Homosexuality= 999,999,999,999,999,999 God= 0

reply to post by Nicks87

Most real christians agree that gay people should have the same rights as everyone else but atheists just want to say "here's proof that religion is bad".

My problem is that many atheists have to constantly inject atheism into every topic of discussion.

You chose to ignore my earlier replies to you on this very point. And other posts of mine on this matter.

What is a "real Christian" mean to you? When there is 40 thousand denominations. What sound reason do you have that the other Christians are not "real Christians"?

Since you didn't respond to my other posts I don't expect a reply. But one would be appreciated.

Originally posted by mahatche

Originally posted by CyberneticProphet


God gave mankind freewill to obey him or not. Adam and Eve chose not to so sin entered the world. They was deceived by Satan. He still does the same tricks today.

God never promised life in this world would be easy. People that blame God for everything have a misunderstanding about his nature.

If you reject God you will end up in Hell. It's rather simple really.

well according to the bible adam and eve didn't know right from wrong until they ate the fruit. Kinda strange creatures who didn't know right from wrong would be punished so heavily.

edit on 10-2-2013 by mahatche because: (no reason given)

translation errors.
for example, the first time it mentions the creation of the adam, it turns out it's not a single man, but an entire race of males and females who are collectively called "adam". these adam are created in the image of elohim, which is a plural word for gods. adam is also a plural word. so you have gods making copies of themselves and calling them adam. since some adam are male and some are female, that means some of those elohim were female. eve is not the first female, just the first procreative female

the entire fall narrative is about the change of the adam from what essentially sounds like clones, to individual, sexually reproductive, procreators. the whole spiel about being like god, knowing good and evil, is referring to creation of new adam. in effect, procreation=the tree of knowledge. adam "knew" (had knowledge of) eve and she begat (had kids).

every reference to a "tree" in those verses is a reference to dna. even the serpent in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is about dna. specific parts of dna. so the tree of knowledge of good and evil is those parts of dna that make sexual reproduction possible. and the tree of life, was that part of dna that made it so every part of the body was regenerative, and there was no cut off date for the adam life cycle

if you look at genetics, and how aging happens, you will see it is all pre-programmed into the dna strand.. there's a section that counts how many times the dna strand can be read before a destructive cascade cycle kicks in and the section stops being readable. this repeats over and over, till you die. and this was the nerf to our dna, as a result of the addition of procreation. if we were gonna start making copies of ourselves, our life spans would have to be nerfed or the planet would become over populated, in just a few generations. it was the environmentalist, enlil who decided this was gonna be a problem and took the matter before the divine council, who made the ultimate decision to demand the creator (enki) make the nerfs to the adam dna lifespan.

the fall narrative is also related to how procreation effects human behavior. procreative mammal dna was spliced into our adam dna. (eve was an adam too. there's a reason for this, related to who wrote the texts of torah (moses) and where he got his information from. hint: atum (adam. the adam were named after their creators) was the egyptian god(s) of creation (atum is plural too). and she was created from material in his rib (dna). this mammal procreation carried with it all the territorial behaviors of a mammal, necessary for successful procreation and survival, such as violence, jealousy, murder, protective behaviors, pheromones, lust, etc.

eve means mother. that's why she was differentiated from previous female adam. the references to her as eve before she's even capable of being a mother, are foreshadowing, because adam hasn't even named her yet (the fall narrative), before she becomes capable of procreation. this is also why the creation of new adam went from being painless cloning, to painful vaginal delivery.

so as i said before, YOU are not your flesh. you are not inherently evil. your body is, and it ain't your fault either. however, it is your responsibility to not let your flesh rule your intellect. compassion and love, kindness, empathy, charity, those kinds of human emotions and actions, are good, however. that's the message i get out of it anyway.

pretty amazing stuff.

oh and this is a good one, on the subject of how we age and the names of things you can research to find out what's going on and what science is trying to do about it, currently.

reply to post by undo


I wish I could un-read that counter-intellectual nonsense.

Where are you getting this information from?

Just remember that gay people are not just statistics or random, faceless people. We are someones sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. We work. We pay taxes. We laugh and cry. We hurt. We fall in love. We are more than the stereotypes we are portrayed as. We come in all shapes and sizes, across all ethnicities and all socio-economic groups. Our sexuality is only part of who we are, and its a part we cant change, nor would most of us want to even if we could. I know I wouldn't.

Be careful when blindly following the teachings of a book that was written by man and subsequently rewritten and re-interpreted over time. Does it truly reflect the word and will of God? The truth is, none of us can truly know the answer to that question until we die.

Look, I don't know if there is a God, but if there is, I would like to think that He would want me to live honestly instead of living a lie.

Originally posted by LightOrange
reply to post by undo

 

I wish I could un-read that counter-intellectual nonsense.

Where are you getting this information from?

i think the book of genesis contains a great deal of science that no one recognized for a very long time because our science wasn't far enough long to compare it. for example, the verses following the first verse of chapter 1, is not about the creation of the earth, but the re-terraforming of it after a cataclysm. since it sounds like the planet is covered with a frozen surface of water that melts and draws down to reveal dry land that was already there, i believe it's referring to the end of the ice age.

as far as the dna material, if you read it with the key words in their original hebrew, it is more descriptive than in the english translation. for example, why was it a problem that humans would have access to the tree of life? the tree of life is dna, a specific part of dna. what the heck else could it be? trees were used metaphorically, all thru out the text of the bible, to refer to family lines, genetics which is dna. i'm just working with material that's available.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by CyberneticProphet

 

I am curious where God forbids homosexuality. Where is this commandment given, be it part of the 10 or not?

What those John MacArthur videos I posted here, he explains it really well. www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CyberneticProphet


see, i don't watch video's really. And i wasn't wanting someones opinions or explanations. I want book, chapter, verse.

I have attended a Baptist university. I have gone through hour upon hour of college class studying scripture. I am informed enough to draw my own opinion, but I need to see book, chapter, verse so that I can read what you are reading.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by CyberneticProphet

 

Any thoughts on my post on page 5 concerning a biblical verse and the use of the word "homosexuality"?

I'd think the inclusion of the 19th century term "homosexual" into the KJV was quite significant from a structuralist historical position.

It does not describe a sin or specific act, but rather a "type" of person or identity.
As threatening as this may have been, it then also made people who identified with that "homosexual" label aware of their potential to organize and unite.

Michel Foucault and other historians have long suspected that gay identity evolved from being "judicial subjects" (as "sodomites") to attempts at organizing as "homosexuals".
As judicial sodomites gays existed within some circles, and every now and then an anti-gay pogrom would make examples of one or two.
This was seen as a necessary sacrifice so that the majority could survive on the fringes.
However, the new medicalization of the terms allowed for the first common identity, even across classes.
By describing something in a new light one can also construct new political identities.

Ironically, in my formative years, I was first exposed to the notion of "homosexuals" via the Bible, and that gave me hope that there were other like me in the world, and that like slaves and women before us, we could struggle together for more freedoms.

I'm sure that's the last thing the homophobes who put the term "homosexual" there intended, but such is the dualistic power of discourse.

In that sense, the whole fundamentalist religious/gay debate is mutually encouraging and inter-dependent.
Heterosexually is really quite dismal in most of the Bible (especially for women), and attacking the "gay other" as a binary opposite to Biblical heterosexualities then also allows them to find a bit of inherent goodness in that system.
If solely heterosexuality existed there would be no inherent goodness or notions of superiority in that sexual orientation.

I suppose then the main dispute would be between being sexually active with women vs. celibacy (which the early church already grappled with, leading to a sexually active laity and a supposedly celibate clergy).
For notions of heterosexual "normality" and "goodness", fundamentalism actually needs the homosexual counter-point.

Therefore, while the debate can be negative, I suspect it's very much behind post-modern identity formations, and it's still likely to form a lucrative and political industry for many years to come.

Perhaps some preaches should thank God for homosexuals, or they'd have to get real jobs.

Perhaps to rework the percentages in the thread title: I'd agree that like heterosexuality, homosexuality should be 1 percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration!

Well.

All I still want to know and all I've ever wanted to know is why people still set so much store by an centuries old book that has been translated, interpreted, misinterpreted and re-misinterpreted so many times it's truly a wonder anyone one still places any trust in it whatsoever.

If this were any other book, tell me would anyone still bother using it as a source of anything? At all? What is it about the Bible, considering all of it's history, that makes you feel like it's a reliable source of anything?

And to all those who do still set so much store by it, pray tell, why, when you preach so much that you are not allowed to pick and choose what you like in the bible and what you don't, do you still choose to ignore just about everything else that the Bible decrees and forbids about women, children, slavery, clothes, food, foreigners, worship, and countless other topics? Why the hell is homosexuality - which, arguably, the Bible never really says anything about - still the one damn thing you are all so hung up on?

The world may never know.

reply to post by TheLiesOfEden


i reserve the right to pick and choose what i think is most valid and applicable to me as a christian, and i prefer jesus' approach, which is something like this:

yeah, people make mistakes and your response should be to be compassionate, understanding, forgiving,, non-judgemental, encouraging, ever mindful of the fact that you are in a sin body too, so judge not lest you be judged, etc. it's not an easy thing to ask of us to be fair and easy on each other, because humans are not characteristically familiar with that approach.

i mentioned earlier in the thread, i don't think it was god in the old testament that decided to wipe out sodom and gomorrah, but rather the egyptian pharaoh of the time of abraham

reply to post by undo


Well, if I'm understanding what you've written here correctly, you are not a Christian who chooses to cherry pick and intentionally mispreach parts of the Bible to suit their own nefarious agendas and perpetuate the hate and intolerance foisted upon a group of people who have done nothing to warrant it.

And for that, I now thank you.

That's an interesting thing you've written about Sodom and Gomorrah, I've never heard a theory/interpretation like that before.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I want book, chapter, verse.

If you want I will post all the verses I have seen used from OT and NT.

reply to post by halfoldman


Gah! I wrote you a long reply and then screwed it all up by reloading the page somehow Well I will edit this post in a few with a re-write.

Originally posted by TheLiesOfEden
reply to post by undo

 

That's an interesting thing you've written about Sodom and Gomorrah, I've never heard a theory/interpretation like that before.

well somebody pointed out the passages in the story, as regards the use of the word adam vs.the use of the word iysh or ish, which in english were both translated "man." i thought.."how odd, why are there 2 different words translated to mean man, in some cases in the same sentence?" that caused me to dissect the whole story of abraham's meeting at the tent, looking for hebrew word translations of the central figures in the story.

so a couple "men" show up with what the text refers to as the LORD or LORD GOD, etc, that come from various hebrew words in the passage, like Adonai, for example. that puzzled me as well. why did this one guy's identity keep getting moved around to different words. that caused me to pay strict attention to this one figure.

if he was God, why did he need to travel to sodom and gomorrah to see what was happening there? couldn't he just see it supernaturally? i set that question aside, till i could find some supportive reason to suggest he wasn't God, as in the creator of the universe. I didn't find a possible supportive rationale, till reading a text on the meaning of Elohim.

Few people know this, but the word Elohim has been used in the text of the Old Testament to refer to gods, angels and the dearly departed Considering Elohim is the word used to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth and the creation of all life on the planet, that's a pretty big deal. As a result of reading this Elohim usage, it finally dawned on me that perhaps the word for God or LORD in the abraham passages was suffering a similar flexibility, but in this case, the translators were themselves unsure how to handle it, since the LORD in the abraham passages informs abraham of the miraculous future impregnation of Sarah at 80 something years of age, and because of the devastation of sodom and gomorrah and associated passages referring to the men (sounds like a pair of body guards) who were with the LORD, blinding the entire group of sodomites who were trying to accost them . people assume these passsages can mean nothing else but evidence of supernatural activity. they could be right, but I am not so certain. My rationale goes beyond these things as well.

That, of course, would mean the egyptian men with the pharaoh and the pharaoh himself had perhaps access to advanced technology or, and i think this is the more likely case, had the ear and audience and assistance of someone who did. this would create the impression that pharaoh was indeed a god king, and at the same time, still make it necessary for him to normally move around on the planet, like any other human.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by TheLiesOfEden

 

i reserve the right to pick and choose what i think is most valid and applicable to me as a christian, and i prefer jesus' approach, which is something like this:

yeah, people make mistakes and your response should be to be compassionate, understanding, forgiving,, non-judgemental, encouraging, ever mindful of the fact that you are in a sin body too, so judge not lest you be judged, etc. it's not an easy thing to ask of us to be fair and easy on each other, because humans are not characteristically familiar with that approach.

i mentioned earlier in the thread, i don't think it was god in the old testament that decided to wipe out sodom and gomorrah, but rather the egyptian pharaoh of the time of abraham

edit on 10-2-2013 by undo because: (no reason given)

Sodom and Gomorrah weren't immoral cities because of homosexuality to being with. They were immoral cities because of rape and infidelity.

Anyways, I really don't see why people need to base their moralities on the Bible. Isn't it much more credible and admirable to form these standards on experience, logic, and compassion without attaching it to this century's official version of a single book?

reply to post by LightOrange


it's the ancient history of the world, albeit suffering from several thousand years of separation, cultural differences, and language barriers. i also study ancient texts of other cultures as well, such as the sumerians, akkadians, babylonians, egyptians, hindus, buddhists, and the inca

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I want book, chapter, verse.

If you want I will post all the verses I have seen used from OT and NT.

I am familiar with them having attended Hardin Simmons University, and growing up in "the buckle of the bible belt".

I am more interested in seeing if our friend has thoughts of his own, or those given to him by others.