~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 So Christians that follow the words in the Bible aren't actual Christians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Don't put words in my mouth. You're so busy being sarcastic you can't read. Those goin' around takin' it word for word are idiots, not Christians. It was meant that you follow some of the teachings of the Bible, not every action and law depicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Ghost Origins' timestamp='1310572028' post='5351441'] Christianity, (by most faiths) is NOT all about serving our Lord and savior. It's about having faith, trying to be morally comprehensive and virtuous, and overall, not being a PRICK. You can find all the flaws you want amongst the stories told, but their value isn't gonna change. While you got these self-righteous motherf***ers prancin' around talkin' about how much they love Jesus, but hate the gays, they're not Christians. And the same goes for the brother who seems to think the Bible is quoted word for word. Learn to read between the lines you little s***. If you took every word from the Bible and pinpoint reacted on your life, you'd be the FIRST motherf***er in hell. [/quote] ...Did you quote that from a priest? Lol, but yeah, I agree with this 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [i]It's about having faith, trying to be morally comprehensive and virtuous, and overall, not being a PRICK.[/i] ...not being a prick? Does that mean the majority of Christians... [i]aren't really Christians[/i]? Thanks man, you've enlightened me. :[b][/b]S Also, you are subtly referring to the argument that things in the Bible should be taken metaphorically and not literally. But who decides what part of the Bible is a part that you must vigorously follow and what part of the Bible is a part that is not to be taken literally? Sure, maybe you can say that the part where men are greater than women in the Bible is not to be applied to modern-day Christianity, but why single that part out alone? I can, by that logic, say that all parts of the Bible that aren't factually proven or morally accepted by a secular society should not be taken literally and should not be applied to modern-day Christianity. And then the religion would finally be tolerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Dark' timestamp='1310576815' post='5351596'] [i]It's about having faith, trying to be morally comprehensive and virtuous, and overall, not being a PRICK.[/i] ...not being a prick? Does that mean the majority of Christians... [i]aren't really Christians[/i]? Thanks man, you've enlightened me. :[b][/b]S Also, you are subtly referring to the argument that things in the Bible should be taken metaphorically and not literally. But who decides what part of the Bible is a part that you must vigorously follow and what part of the Bible is a part that is not to be taken literally? Sure, maybe you can say that the part where men are greater than women in the Bible is not to be applied to modern-day Christianity, but why single that part out alone? I can, by that logic, say that all parts of the Bible that aren't factually proven or morally accepted by a secular society should not be taken literally and should not be applied to modern-day Christianity. And then the religion would finally be tolerable. [/quote] I get what you mean. Cuz it's hard as s*** to define an entire lifestyle based on something you can't ACTUALLY prove exists. But what can we do? It would be just as wrong to kill gays (as it always was wrong) because of their sexuality as it would be to kill Christians, or members of any religion for that matter, because of their beliefs. what I'm trying to say is, who really gives a s***? It's a belief, not a fact. People acclimate their beliefs to personal experiences all the time, and I can attest to that. But there's still no PROOF. But I'm not hurtin' anybody (I'm no extremist) by believing what I want right? And don't get me wrong, beliefs like Christianity can't be proved, and I do believe in Christianity. But that doesn't mean I don't apply everyday common sense, and sciences I've learned in school. If people constantly apply religion to every f***ing thing, it'll be one constant stupid argument, over something that doesn't really matter. To each his own.[quote name='~N~' timestamp='1310576244' post='5351568'] ...Did you quote that from a priest? Lol, but yeah, I agree with this 100% [/quote] Nah, that's all me, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Ghost Origins' timestamp='1310575039' post='5351534'] Don't put words in my mouth. You're so busy being sarcastic you can't read. Those goin' around takin' it word for word are idiots, not Christians. It was meant that you follow some of the teachings of the Bible, not every action and law depicted. [/quote] I don't have to, you're doing this for me. And use the No True Scotsman fallacy twice; that will definitely make it work. The laws were written for you to follow. Modern day man, however, can see a lot of it as BS. Still wishing to cling to their religion though, they claim with ever increasing frequency as the years pass that more and more of the Bible is figurative. "Sure, the Bible may talk about slavery, sexism, homophobia, and other topics, but that's all figurative! People who believe in what's written in the Bible aren't Christians!" Then get pick a new book from the Oprah Book Club to follow, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1310583187' post='5351838'] I don't have to, you're doing this for me. And use the No True Scotsman fallacy twice; that will definitely make it work. The laws were written for you to follow. Modern day man, however, can see a lot of it as BS. Still wishing to cling to their religion though, they claim with ever increasing frequency as the years pass that more and more of the Bible is figurative. "Sure, the Bible may talk about slavery, sexism, homophobia, and other topics, but that's all figurative! People who believe in what's written in the Bible aren't Christians!" Then get pick a new book from the Oprah Book Club to follow, people. [/quote] There you go again, asserting yourself and opening your mouth talking about something which you have NO CLUE. I didn't say don't BELIEVE in the stories. I said, don't go taking every word written EXACTLY. The Bible is metaphorical, not literal. If it were literal, we'd be able to prove Christianity. The f*** are you getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Can you give some examples Ghost? IMO, coming up with all the names of a bunch of random people seems a little too specific to be a metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1310586185' post='5351994'] Can you give some examples Ghost? IMO, coming up with all the names of a bunch of random people seems a little too specific to be a metaphor. [/quote] You want examples of metaphors? Are you retarded? Anyone can create names, but if you want an example, here, let's play a little ruse: "Water," representing truth and knowledge, is probably the most frequently used metaphor in the Old Testament and is very often missed. It shouldn't be, though, when we remember that a vine, metaphorically, meaning the Lord's people, needs spiritual watering and nurturing. Not only is Israel, collectively, considered as the Lords vine, but so is each of his children, individually. It is used hundreds of times in these ways (See Isa. 5:2-7; Psa. 80:8 for examples.). It is a small step to extend this metaphor to include water and light, recognizing that "vines" need "water" and "light" to do well. Or, if you need another: And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. The first is the seven women. These seven women are metaphorically the same as the "woman" that the Lord (who is the Bridegroom(3)) has taken (and for the moment, forsaken) for His bride; and, in fact, this is simply an extension of that metaphor. It means His Church, or His children (See Isa.50:1: 54:4-7; 57:7-9.). The number seven in Jewish symbolism means completeness or fullness, so this would mean many brides, or in other words, many churches.(4) The second metaphor is the "bread," which they reject, preferring to eat their own. This is the same metaphor Jesus used when he said, "I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,41,48,51,58). It represents the truth of the Gospel that leads to salvation. This line means, then, that they reject the truth (bread) that he brings, preferring to rely on their own knowledge, false as it might be. The third metaphor is their own "apparel," which, like their "bread," they prefer theirs to his. His apparel represents his authority. This metaphor most likely has grown out of the authority vested in the robes the priests wore when officiating in the temple (Ephod and a robe, Ex. 28:4-43). This metaphor is made clear by reading Isaiah 3:6,7. There, a brother of the house of Israel says that he will not be their ruler/healer because he does not have the bread or the clothing, which means he does not have the knowledge or the authority to be a priest. Source: http://www.biblesecrets.org/METAPHOR.htm And as far as judging gays goes: Romans 2:1-3 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? James 4:11-12 Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor? The Bible was never meant to go beyond spreading simple guidelines of TODAY. It was written way too long ago to accurately apply it to the present without misconception or misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dude chill out, I wasn't questioning your statement. I was just asking a question, and you answered it. No need for hostilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Sorry. v.v It's my attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 It's cool bro. But anyway, I think this topic has gone on for a little too long. This thread is on gays, not religion. I think we can all agree that gays need to be treated equally and whatnot. We probably need a new topic of discussion or this thread will turn into another endless cycle of bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CinnamonStar Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I'm too lazy to read the whole charades, so I'll just add my first thoughts on the title. Meh, I have a bit of a fascination with homosexual scenes, especially 2 men. I have a huge folder full of yaoi, especially Saint Seiya yaoi, and if I ever get into photography, I'll probably make pictures of mostly that.:S But I don't want to turn people into an aesthetic/erotic object or something like that. Other than that, this is pretty much one of the few subjects the entire forum agrees with so I'm not repeating what everyone said already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Ghost you have gained my full respect. [quote]Other than that, this is pretty much one of the few subjects the [b]entire forum agrees with [/b]so I'm not repeating what everyone said already. [/quote] You sure about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Ghost Origins' timestamp='1310583499' post='5351849'] There you go again, asserting yourself and opening your mouth talking about something which you have NO CLUE.[/quote] [quote]You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.[/quote] I love that line; it works so well in so many instances. Adam and Eve are supposed to be what actually happened in regards to creation. The flood, Moses, David, Jesus, all of the stories(excluding ones Jesus and others specifically brought up to be clever metaphors) were taught as fact. As a recording of what had happened. [quote]I didn't say don't BELIEVE in the stories. I said, don't go taking every word written EXACTLY. The Bible is metaphorical, not literal. If it were literal, we'd be able to prove Christianity. The f*** are you getting at? [/quote] The fact that it's supposed to be literal doesn't make it proof of Christianity. Writing that only uses itself as a reference is not substantial.(see "The Parable of the Dagger") The examples you give show wonderfully how there is metaphorical [i]speech[/i]. However, there is no metaphor for Jonah being swallowed then released by a whale - only fantasy. This is where the Bible is literal(and incorrect), when it tries to record events in history. The Bible is also literal when teaching morals, as you demonstrated in the talks on judging(which is something you are indeed right about, many christians do not follow up on the commentary about not judging). This is where you can see sexism, apathy towards slavery, and homophobic ideals spread. The Bible is still against homosexuality. You can say they don't want you "judging" it, but it still "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." [i]Romans 1:27[/i] Also, pretty funny that all these men were throwing their own judgments around while talking about not judging. It's impossible not to judge on some level, so while cute, the entire concept is simply another logical fallacy within the good book. A perfect example of how Christians maintain backwards thought can be observed in this sentence. As people realize that homosexuality isn't actually something evil, this line will be increasingly referred to as a metaphor. I'm sure some will try calling itself as such even now in an attempt to save face. [quote name='Vough' timestamp='1310595929' post='5352650'] Ghost you have gained my full respect. [/quote] >Neg over disagreement. >Ghost swears every other sentence >Agrees with you. >"You have gained my full respect." I love Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Corgi Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 I like how this thread has been turned into a discussion about religion and has not been locked. Oh well, reading this solves my sleep problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [i]But I'm not hurtin' anybody (I'm no extremist) by believing what I want right?[/i] I don't care if you are or aren't, I already know you aren't one of the retarded Christians, but what about the other twenty or thirty or ten percent [or whatever bullshit number you want to throw at me] of people that do hurt people because they apply their beliefs onto others forcefully? Let's assume you don't like homosexual people. Cool, it's your opinion. But the second you vote against a bill legalizing homosexual marriage, you are forcing your beliefs onto others. I'm not saying you don't have that right; you have the right to vote however you please. But I find it illogical and stupid that some people (cough, Republicans) let religion influence how they deal with government issues and policies. If every single voter in this nation did not correlate religion with government, abortion and homosexual marriage would both be wholly legalized across the nation. [i]I like how this thread has been turned into a discussion about religion and has not been locked. Oh well, reading this solves my sleep problems.[/i] I'm at least proud to see that the forum has done a great job in [i]handling[/i] these outbreak of religious threads. Check the one currently in Debates; it's working out just fine. I find it stupid that [b]all[/b] religious threads are bound to be locked when the fact is they should only be locked once people start acting retarded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 I'm probably about to make myself look like a total dumbass, and I'm not disagreeing with your post Dark, but technicly, isn't voting FOR homosexual marriage also forcing your belifes onto people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='~N~' timestamp='1310621454' post='5353565'] I'm probably about to make myself look like a total dumbass, and I'm not disagreeing with your post Dark, but technicly, isn't voting FOR homosexual marriage also forcing your belifes onto people? [/quote] Which is more restrictive, banning homosexual marriage or allowing it? By allowing it, we are not [b]forcing[/b] people to become homosexual. We are giving them the option to get married if they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Yeah, I see your point, I must have misinterpreted your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 You have a point Dark, but umm... get over it? Voting to keep the definition of one term as what one considers it isn't exactly hurting anyone. Not being able to legally call your union "marriage" isn't going to ruin anyone's life. There's that, and the fact that people can call the union whatever they want anyway. I find it funny that people need to post, "gays are people too," as if someone is arguing that they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1310625033' post='5353651'] You have a point Dark, but umm... get over it? Voting to keep the definition of one term as what one considers it isn't exactly hurting anyone. Not being able to legally call your union "marriage" isn't going to ruin anyone's life. There's that, and the fact that people can call the union whatever they want anyway. I find it funny that people need to post, "gays are people too," as if someone is arguing that they aren't. [/quote] I dont believe he thinks they are not people but Vough seems to take a definate stand against them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 Taking a stand against someone =/= thinking they are not people. It's not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vough Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 [quote name='Anthony Hatsune' timestamp='1310625290' post='5353662'] I dont believe he thinks they are not people but Vough seems to take a definate stand against them... [/quote] taking a stand against people =/= taking a stand against a sexuality hate the sin and love the sinner I know perfectly well that gays are people and have feelings and deserve rights and what-not. HOWEVER, I think that marriage should not be allowed for homosexuals, but instead give them civil unions. And blah blah blah that's forcing belief or whatever, but heteros can't have civil unions. So now gays can gloat all they want that they get civil unions and don't [i]have[/i] to go through an expensive ceremony and only need to sign something. And I'm writing this at midnight so spare me if I'm ignorant >.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tentacruel Posted July 14, 2011 Report Share Posted July 14, 2011 That's actually interesting idea. Give gays MORE legal benefits through civil unions. Everyone can finally shut up if they did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.