Announcement

**Rufus T. Firefly** · September 25, 2003, 00:11

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Do you consider yourself more valuable, or equally valuable to your daughter?

The relationship between God and Adam, or between God and Eve will be quite different than that between you and your daughter.

God made us, therefore, he ought to be able to test his creations.

He's omniscient and omnipotent; why does he have to test anything?

**Ben Kenobi** · September 25, 2003, 00:20

We do have free will. God tests that, since he does not have control over our own decisions.

**Rufus T. Firefly** · September 25, 2003, 00:36

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
We do have free will. God tests that, since he does not have control over our own decisions.

An omnipotent God can't control our decisions? That seems odd. Perhaps you mean "won't" control our decisions. Given what he does if we decide incorrectly, and given that he's rigged us to disobey heim (especially regarding sexual matters), that seems sadistic.

You know, I remember being taught as a child that the Greek gods were different from the Judeo-Christian God because the Greek gods were full of the same vanities, arrogance, and pettiness as the humans who worshipped them, but the J-C God wasn't. I can't believe, even at that tender age, that I bought that.

**Jon Miller** · September 25, 2003, 01:18

hmm

what I think is that there is sin on this earth because beings now (and in the past) disagreed with God

as such He allowed the earth to go in a path that is different than His

the product of that different path is all the pain and suffering we have today

He won't allow us to go on that different path forever, at some point He will bring back those who want to to His path and those who do not wish to be with him will cease to exist

Jon Miller

**Agathon** · September 25, 2003, 02:47

Originally posted by Adam Smith
How would you translate this? Any other examples which come to mind? (No troll - would just like to know for the sake of knowing.) thanks.

The "in the beginning" bit is OK, but "logos" can mean a whole stack of things clustered around the notion of conveying information or having informational content.

e.g. word, statement, saying, conversation, maxim, proverb, story, promise, speech, language, position, proposition, principle.

This is complicated by the fact that it is a pregnant term in Greek philosophy. If you read the fragments of Heraclitus, you will see that he uses the term to mean something like the organising principle of the universe, the ultimate cause (which he thinks is fire). IIRC John's use of it has similar import, which "word" really sucks as a translation of.

**Shi Huangdi** · September 25, 2003, 03:23

Been really busy so I haven't been able to reply here, will try to adress the concerns of some here:

Monkspider said in reply to Obiwan saying "Love the Sinner, Hate the sin"

When this is applied towards avowed homosexuals, why does it sound to me, like it's patronizing/paternal, as well as ignorant?

It applies to all of us. Everyone sins, and we all need the correction of our brothers when we sin.

Asher:

[quote]So why are sins bad if God loves us anyway? Why would God not allow someone into heaven if he loves them?

By choosing to sin, a person voluntarily and of their own free will chooses to distance himself from God. When one dies, they are perfected in their current state, be that of Good, or chosen evil. Catholic theology has maintained that those in Hell are their own choosing- their evil on Earth is perfected in the afterlife and they would choose to alienate themself from God and everything that is good and be in Hell.

Not in my mind, he's made it very clear that unless we "repent" our sins we go to hell.

Not nessecarily. One of the nessecary components for any sin to be mortal is full knowledge. You certainly don't seem to have full knowledge of the sinfullness of your act. I have no way of knowing if lust will keep you from God. What does give me concern, however, is the wrath, lack of charity, and visciousness you have demonstrated throughout your posting career on Apolyton.

I have to listen to whoever shouts crap at me on the Speakers Corner at school when I pass by, and I do not appreciate a redneck Christian condemning homosexuals.

And I get to listen to Fundamentalist Protties who believe all Catholics are going to hell. If you don't want to listen, you don't have to.

I have a right to *****, I have a right to vent.

And with your comments you drag yourselves down to their level.

If god is omnipotent and thinks it's a sin, why do gay people still exist?

Just because God loves you doesn't mean you won't be free from the temptations of sin. Jesus himself was tempted by Satan in the desert.

If religious fundies treat me in that way, does that not mean that is the way they wish to be treated?

It more likely means that they have failed to live up to the standard of the Golden Rule. That does not mean that you have to as well.

Ben Kenobi:

Secondly, there are some people who are called to remain celebate for life.

Thank you

Good to see another person refuting society's common belief that sex is the be-all and end-all of life.

Azazel:

So what happens after you go to Hell? Is all hell a place of purging sins, and then uniting with god?

According to most contemporary theologians, an eterenal spiritual state of complete isolation from Goodness, and in which the damned soul is filled with hate and has all good from him departed.

Verto:

I thought it was an accepted fact that the Old and New Testaments have suffered from alterations - intentionally and unintentionally...

No. The ancient greek texts have been maintained from which translations are still done.

And it was my thread, the person who wrecked it was you who kept trolling that I apparently had no right to be upset by how lots of hardcore Christian treat gays.

Yes, Asher, you do have a right to be upset about being maltreated by hardcore Christians. Too many of my brothers in Christ do their ministry with none of Jesus's compassion, full of a devilish self-righteounsess, and who do more harm to Christianty by their poor representation of it.

You could rise above it though, respond with grace, and act like a better person then they are.

Let's look at the old Garden of Eden fairy tale, shall we? God creates us as perfect; then puts us in a quasi-paradisial garden in which he's placed a Forbidden Tree (why? WTF was the point of the forbidden tree?), then allows Satan to pop round (yes, "allows," since Mr All-Knowing All-Powerful, by definition must have known Satan was there and could have tossed him out), then let's Satan talk Eve into disobedience, then booms out: "Ha! It was all a set-up! You lose! No soup for you!"

Said "tree"(whether it was an actual tree or whether this part of Genesis is all metaphorical is open to interpretation, I suspect metaphorical) acts as a test of ones loyalty and obedience to God. If they were not given a choice on whether to love God or not, there could not be true love. Satan had the ability to tempt the first humans because he had free will as well. Even though Satan tempted those humans, the humans still had free will, but chose to follow Satan rather then God.

**Asher** · September 25, 2003, 03:35

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Asher:

By choosing to sin...

This is a major problem I have with it: It's not a choice, as I see it. I refuse to live alone, to not enter into relationships with people I fall in love with.

You may say it's a choice because technically it's possible to do so, but it's not very practical, nor is it fair. It's as much of a choice as deciding to keep your arm.

Not nessecarily. One of the nessecary components for any sin to be mortal is full knowledge. You certainly don't seem to have full knowledge of the sinfullness of your act.

That's because it ain't no sin, baby.

I have no way of knowing if lust will keep you from God.

What keeps me from God are the rigid, bigoted beliefs and his massive ego.

What does give me concern, however, is the wrath, lack of charity, and visciousness you have demonstrated throughout your posting career on Apolyton.

I'm certainly nice and help many people here, provided they're on my side of the fence. That's how I am, I don't believe in forced niceities when people are really foaming at the mouth. I don't believe in being polite when you want to tell somebody off. I'm all about what's on my mind and being upfront about it.

It will undoubtedly offend people, and often times breaks the rules of the site, but I refuse to censor myself. I will never apologize for that, nor do I think it's any cause of concern.

Of course, when it's in some place like a work or professional atmosphere, then it's all an act and manipulation.

And with your comments you drag yourselves down to their level.

Aren't sodomists one level below by default?

Just because God loves you doesn't mean you won't be free from the temptations of sin. Jesus himself was tempted by Satan in the desert.

If God loved me he wouldn't care who I f*cked. Period.

It more likely means that they have failed to live up to the standard of the Golden Rule. That does not mean that you have to as well.

I'm all for the eye for an eye approach. It's much more practical.

Thank you

Good to see another person refuting society's common belief that sex is the be-all and end-all of life.

I'd love to see you build a society without sex.

Yes, Asher, you do have a right to be upset about being maltreated by hardcore Christians. Too many of my brothers in Christ do their ministry with none of Jesus's compassion, full of a devilish self-righteounsess, and who do more harm to Christianty by their poor representation of it.

You could rise above it though, respond with grace, and act like a better person then they are.

What if I'm not a "better person" than they are? What is a better person? What is the norm that we compare to? What is the optimal person?

See, I don't buy that crap. People are people, people are different.

I'm not going to ignore it when people piss me off, it's not my style. I'm not interested in stature or seeing "who the better person" is, whatsoever. I'm interested in:

**Rufus T. Firefly** · September 25, 2003, 03:38

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Said "tree"(whether it was an actual tree or whether this part of Genesis is all metaphorical is open to interpretation, I suspect metaphorical) acts as a test of ones loyalty and obedience to God. If they were not given a choice on whether to love God or not, there could not be true love. Satan had the ability to tempt the first humans because he had free will as well. Even though Satan tempted those humans, the humans still had free will, but chose to follow Satan rather then God.

God allows the temptation of Eve. God actually sends Abraham out to kill his own son, only to pull back at the last minute with a hearty, "Just kidding!" God puts Job through hell, just to see if he'll stay loyal.

And all because God wants to see if we really, truly love him.

You know, I've dated women like that. Didn't last long. And if I can't bring myself to love another human who'd act that way, I'm sure not going to love a diety who does. A human, at least, has the excuse of not being perfect.

(Though, in fairness, the Judeo-Christian God has the same excuse: he was created in our own image.)

**Bereta_Eder** · September 25, 2003, 04:11

Why take all of the Holy Scriptures eriously and not just focus on the one sole important teaching: love.

**TheStinger** · September 25, 2003, 04:23

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Well, then find the citations where Christianity teaches that women ought to be treated like dirt.

Secondly, how would you prove that the texts have been altered?

Well all the crap in Leviticus about how women must be tested for their fidelity and other such nonsense. Then there is te general theme in the bible that women are untrustworthy and are weak and will lead Men astray.

Then of course there is the bit about obeying int he marriage ceremony(ok not in the bibkle but derived forom its teachings) and don't go on about that being the same as the church's relationship with Christ, that is a modern interpreation, the inital maening was obey in its everyday sense.

It is accepted that the original texts were sourced form oral tradition, it is incredible if when thay were written bits wern't added or dropped.

Also how do you manage to cope with bits on slavery being reinterpreted but not bits on homosexuality

**Drake Tungsten** · September 25, 2003, 04:26

Then there is te general theme in the bible that women are untrustworthy and are weak and will lead Men astray.

Seems about right to me...

Az · September 25, 2003, 04:54

According to most contemporary theologians, an eterenal spiritual state of complete isolation from Goodness, and in which the damned soul is filled with hate and has all good from him departed.

You see, Judaism doesn't believe in that, since all souls are supposedly from God, they're good in nature, no matter what happened during life, and after a period of cleansing, perhaps even a very long one, they'll return to god. That's what I meant by the lack of eternal damnation in judaism.

**Elok** · September 25, 2003, 08:05

In the general spirit of correction...

Originally posted by TheStinger
Then of course there is the bit about obeying int he marriage ceremony(ok not in the bibkle but derived forom its teachings) and don't go on about that being the same as the church's relationship with Christ, that is a modern interpreation, the inital maening was obey in its everyday sense.
It is accepted that the original texts were sourced form oral tradition, it is incredible if when thay were written bits wern't added or dropped.
Also how do you manage to cope with bits on slavery being reinterpreted but not bits on homosexuality

Actually, it is in the bible. I believe it's Ephesians where St. Paul says, "wives, be submissive to your husbands, as the church is submissive to Christ, for the husband is the head as Christ is the head of the church, likewise, husbands, be prepared to die for your wives, as Christ died for the church." That's not an exact quote, but it's pretty close. The whole thing is biblical. What it essentially means is that each partner is expected to take a vastly different but quantitatively similar amount of crap from the other.
The bits on slavery were reinterpreted because slavery was very different then from the way it is today, or so I'm told. Men conquered in war tended to be enslaved for a time by the victors, or given into slavery when they couldn't pay their debts. St. Paul said slaves should obey their masters and masters be kind to their slaves. I'm not super-informed on the subject, but I hear that the system was very different from the arbitrary dominance we call slavery today. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has probably been the same from the start.
Again, I'm fighting defensively here; please don't take this as a "god hates you backdoor-pirates!" rant.

**Verto** · September 25, 2003, 08:48

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Ben: We're all God's children, right? Okay...

I'm a parent. I give my daughter life, then give her a beautiful bedroom full of everything she could ever want. Then, in that bedroom, I place a chocolate chip cookie, and tell her "Honey, you can do whatever you want in this bedroom, but don't eat the cookie." Then, I allow Uncle Satan to enter the bedroom, even though I know that he's going to encourage my little girl to eat the cookie. And he does. And she does. And then I burst in and cry, "You ate the cookie! You must leave this beautiful bedroom forever! From now on you sleep in the basement, on the floor!"

Now, as a parent, do I seem like I'm wise and loving...or that I'm a petty, vindictive, sadistic monster? If you knew me, would you admire me...or call Social Services ASAP?

The flaw is that, for your story to be the same, a few things must be added.

1.) As long as your daughter remained in the room, and did not eat the cookie, she would be in an innocent state, but would not grow. She would simply do what she was told with no ability to choose for herself; in addition, she would not be able to know happiness and joy, for she would never know any grief or sorrow.

2.) Your daughter was meant to eat the cookie; you knew this, and realized it was the only way for her to actually grow and develop.

3.) You send someone to the basement to provide a way for your daughter to come back into the Great Bedroom; not only would she be back in the Great Bedroom, she would have grown, having made her own choices while in the basement.

**Rogan Josh** · September 25, 2003, 09:00

I am not going to read this entire thread, but I will give my opinion anyway

I agree that being gay is not a choice - you are either attracted to members of the same sex or your aren't. So 'being gay' is not a sin imho.

Gay sex is a harder question. I would say that casual sex of any kind is a sin, ie. sex without making a strong commitment to someone. I personally don't regard gay sex with a strong commitment as a sin, but even if I did I wouldn't regard it is a very big one. No worse than getting mad in a traffic jam for example.

I find it hard to understand why gay people would find that upsetting.

In fact, I think this entire classification of people as straight/gay/bi is rather crap. We don't classify people as to whether they prefer strawberry or vanilla ice-cream, so why do it for sex (btw I am a vanilla man)?

I would even advocate that it is none of the state's business. There should be no such thing as marriage (in the traditional sense) sanctioned by the state. There could instead be a simple (and hard to get out of) state anctioned statement of solidarity between two people which confers rights like visitation in hospital etc, but has nothing to do with sex. Best friends should be able to have these rights too without any implication of sex (this can of course already be done by a legal contract). Then people can celebrate this contract in any way they want in whatever religious (or otherwise) context they like.

But I will defend the right of anyone to hold the opinion that gay sex is wrong. I do get pissed at gay people, naming no-one in particular (

), who in one breath complain about religious people disapproving of gay sex, and in the next disapprove of religios belief.

Announcement

A Question for the Religious Types

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment