Texan Bigotry

[Ben Kenobi]

And I'd love to hear the reply. The female children were not important enough to be mentioned. Equality at it's best.

All genealogies are pruned to include the most relevant parts. Were there other children? Yes. Do we know their names? No, we don't.

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyways, the Divorce discussion interests me because Ben (and Felch) were very interested in telling me that God's rules don't change and therefore a newly revealed truth about homosexuality was impossible. But in the Jesus narrative about divorce, it seems that God's rules DID change - why? Because the people were hard of heart - ie, they weren't ready for what God wanted at that time. So which is it?

Jesus's argument is that in the beginning there was Adam and Eve, one man and one woman and that Adam and Eve are the ideal for marriage. Not only does Jesus argue that this was the intent of creation, but that this is how the rules have always been. Jesus states that allowing divorce was a deviation from the ideal. The rules haven't changed - just that the ideals are what they have always been - that the Old Testament is fulfilled (made complete) through the new.

Now, Imran, you claim that 'the new revelation that sodomy was a sin', was just that, new. It's not, it's all throughout the bible. Your statement appears nowhere within. How did you come to this conclusion?

[Nikolai]

I would disagree with you on both accounts. First, the Adam and Eve story is demonstrably false. Don't take my word for it. God created this world with all its rules and laws. If you disagree with reality, take it up with him. Also, I think a very small minority of Christians actually believes in creationism.

You are a nice guy and I like you. So I'm not about to call you all sorts of names like I do BK.

It's fine to disagree. I believe God created the world, and Adam and Eve. The details I don't know and I'm fine with it. If it turns out he used a different way than I believe, that's ok. But I do believe the Bible when it tells me Adam and Eve are real people who lived on this Earth.

Furthermore, I haven't met a single priest or bishop in the Orthodox church who believes in such things to be literally true. And I know a lot of priests. Even among their ranks, creationism isn't a popular belief. I doubt even modern Popes have suggested such a thing is true.

So you are definitely part of a fringe minority on this issue, Nikolai.

I know priests who do. I don't know any bishops. But in the end, this is a minor issue as I see it. I'm fine with being in the minority, if that is what I am.

And I'll echo rah's sentiments by saying I'm not trying to be rude. But the fact is, literal creationism isn't a belief held by mainstream Christianity.

If believing in it works for you, that's okay. But you should know that doing so severely diminishes your credibility on just about every conceivable topic. This isn't my judgment alone, by the way.

It's okay, I don't take offence. I can't see how me believing in what the Bible tells me diminishes my credibility on other, totally disconnected topics though. I am a historian for example, how is my credibility on my field damaged by what I believe about the world's origins? If that is how it is though, I'll accept that and don't really care. I need to stay true to my beliefs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you follow that line of reasoning to it's natural conclusion, it would suggest that having sex with family members is absolutely morally fine, but just a bad idea because of genetics.

Well isn't why its morally not ok (or rather why it started as being morally not ok) because of genetic abnormalities that result?

[kentonio]

The abusers claim that 'it's got nothing to do with my beliefs'. Which usually means that it's got everything to do with my beliefs. People lie, Kentonio. They lie when they believe that not lying will make them lose face.

Nikolai believes a lot of the same stuff as you. People do not think Nikolai is a lying scumbag with no moral compass or human empathy. Put your victim card away, you're embarrassing yourself.

I would suspect that an outside observer would conclude that yes, the fellow not resorting to personal attacks would be considered the reasonable one.

Lots of repulsive bigots also spread their vile filth without resorting to personal attacks. This not not make them any less bigoted or repulsive. Just a hint though, when you drop into someones thread celebrating their engagement and **** all over it, that is a form of personal attack.

Given that the folks confronting me don't have anything to substantiate their allegation, I am challenging them to prove their case is actually relevant to this thread.

You are a compulsive liar. Would you care to disagree?

So that warrants personal attacks because, "you don't like the person"?

Absolutely. You are everything that is wrong with the world rolled up into a single waste of human body parts.

[kentonio]

Well isn't why its morally not ok (or rather why it started as being morally not ok) because of genetic abnormalities that result?

To me sure, but then again I don't follow the belief that a higher power set out a firm ruleset of behavior based around his own creations. If it was morally ok, then why would a god make an otherwise acceptable practice causes genetic abnormalities?

[Nikolai]

To me sure, but then again I don't follow the belief that a higher power set out a firm ruleset of behavior based around his own creations. If it was morally ok, then why would a god make an otherwise acceptable practice causes genetic abnormalities?

The obvious answer would be sin. Sin corrupts everything, that's what the Bible teaches.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not only does Jesus argue that this was the intent of creation, but that this is how the rules have always been. Jesus states that allowing divorce was a deviation from the ideal. The rules haven't changed - just that the ideals are what they have always been - that the Old Testament is fulfilled (made complete) through the new.

Matthew 19 (NIV):

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a 5and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b ? 6So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Moses permitting being, of course, the Law of the Old Testament. So how didn't the rules change if the Law allowed for divorce?

How did you come to this conclusion?

1 John 4:8

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Matthew 22:39

And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

The grand scope of Scripture seems to build to the idea that God's love encompasses all and that which violates loving neighborliness is to be rejected. We learn more and more of it as time goes by. The Spirit, as always, guides us and keeps revealing to us the truths of God, which we were to hard of hearts to hear in earlier ages. May it continue forward.

[kentonio]

Jon Miller

[kentonio]

The obvious answer would be sin. Sin corrupts everything, that's what the Bible teaches.

Yes, but sin has a point. Without sin there is no free will, because everything you do would be fine. If incest is not sinful, then how does it make any sense that it leads to horrors like genetic abnormalities?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also, I think that one need to see that Scripture does not seem to condemn incest per se, but condemns incestuous relationships which may lead to confusions involving inheritance. Since inheritance was everything for a lot of people (esp women in the ancient world, without an inheritance they were doomed to prostitution or the hope that some rich guy would marry them before it came to that) anything that muddled that was way off limits (btw, this is also why adultery was such a horrendous crime in Ancient Rome). And, of course, you can't have sex with your own sister, because then she could get herself married off.

(ie, morality follows from practical reasons - also why not eating pork was enshrined)

[Nikolai]

Yes, but sin has a point. Without sin there is no free will, because everything you do would be fine. If incest is not sinful, then how does it make any sense that it leads to horrors like genetic abnormalities?

This is entirely speculation, as I don't know the answer since the Bible doesn't say anything on the matter. But my guess is as sin resulted in genetic mutations that were bad, the danger with close kin relationships became so severe God had to set down some stricter rules. I reiterate, this is entirely speculation on my part though.

[Nikolai]

I agree you ask a good question though, kentonio. Incest in some form must have occured in the early days post creation, if there isn't something back then we don't know that the Bible doesn't touch into. It's seen as a grave thing today, a sin if you like. When did that change? I believe I know why, but it does raise a lot of questions.

[kentonio]

Also, I think that one need to see that Scripture does not seem to condemn incest per se, but condemns incestuous relationships which may lead to confusions involving inheritance. Since inheritance was everything for a lot of people (esp women in the ancient world, without an inheritance they were doomed to prostitution or the hope that some rich guy would marry them before it came to that) anything that muddled that was way off limits (btw, this is also why adultery was such a horrendous crime in Ancient Rome).

(ie, morality follows from practical reasons - also why not eating pork was enshrined)

Isn't the whole point of religion that there's a higher power who defines morality rather than it all being based on practical reasoning? You seem to have just given me the atheist explanation..

(No offense )

[Imran Siddiqui]

Isn't the whole point of religion that there's a higher power who defines morality rather than it all being based on practical reasoning? You seem to have just given me the atheist explanation..

(No offense )

Who says the entire thing is based on practical reasoning? Love your enemies seems not very practical.

Some rules based on practical reasons just seem to be a matter of good tending to the flock.