont you think it would behoove the church to bring out every possible piece that proves what I say is false? Reciting passages from the bible is NOT proof.

The church Fathers have been well published. If you like you can find them on line with a simple search. Just because you or someone else says that the Gospels weren't written when they were proves nothing. This isn't even a matter of faith. There is no good reason to believe these books weren't written by the people that they say and when they say. I guess that in the positive atheist religion a Christian is wrong until proven right to the atheists satisfaction: which is just about never.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

No BornAgain...please do bring out your facts...Im sure many of us here would LOVE to rip those to shreds as well.

Wow! Have you ever thought of taking up motivational speaking?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So are you calling my gay friend, who said he had no choice in which gender he was interested in, who tried to force himself to date women in highschool just to conform, a liar then?

I'll repost this for CB to answer, just incase he missed it a few times.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow! Have you ever thought of taking up motivational speaking?

One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler's book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshipped under the name of the "Sun Child"; and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the High Priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says: "I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon." He was told, "You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into heaven they will all become wicked"; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.That is the idea -- that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress of humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or ever mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

You have to understand how the bible uses the word "death". "Death" means "separation". If you die your Spirit is separated from your body. If you die without Christ you will also experience a second death which is hell. In Hell you are separated eternally from God. The Bible says "it is appointed unto man once to die and then judgment". If Paul was talking about the first death his statement wouldn't make since being as all men are under the curse of death. We all die. What Paul was talking about was the second death: eternal hell.

Actually according to Strong's that Greek word's first definition is the death of the body, with other definitions, and the last one is the seperation you talk about. That exact greek word is used in other contexts by Paul to refer to physical death (the death of Jesus for example). So it still appears to choose this word to mean one thing in one context and another thing in another. Paul could be saying that their actions are worth of an early physical death (killing people for things they did wasn't uncommon at the time)

And it's not just "some guy with a page" that sees this, many biblical scholars far more educated than you and I combined have argued over this passage in far greater detail.. And people always seem to come to the conclusion that best fits their world view. Some choose tolerance and focus on the big picture issues of the Bible, others pick one issue that has a couple of scriptures about it and choose that to divide and judge.

Considering how prevelant and socially accepted homosexuality was during the time of Jesus, you'd think there'd be more against it and more clear if it was a big an issue.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I'll repost this for CB to answer, just Incas he missed it a few times.

I've seen this question before and thought it was too silly to answer. It would be like me asking you If someones personal experience with answered prayer or other miraculous encounter with God was a lie. If you were Cheese you might say "Yes and he's stupid" or something equally profound. But if you aren't a positive atheist you might think that perhaps environmental conditions brought my friend to this experience. You wouldn't doubt his truthfulness but, rather the cause of the experience. Could you say conclusively that my friend never had an experience with God? No but, you might rightly or wrongly believe that the experience was caused by environmental conditions my friend doesn't realize.

I believe your friend because of environmental conditions believes what he believes and is attracted to what he is attracted to. To call him a liar or to say with 100% certainly that he is mistaken would be presumptuous.
I'm not going to do that.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I've seen this question before and thought it was too silly to answer. It would be like me asking you If someones personal experience with answered prayer or other miraculous encounter with God was a lie. If you were Cheese you might say "Yes and he's stupid" or something equally profound. But if you aren't a positive atheist you might think that perhaps environmental conditions brought my friend to this experience. You wouldn't doubt his truthfulness but, rather the cause of the experience. Could you say conclusively that my friend never had an experience with God? No but, you might rightly or wrongly believe that the experience was caused by environmental conditions my friend doesn't realize.

I believe your friend because of environmental conditions believes what he believes and is attracted to what he is attracted to. To call him a liar or to say with 100% certainly that he is mistaken would be presumptuous.
I'm not going to do that.

So it is your suggestion that a man(or women) who is attracted to members of the same sex and can find no attraction at all to members of the opposite sex is just simply a product of his environment?

Also are you saying the the afformentioned individual should never be allowed to persue happiness with someone he feels attraction to because he will be commiting a sin and will never be allowed passage to heaven? That is silly, if two consenting people want to be together, all the while not hurting anyone, not stepping on anyones rights why on earth should they have to toil through lives of unhappiness instead of being together with that person?

Why would god assuming he is all you say, ever want two people to live unhappy, unforfilled lives when they would have happyness and forfillment by being together?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

Actually according to Strong's that Greek word's first definition is the death of the body, with other definitions, and the last one is the seperation you talk about. That exact greek word is used in other contexts by Paul to refer to physical death (the death of Jesus for example). So it still appears to choose this word to mean one thing in one context and another thing in another. Paul could be saying that their actions are worth of an early physical death (killing people for things they did wasn't uncommon at the time)

Strongs is not a dictionary. It only gives the base meaning and often the root meaning. It is no substitute for comparing usage. Yes the word means death but, the bible clearly doesn't see death in the same light as an atheist would. How the Bible uses the word is significant. There is no reason to assume Paul was calling for murder and no where in the New Testament do we see this call for judgment by the churches. Also, when Paul refers to Jesus' physical death he is referring to a separation from the body.

And it's not just "some guy with a page" that sees this, many biblical scholars far more educated than you and I combined have argued over this passage in far greater detail.. And people always seem to come to the conclusion that best fits their world view. Some choose tolerance and focus on the big picture issues of the Bible, others pick one issue that has a couple of scriptures about it and choose that to divide and judge.

Yes but the argument began when societies began to embrace homosexuality and ridicule churches for their historical stance. Before that no one thought this passage difficult to understand. The scholars in the 15th century didn't have a social agenda when the looked at this passage. Today we have a small group of scholars all of sudden questioning every passage dealing with this issue and attempting to reinterpret them. I'll stand the 17th century scholars up against any of the bright minds today who are trying to make the Bible politically correct. Also you will find the scholars who question these passages are small in number and have achieved much of their stature by taking this popular stance.

Considering how prevelant and socially accepted homosexuality was during the time of Jesus, you'd think there'd be more against it and more clear if it was a big an issue.

Yes I agree it was more common because of Greek culture. I think more isn't written against it because Christians were such out casts. They had no recognition in society. Homosexuality is just one of many sins and didn't raise much controversy. It has been asked here why churches don't say more about adultery or fornication. Well a good part of the reason is we don't have Adultery parades or fornication parades. We don't have society calling us bigots and narrow minded because we see homosexuality as sin. Their are not laws being passed protecting adulterers on fornication from the hurtful words someone might say against them. If we were in the 17th century or the 1st century we wouldn't be having this conversation. I guess adultery and fornication was then just like today more common than the sin of homosexuality and because of that received more attention.