Homosexuality in the Bible

[angellous_evangellous]

Are you saying Biblical is not traditional??? Hehehe.

Not traditional in the popular evangelical sense. The "traditional family values" that conteporary Christian fanatics like Falwell and Dobson espouse as "biblical" would hardly be recognizable to any biblical writers or audiences.

The Bible was not written by or for anyone in our time - traditions that people would like to have come from the Bible most often come from other values.

The Bible is traditional in its own context.

 

[Pah]

Not traditional in the popular evangelical sense. The "traditional family values" that conteporary Christian fanatics like Falwell and Dobson espouse as "biblical" would hardly be recognizable to any biblical writers or audiences.

The Bible was not written by or for anyone in our time - traditions that people would like to have come from the Bible most often come from other values.

The Bible is traditional in its own context.

I'm glad I asked. Your answer highlights the error of evangelical opposition to same-sex marriage. In fact, it undermines the whole social context of any on the religious right.

 

[roli]

Not traditional in the popular evangelical sense. The "traditional family values" that conteporary Christian fanatics like Falwell and Dobson espouse as "biblical" would hardly be recognizable to any biblical writers or audiences.

The Bible was not written by or for anyone in our time - traditions that people would like to have come from the Bible most often come from other values.

The Bible is traditional in its own context.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If so it is the most widely used book of all times,sold more copies,has lasted longer than any other book and has impacted the world more than any other book in all history.
The bible is only revelant and life giving to the bible believing, born again,spirit filled ,blood bought,redeemed saved,chosen children of God
Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of meAnd ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
1Cr 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Could you define your definition of what a Christian is to you,because I am confused, how you can say the bible is not for anyone in our time ,yet still maintain being a follower of Chirst.
Jesus says Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
I know many say I don;t have to do this or that to be a believer,I can believe this and still be a Christian,I hear it all the time.
Can you honestly follow Christ without believing His word,if so ,how is that possible,
I am interested to know.
Have I been misled,maybe it is the Humanist Manifesto I should be reading ,or Darwins.Origin of The Speicies are thse relevant enough.
The question is will they lead you to the truth

 

[angellous_evangellous]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

First, this verse was written long before the Protestant canon, which you refer to as "the Bible." This is significant because the writer doubtlessly includes Scripture that are not included in the "Bible," commonly refered to as the Apocrypha, and both known and possibly unknown Jewish pseudipigraphal works, like the Enoch apocalypses and perhaps even some later Christian works like the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas, depending on how late 2 Timothy was written.

I don't doubt that the Christian testimony against homosexuality is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness", but obviously the fundamentalists have been more than a little careless and destructive with their double-edged sword, cutting and attacking others instead of building them up. For example, the Catholics, Anglicans (until recently), and Eastern Orthodox Churches viewed homosexuality as perfectly natural, but encouraged homosexuals to be chase as all unmarried people should be, allowing homosexuals to participate freely as normal, unmarried Christians. Protestants are completely divided on the issue, with biblical literalists on one hand destroying the lives of homosexuals with merciless intensity, and "liberal" Protestants on the other, attempting to encourage and edify homosexuals on every occasion.


The Church may end up changing her testimony to homosexuality, from Protestants upwards, due to the testimony of heartbreak and pain from the Body of Christ. I suppose Protestants are finally good for something, and I would have never seen this coming.:clap

 

[roli]

The Church may end up changing her testimony to homosexuality, from Protestants upwards, due to the testimony of heartbreak and pain from the Body of Christ. I suppose Protestants are finally good for something, and I would have never seen this coming.:clap

[/QUOTE]

Man made churches, meaning denominations,man centered doctrines, etc will always change something from the word of God,but God changes not in regard to sin,His character,nature and Holiness.
We seem to bring God's justcie and authority down to man's level and nulify His Kingship.
I am the same yesterday today and forever Hbr 13:8and I change not.Mal 3:6
The sinner is loved by God and this is why He sent His Son, but the sin is against His nature and will not enter into His Holy presence,end of story.
I am led to believe some people have yet to grasp the Holy nature of God
If any church allows sin to be practiced within the confines of it's wall,they do so outside the will of God and in clear disobedience,
if some poeple can't even place a definitive on their own practices and protocol how will they be able to adhere to and carry out God's word
Denominations will do what they do best ,divide,conquer and
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Hbr 10:26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,"* *says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people."* 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Man made...

Humans made the Bible, freely edited it, drew up the canons, and now either destroy people's lives with the Scriptures or seek to testify to God in a constructive manner.

Make no mistake, the Bible itself and the interpetation of it are humanity's testimony to God. Hopefully, God's testimony to us is somewhere between the lines, but God is too holy to be approached in a text, and too powerful to be contained in a word.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am led to believe some people have yet to grasp the Holy nature of God

Quite right. If we could master God's loving, restorative nature, I wonder what we could accomplish. What redemption is there in determined, purposeful destruction, like forbidding homosexuals to marry?

It's more than a little ironic that Christians were a driving force in the founding of orphanages and hospitals in the West, and fundamentalists now are the principal aggressors in preventing homosexuals from adopting, visiting eachother in hospitals, and denying homosexuals and women proper healthcare. The inhumanity of the whole situation is heartbreaking.

If any church allows sin to be practiced within the confines of it's wall,they do so outside the will of God and in clear disobedience,
if some poeple can't even place a definitive on their own practices and protocol how will they be able to adhere to and carry out God's word
Denominations will do what they do best ,divide,conquer and

What about the sins of greed, false prophesy, selfishness, and arrogance? The very touting of the Bible as the word of God and the arrogance that is rooted in rejecting Scripture that Christianity as a whole has used from the beginning is a divisive denomenational act "from men." A destructive interpretation and application of a holy book is even more diguisting.

"At the very least, do no harm."

 

[roli]

Humans made the Bible, freely edited it, drew up the canons, and now either destroy people's lives with the Scriptures or seek to testify to God in a constructive manner.

Make no mistake, the Bible itself and the interpetation of it are humanity's testimony to God. Hopefully, God's testimony to us is somewhere between the lines, but God is too holy to be approached in a text, and too powerful to be contained in a word.

In regards to your first comment, Humans made the bible,freely edited it etc and now destroy people's lives with it ,can not possibly be inclusive of all Christians as you have alluded to.
Jesus' intention was to copy the books and testimony of himself through eye witness accounts,much like where you get all or much of your sources of info,news research today for your own personal use.
But how ironic the skeptics of the bible seem to totally rely on and support and quote articles of study with less crediability then the scriptures and appear to be wise and scholared through it,yet shatter their own positions by hypocracy in their loud opposition to the scriptures.
The scriptures will never be received through man's intellect and reasoning, or by certain high religious leaders who profess to be the only one's able to approach God,but only through the individual who has been regenerated and born again by the Holy Spirit.

How do you figure it is man's testimony to God as if it were all inclusive of us all writing to Him.
It is God speaking through certain men and their lives to instruct the rest of us ,that is why He used Jesus to die as a man.
Because we could not possibly handle or identify with a Spirit/or God himself if He came to testify about Himself.What kind of testimony would that be if I came to testify about myself,that is why Jesus always alluded to Him coming to do the work His father sent him for and he did'nt come to testify about himself.
He came to indentify with man in the likeness of sinful flesh.
And no man can bear to stand before such a Holy God on His own volition
I believe only a selected few,as they were led ,inspired by the Holy Spirit testified of God, there is a big difference by being a testimony to God as opposed to being a testimony of God.
The writers have alot to to give testimony of,his,love, grace, mercy,long suffering,patience etc,which many in this world may never experience fully because of their intellect.

Your religion says ,Christian,what are you actually advocating as a Christian.
Are you a supporter of practicing homosexuality as an acceptable orientation or lifestlye and yet remain a Christain.
I also pick up that you give no crediability to the authenticity or accuracy of the scriptures for the mere fact they were written by men.How are you a Christian then?
By the way, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.Does that mean anything to you.
Do you fully understand what that inspiration was,have you experienced a spiritual rebirth. If you don't understand and receive His Spirit how can you understand anything of God,it is only spritiually discerned.

Of course not every version of the bible or written piece of doctrine had it's inspiration by the Holy Spirit,but that is not something that anyone can be convinced of.
When you read the word of God His word will speak truth to your heart about who He is and His word itselfand you will distinguish what is truth and false.
Many will never enter into that place of truth about God yet continue to attempt to access it through intellect.

As it stands the word of God never gets beyong the intellect of skeptics,unbelievers etc.and remains in the arena of refutation,debate and philosophical reasoning.
Phiolosophy and man's intellect will never figure out God and are no further ahead today then 20 centuries ago.

Yet the scriptures speak of every issue under the sun regarding man and what they will incur in this life,from love to hate,life to death,wealth poverty,from rape to theft,emotional pain to family crisis,working hard to being lazy,philosophy to astrology.science,health,
But if your not looking or intentionally avoiding it you will never be illuminated in the spirit to comprehend it.

God either God spoke through men to bring the word to us (logos) books (biblios) or he did'nt,you either believe or disbelieve and if their is disbelief I am not sure what ground you are on if your professing to be Christian.
And if he did write through falliable men, he either knew He was using human vessels or was totally in the dark,I mean men who willfully and consciously propogate false teaching,false interpretations,heresy,false doctrines. etc are not included as true followers of Christ and will be weeded out on that great and terrible day.

 

[roli]

I wish to point out the inconsistencies concerning homosexuality in the bible.

Inconsistencies only to those who oppose God and are ignorant of His law ,nature,Holiness

Specifically homosexual behavior either condoned or ignored by God in the Bible.

Only the liberal society,theologians and relative humanists believe God condoned homosexuality and all immorality along with that.

I have previously posted some of what I will be posting here elsewhere but I haven’t made my point clear enough it seems.

Your point is well understood and clearly portrayed as one who is in opposition to God's law.

I first want to point out that what I` m doing is ultimately pointless because I don’t believe the Bible should have any bearing on how a person lives their life or what society deems ethical.

And your belief is suppose to change how God see's and judges immorality and all sin,just because you can convince yourself and some others through reasoning and arguements ,immorality remains and so does God's standards of right and wrong,but it never in accordance with man,as man only wants to refute God and His principals in hopes to justify his actions and lifestyle and appease his mind and conscience

I believe the Bibles undeniable support of slavery and oppression of women are examples of why we shouldn’t use it’s guidance in the case of homosexuality or any other moral dilemma.

I believe you try to understand the bible through the eyes of your carnal understanding
As a matter of fact the bibles mention of the certain acts of women and the way they were treated in certain societies as less then equal with man is exactly that, only mention,testimony of but never condoned,at least as far as God was concerned.

My first example of homosexuality in the Bible is Jonathan and David as described in 1 Samuel.

You mean your first opportunity to incite an opportunity to create that picture,but the truth is they were best freinds,and if you travelled to other countries as I have, where men actually hold hands in public streets, you will soon find out it is a deeper friendship,respect and honour then what we will ever understand in this society
for one anoother

 

[faithofabraham]

I do not support homosexuality, but neither will I, as a christian, demand that others live by the Word of God. God gave us all a choice. I will add that although the bible is against the actions of homosexuality, it does not ever say that being sexually attracted to the same sex is wrong. A homosexual could live out there lives celibate, doing the works of God.
killing, stealing, etc. are not what the bible teaches as good acts.
a homosexual partaking of actions in a relationship is no different than a person who tells a lie. they both end up punished by God(if they never atone for thier sin and turn to God).
Whats sad is that the world is looking at homosexuality because its hitting them more in the face now today. But we all have turned a blind eye to the common lies spoken by those around us. all those little white lies will come with a payment one day if not attoned for.
Sorry back to the issue.
Christians are here on earth to be a voice for God, not handing out his judgement. If asked let the light shine, speak out if the spirit leads you. But all these people that you see rallying at gay marriages are not of God for they only speak of anger and hate. They speak of a judgement that is not meant for them to hand out.

The bible is either from God or it is from men. Make up your mind. And once you make that choice if you choose to stick to it then do so. The Word of God speaks against the sexual actions of homosexuals. Either you will choose that a man said that or that it was given by God. If you choose man, then throw your bible away for you are living a life of insanity by letting simple men live your lives for you. But if the Word is of God then start listening to it. Stop searching for answers that others tell you, or that you want to find and look to those that the bible speaks of.

A simple question for the orginal post that started this......Where do you even find that it says that these two men kissed on the lips? It could have so easily been on the cheeks, as many cultures and customs of today live on in this same way.
You are having to search for homosexuality in the bible. You must believe that either the bible is a lie made by contradictory men or that God is completely contradictory and incompetent. either way i dont see much reason for you to use the bible at all, based at least on any kind of faith.

FOA

 

[sojourner]

I believe God is more merciful than some make God out to be. The Bible makes a much stronger case for love, acceptance, forbearance and inclusiveness than it does for the abhorrance of homosexuality.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In Paul there is the statement that uncontrolled passion is the only reason for marriage - not a social construct, not a means of proceation but pure lust that needs marriage to contain it. That would have to be the earliest "traditional" Christian marriage.

Pah,

I was thinking about this statement when I happened to be reading 1 Thessalonians, Paul's first letter.

Chapter 4
3For this is the will of God, your sanctification:[c] that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

Compare to SVF 3.254, 7; 256, 3-4; Musonius Rufus, Frag 13b; Hierocles, On Duties (Stobaeus, Anthology 4.22.24; 4.506, 15). Musonius taught that sexual intercourse should only be for children (Frag 12) and marriage should be characterized by companionship, love, and devotion (13a). Notes from Malherbe, Thessalonians, 230.

 

[Pah]

Pah,

I was thinking about this statement when I happened to be reading 1 Thessalonians, Paul's first letter.

Chapter 4
3For this is the will of God, your sanctification:[c] that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4that each one of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, 5not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness. 8Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.

Compare to SVF 3.254, 7; 256, 3-4; Musonius Rufus, Frag 13b; Hierocles, On Duties (Stobaeus, Anthology 4.22.24; 4.506, 15). Musonius taught that sexual intercourse should only be for children (Frag 12) and marriage should be characterized by companionship, love, and devotion (13a). Notes from Malherbe, Thessalonians, 230.

That is a very interesting passage. Not only does it seem to contradict other parts of Paul but it shows Paul's origins (and proclivities) in the OT. It would also seem that gentiles, that vast majority of Christians, would not be held to the OT.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is a very interesting passage. Not only does it seem to contradict other parts of Paul but it shows Paul's origins (and proclivities) in the OT. It would also seem that gentiles, that vast majority of Christians, would not be held to the OT.

How are you coming to these conclusions?

 

[Pah]

How are you coming to these conclusions?

This is whole sidebar is probablly gist for another thread but -

It is the mention of Gentiles. His advice is to non-gentiles

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This is whole sidebar is probablly gist for another thread but -

It is the mention of Gentiles. His advice is to non-gentiles

Most scholars actually think that the church of Thessolonica was largely Gentile - some even think that there were no Jews at all in the congregation - very unusual for a Pauline community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That is a very interesting passage. Not only does it seem to contradict other parts of Paul but it shows Paul's origins (and proclivities) in the OT. It would also seem that gentiles, that vast majority of Christians, would not be held to the OT.

I've been comparing the two passages (1 Cor 7 and 1 Thess 4) and they seem to be saying the same thing: marriage is better than passionate desire. I don't have the Greek fonts to demonstrate it... but both passages say the same thing.

I submitted an article on it - if you'd like the Greek, I can send it to you in Adobe.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38817

 

[s2a]

Hello sojourner,

When I said:
It's both the first and last line of the apologetic believer. The only way to understand "faith", is to experience it for oneself.

If this premise were even remotely valid argument, then we would fairly demand that only cancer survivors be engaged in research to treat and cure cancer.
How could any research scientist "understand" cancer, if they have not personally experienced it for themselves?

You offered:

I didn't say that one can't understand faith unless one experiences it. I said that by this statement:

it is apparent that you don't understand that belief doesn't come cheap.

OK. What then is the "cost"? What "price" must a "true believer" pay to be in good standing with your Lord? Illustrate my lack of understanding, so that others may benefit in the instruction. What tangible and measurable elements() of forfeiture and sacrifice do believers accept and bear as uniquely their own as a matter of personal belief?

I

n your cancer treatment example, if the oncologist tried to treat a cancer patient by screaming nonsensical babble at the tumor, then we could say that he had no understanding of the nature of cancer.

Indeed. But that would only reveal a lousy oncologist, with no knowledge of science and modern medicine. You have successfully murdered Strawman #1!

And his credibility would go out the window. Your post shows that your credibility in matters of the dynamics of faith is similarly lacking.

Unsubstantiated, unparalleled, and most inept analogy.
You lose.
Again.
Blithe characterizations absent testable evidence (or evidence not presented) constitute neither disproof nor valid discredit.

For example:

(in noting that I said):

For whom shall (or should) the "believer" retain greater comapssion and support? The convicted rapist that--just today!--confessed of His sin and is subsequently "redeemed"; or the unrepentant and heretical female victim of the rapist's actions, whom coincidentally--on the very same day--perishes in some senseless and daily automobile accident?

May god save the rapist, and to Hell with the victim. She shoulda' known better.

Jesus would have us take compassion on all. And I try to do that.

Well, bully for you. Your personalized efforts are noted accordingly. I deem you to be a "nice person". OK?

Woulda, coulda, shoulda...look around. Few other folks are following (or practicing) your exemplary example of devoted adherenece to Jesus.

When I noted in sarcastic observation...
Thank goodness that faith and belief ameliorate all human fears, frailties, and doubts about the human condition and trivial personal concerns. Christians and other earnest adherents of faith-based beliefs must never again face feelings of non-direction, dread, emptiness, loneliness, fear, doubt, illness, debilitation (or death), or some lifelong virginity!

You said:

I do not claim that my faith saves me from all fear, frailty, doubt, and trivial personal concerns. I do not claim that I will never again face feelings of non-direction, dread, emptiness, loneliness, fear, doubt, illness, debilitation, death, or lifelong virginity (it's too late for that one!!) I have had faith in Christ for as long as I can remember, and I have not been exempt from the human condition.

Then...what?

What's the ADVANTAGE within this mortal real of "belief" over "dis/unbelief"? If "believing" doesn't deflect, ameliorate, or moderate the entirety of human injustice, inequity, inequality, or insouciance, then who cares if your "understanding" is personally satisfying and ingratiating, yet remains equally ineffective and impotent in manifesting any lasting benefit or worthy moral authority? If "faith" merely serves to facilitate some sense of "feeling better" about oneself, then there are plenty of alternatives (both constructive and destructive) to accomplish that particular result.

"Nosce te ipsum".

Bully for you. You like yourself more than you used to. Who cares?

If your "faithful" insight actually imparts a superior "understanding" of the human condition, then why hasn't that simple revelatory truth (in rapt application) significantly bettered the human condition?

If "believing" can't (or just doesn't) serve to improve and/or impel the human condition to greater heights and accomplishment, then...what "purpose" (beyond self-validation) does it ultimately serve?

"Believing about Jesus makes me feel good about me!"

*Yawn*

Sell that idea in Africa, or Indonesia.

I remain...unmoved. I "feel good about me" too, with no invisible friend to help me feel so...but then, I don't have to worry about where my next meal, or medical treatment for my dying child may be derived.

Can I claim to "know", specifically, about how you "feel" about Jesus? No. But I can just as readily claim that you don't "know" how I "feel" about a freshly baked Krispy Kreme doughnut. Maybe the entire cosmos, and the very meaning of life is contained within a single glazed doughnut...if only I would "see" it to be so...

...or maybe, it's just a KK doughnut--that retains neither conscience nor cognizance (nor concern) for whatever I choose to "believe"...or within/of applicable relevance of any kind whatsoever.

BUT, I feel as though faith has made these negative experiences easier to bear, and has helped me through these tough times more expediently than if I had not had faith.

How nice. So...faith can make you FEEL good about bad things that happen...akin to the mitigating effects of booze and/or pot. And just like those other escapist venues, "Making things 'easier to bear'" also lends no greater value, answer/solution, insight, nor actionable "truth" borne of any valuable and experienced wisdom.

[And that's a big part of the "problem" with faith-based beliefs. If your faith allows you to feel OK about about the status quo, then you are unlikely to be moved to effect any change. That's the flawed logic of faith--"It's [the] God's Will, and who am I to question His (their, it's) 'ultimate plan'"? Why trouble yourself with such apparent irreconcilable consternations? After all, "God has a Plan".

If a bus full of nuns goes tumbling off a cliff, killing all; while a pedophile priest molests dozens of altar boys...why indeed seek any further inquiry as to the cause and effects of such (apparently random) circumstances? Just "suck it up", and "trust God?. If anyone seeks ANY better answer, then they obviously lack both "understanding" and faith. ]

To say, "I know what makes me feel good about myself and the human condition" is merely to iterate a personal and uselessly impotent sentiment. WHO CARES how good or bad your faith makes you FEEL about yourself or your neighbors? Why would doubt about your place (and let's say it, value) in this mortal realm be necessarily a bad or unproductive quality?

NOTHING illustrates a more compelling and consistent rate of failure than wishful thinking or devotional prayer.
NOTHING.
Hoping, wishing, or "praying" that the human condition will improve by some beseeched (or implied) divine intervention alone...doesn't work. It never has.
Look around.

Again, a lack of understanding, on your part, of the dynamics of faith. So, you choose to "scream nonsensical babble" here, which destroys your credibility.

My credibility is for others to evaluate based upon the merits of my presented views (as either sensible or "nonsensical babble"), and not yours to arbitrarily dismiss as a matter of personal convenience or wishfull thinking. Within the independent arena of ideas, I'll stake reason over faith as compelling argument amongst the most discerning folk any day of the week.

Ironic that you should choose to characterize faith as illustrative of being "dynamic". Is faith (or it's foundational religious precepts) either accepting or open to "continuous change, activity, or progress"? Isn't faith rooted within unwavering principles and and strict adherence to "commanded" rules of personal conduct? Is there any "middle ground", or acceptable moral progression beyond "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me?". If you BELIEVE that commandment to be "true", then what "dynamic of faith" is open and available to progressive change?

 

[s2a]

You cited as being...
More evidence (in quoting me as saying):
If only faith-based beliefs focused upon really good reasons to live, instead of good reasons to die...

"I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly." Says Jesus. This is one Biblical passage among many that teach abundance of life. Why do you think we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the lonely and tend the sick? Because we're "supposed to?" Because we're appealing to some sense of guilt? Because doing that is our "ticket to heaven?"

Yep.
I think that your claimed Prophet was trying to instill a sense of guilt amidst your adherent's relative good fortunes. Wealth and comfort instilled both complacency and unconcern regarding the daily plights of the poor, the disenfranchised, and the meek amongst us all (not dissimilar to prevailing conditions today). The mythology of Jesus is the [humanistic] exemplification of care and concern for the weak, the powerless, and the poor.

No! We do it so that we can help bring more abundant life to these brothers and sisters, because we believe that life is to be lived abundantly! Christianity is all about how to live this life. The disposition of our eternal souls is corrollary.

Oh. I DO misunderstand then...your faith is ALL about YOU, and how you FEEL about yourself and your promised salvation. If others don't step up similarly, then, well...too bad for them

Praise God!

After I said:
I do know that simply "having faith" has not bettered the human condition (neither figuratively nor litterally)


You offered:

Oh, you do?

Yes. I do.

I suppose that would depend upon your definition of "bettered."

I would define "bettered" as being both a substantial and sustained overall improvement. Your definition will undoubtedly deal within undefinable, unmeasurable, and unquantifiable realms, such as...what? How people FEEL about themselves?

If your definition encompasses aspects of the economic enhancement of the wealthy; political superiority; military might; and infrastructural integrity -- alongside other "worldly" parameters -- then I might agree with you, but these are, after all..."worldly things".

I can certainly point towards the beneficient effects of technology, science, and modern medicine in advancing the human condition. Has religion made this world a cleaner, kinder, more peaceful, or more tolerant place of mortal existence? Does religion embrace, or seek to define---major cultural/ethnic/nationalistic differences of moral/ethical/relativistic perspectives as equally valid and acceptable declarations of TRUTH?
Does your God "pick sides"? Of course He does...and if you're a "believer"...so do you.

But if the definition is the care of the soul, the centered well-being of the individual, the raising of the awareness of the special nature of relationship, then I would disagree with you. The practice of faith almost always accomplishes these things.

How shall we measure such "results"? What is the current reliable test of piety, or the quantifiable test of justifiable compassion (or attained salvation)? Can faith be measured on a scale, or tested in it's claims? Is practice of faith alone sufficient evidence of it's underlying (testimonial, anecdotal, dogmatic) veracity as "truth"? If so, then let's place the differing religions of this world upon such an impartial scale of weights and measures. If faith-based beliefs alone can not assert with ultimate authority as to whom has earned ultimate redemption and divine reward ("heaven"), then some legitimate doubts must remain. If you (or some other pious adherent) can confidently explain just who will (or will not) benefit (or at very least "feel better") from their chosen faith-based beliefs, then such confident assurances should instill no doubts in righteously identifying the "condemned" (heretics, infidels, unbelievers, and witches),
C'mon.
Call a spade a spade. Defend what you believe, and act accordingly, or shut up and let the heretics better the human condition in both measurable and quantifiable ways.

If people choose to do a "good thing", then what reliable test can we implement in order to validate such an act as being subservient to an otherwise (and presupposed): moral/ethical--distinctive, qualitative, or impositionally assertive "authority"?

"Faith" is almost always portrayed (and with very rare exception) as entirely self-serving, self-promoting, and self sustaining--in utter rejection of what can be (or might be otherwise) naturally observed, explained, and understood--and always claims/protests of some "ultimate understanding" in exclusion of any other possibilities.

The Christian faith is almost always portrayed as serving one another -- not the self -- in fact, in utter rejection of self-serving motivation. It does not claim ultimate, personal understanding, but it does claim ultimate love of neighbor and understanding of all as part of a community.

I understand the claims...

It makes no difference to me if your faith dictates an expression of compassion/personal guilt towards the poor or homeless, or if your personal conscience motivates you to act as a matter of basic humanity and shared mortal existence...as long as both your "feelings" and/or your "motivations" exact meaningful results.

Jesus (upon whom our faith rests) said much the same thing...

I know.

Beyond wishful thinking, how do you act directly to improve upon HIs most focused concerns?


After I said:
Attacking the questioner in seeking to impugn his inquiries as such does not absolve you from the intellectual integrity in providing cogent reply.

...and...

...If you think that I would envy the facile confidence and smug self-assurance of faith-based beliefs, I invite you to think again.

You offered:

Your arguments with regard to faith are all based upon a gross misunderstanding of faith (Christianity in particular). You are screaming unintelligible babble and it's ruining your credibility as a diagnostician of what faith can and cannot do for humanity.

If only spurious allegation alone would constitute fact...

Ironic and odd that I have not once "grossly" impugned or alleged that you are either some babbling idiot, or lacking in some better discernment. Instead of alleging that you have no credibility, I choose instead to illustrate the fault in your rationale. Instead of characterizing your summary as some self-gratifying conclusion of perfunctory pious argumentation, I lend valid (and as yet,us satifactorily unanswered) counterpoint to such conclusions.

You are welcome (and invited) to test my "understanding" of Christian beliefs and claims. Know that I was once (in my youth) a persuasive and successful testament of the Christian faith myself, and devoted many hours to rote recital of Scriptural passages and detailed Biblical exegesis, and earnest evangelism.

Know also that I "understand" the concept of "faith" in love, optimism, and solemnly sworn duty to both cause and person. Faith isn't about some lame mythology or empty appeals to emotion or wishful thinking alone. It's about personal surety of both cause and conviction--predicated upon experience, wisdom, demonstrable fact/evidences, and testable theories/conclusions.

You have NO conception as to my "understanding" of personal faith, and you are both unwise and heedlessly foolish in your vainglorious attempts to characterize me as being either uninformed or unenlightened in such matters....

I counsel you not to overtly test either my resolve or patience in treating with such overtly false and unfounded imputations.

You have been warned. I punish abject/baseless allegations borne of stupidity to the full extent of the available acceptablilities and sensibilities within online forums.

 

[s2a]

Whups, more...

When I said:
I present no quarrel with your personal "identity"; only with the faith-based rationalizations you may choose to espouse as your own.

sojourner replied:

You don't understand my faith-based rationalizations. How can you reasonably quarrel with them???

Hunh? Is this some juvenile sandbox argumentation?

Demonstrate (in most certain terms) specifically how it is that I don't understand your faith-based generalizations. Exemplify my ignorance of your position in some readily indentifiable or quantifiable measure. Note that I have yet to dismiss your position predicated upon some vapid excuse that "you can't understand" my own perceptions.

Look up "Special Pleading" in a listing of logical fallacies, and see if your defense merits serious reconsideration.

I said:
I actually can separate distinctions between what people want to believe is true, from those than can substantiate (or at least question) what is true.

Apparently not!

Good comeback, Potsie.

"I know something you don't, but I can't prove it to anyone but myself", are not credible, nor worthy of "respect".

I don't think I know something you don't...except the parameters of my faith.

Of course you do. Revelation (of "Truth") is reserved for the redeemed and repentant, as outlined within your chosen faith. Heretics, infidels, and unbelievers can NEVER (theoretically) come to "know" any revealed "truths" until they "confess" of their sins; are truly repentant of their transgressions; and then seek divine absolution. (Feel free to correct me anywhere along the way here).

This is the whole point of the argument here.

Well, it's your point...while deflecting mine...

You disrespect what cannot be proved.

Pretty much, true enough; but that's not the sentiment I imparted beforehand. Existentialist claims ("This is my own personal truth") that lack any testable or measurable foundations are simply not credible, nor worthy of some unmitigated respect...as I said before.

Faith does not seek proof.

How could it? Faith is not predicated upon any measurable or testable evidence of any kind.

It's this fundamental lack of understanding that makes any reasonable argument with you unproductive. Since you're not going to respect that position, I elect to not argue on that basis.

So, you deem me unreasonable because I do not accede to your position? Challenge to your position is therefore readily dismissed as "unproductive"?
Is this then the foundation of a faith-based rationale?

You claim special exemption from engaging further challenge because I don't "respect" your baseless position? I see.
This is why religious evangelism fails to persuade/convert; most especially amongst those that choose to embrace a more skeptical/doubting perspective.

"I'll take 'Questions for which no credible reply is offered' for $1000 Alex".

This is the whole problem. your snide comment here is evidence of your unwillingness to respectfully argue.

On the contrary, I respect argumentation predicated upon salient and credible foundations that earn and deserve same. Whether or not my commentary is perceivably "snide" in tone, is moot to the inherent incumbency of your position in provision of applicably germane rebuttal. Facile characterizations of either my personality, position, or commentary do not absolve you from lending concrete and specific reply to the presented inquiries at hand.

I don't have to play that game and I don't have to justify my position to you.

I play no "game" here. Rest assured, I'm quite in earnest. True enough that you needn't "justify" your position to me, but of the many nonparticipating lurkers reading this thread that continue to search for personal direction and purpose in their own lives, you provide little testimony of value in support of your position.

We are all born both skeptics and unbelievers. Faith is both a learned and acquired taste of acceptance, borne of many continued samplings and courses.

Your current "position" is no better than "Vanilla Ice Cream is the best flavor in the world...and if you can't see and respect that that statement is true...then I have nothing more to offer you.".

Maybe I prefer chocolate instead. Maybe, I don't even like ice cream.
So...simply because I don't prefer (or choose to acceptingly acknowlege your claim that "Vanilla Ice Cream is the best flavor in the world"), I am deemed to be therefore recalcitrant and thence unworthy or merited counterpoint?

It's not Jeopardy! we're playing here, so your comment is non sequitur to the argument at hand.

You're just no fun at all, are you? ;-)

....but know that your faith alone will not protect you from being eaten alive.

I never said it would.

Would you care to state unequivocally one way or the other? People of most personal existential doubts would like to know...

Nothing fails more consistently than prayer.

In your opinion. To quote a Very Smart Person,

Just 'cause you say it's so, don't make it so.

Granny can always choose to protect herself in at least two ways. She can "have faith" that piety alone will protect her from carnivorous harm, or she can purchase and install a few locks upon the door (or a large caliber handgun), "just in case" her faith is insufficient protection.

Faulty premise...again.

OK. Please elucidate how so, within the context of the commentaries as presented. I'm always open to instruction regarding lessons of critical thinking/discernmet. What premise was presented, and what fault in that premise did you expose/deconstruct as invalid?

"Funny how many faithful Christians living in urban areas have multiple locks upon their doors, despite their revelatory understanding that they faithfully reside under their chosen deity's vanguard/protection."

Funny how someone who knows enough about Christianity and about faith to dismiss it so, consistently argues from a faulty premise. How embarrassing!

Umm, hello? You said (in your estimation) that I; "don't understand my [your] faith-based rationalizations".
What is the faulty premise you allege of my part? Please be specific. How can I know this requisite and incumbent shame and repentance if my obvious fault is not lain before me?

I'm just not interested in your cluttering up this thread with your pontifications about how Christianity is green and green is just baseless, when Christianity is not green at all, but red! Methinks you're watching Jeopardy! in black-and-white...

Um...what?

Is this supposed to present some faith-based generalization that manages to evade any/all logic? Is your commentary designed to be cryptically clever in some way?

Color me a dullard then...as your "argument"--in this case--escapes any cogent consideration or valued reply of any kind; even from a color-blind Alex Trebek...