FarkinHostile: king_nacho: Faith is not irrational, faith is a requirement for all humanity. It take faith to cross the street, you have no guarantee that the person will stop at the red light and not kill you. You have faith that they will obey the traffic signals, and that they aren't a crazy person out for your blood. It is rational to assume these things, but it takes just as much faith.

Now, i think belief that a God that likes muddle in the day-to-day affairs of people just for the lulz, is certainly irrational, but in the idea of a creator that started the process, attached some general rules (Physics, Evolution, Chemistry, etc), is certainly rational.



I was quite specific in saying TYPE 1 FAITH vs "faith". Type 1 faith is "intransigent faith". By this is meant faith that will not be affected by any sort of contrary evidence, no matter how strong. Religion generally falls in this category. No matter how much evidence is shown that the bible is a contradictory, flawed work of Man, Believers refuse to accept that it is anything less that the literal Word of God.

You site an example of Type 3 Faith, which is "hypotheses based upon evidence." They are NOT the same, not even close.

Want to know more about the different kinds of faith?

Three Types of Faith

/Belief in god: Type 2 faith or "the will to believe."
//As defined by Professor Kurtz it is "willful belief...where there is insufficient or no evidence either way to make a rational choice.
///I also hold many irrational beliefs, just not that one

Type 1 Faith doesn't even show up in a google search, so you'll excuse me for not knowing what the levels of faith are, and a google search for "Professor Kurtz" comes up with some law professors, and an arts professor, so I'll apologize for not really caring what any of those mean.

Having said that, i don't know anybody personally that believes the bible in the word of God. There are plenty that believe there are those parts that are quoted from Jesus, are the word of Christ, and as such are the will of God. But everybody I know sees the Bible as a guide, and understands that it was written by man, and as such is in part subject to man's faults

FarkinHostile: king_nacho: There will never be proof one way or another as to what came before the big bang.


Well, that's certainly a bold statement, don't you think?

And yet you believe there is "Proof" of the Big Bang.

Huh.

Nope, not at all, I do however believe it best describes the beginning of our universe. But in no way do i believe there is a "smoking gun"

Nick the What: king_nacho: snarfyboy: king_nacho: I'm sorry, i was paraphrasing, but:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

You are right, it doesn't say Sodomy, it says the sexually immoral, and men who have sex with men.

Leviticus makes it pretty clear homosexuality is a sin. I don't know how the NT plays into it either way, other than to explain how to treat sin.

Because Jesus said, to paraphrase here, the old testament is crap, it was created by people for their own personal gain. This is why Jesus was ultimately killed, because he was turning people away from teachings of the Old Testament. Leviticus holds far more in it than homosexuality (shellfish, mixed fibers, etc) If you try to use Leviticus for one, you have to use it for all, as it doesn't really differentiate well between those things.

snarfyboy: king_nacho: Yes, he and a few others have pointed out other things, however i think the best argument is by Robert A. J. Gagnon who took far more context from other other books, specifically Romans 1:24-27

But all of that is moot as the commonly accepted translation, so in essence the bible (New Testament) as it stands today certainly has a problem with men having sex with men.

"Commonly accepted" is not a valid proof of an argument. At best you have an argument against anal sex. However, as I originally pointed out, that is not the same thing as homosexuality. Not even close.

While Romans is getting closer to talking about what you want it to say, it still is tied directly to pagan rituals and not innate homosexual desires. Indeed, the passage seems to suggest that God made them have desires against their natural orientation as consequence of their disobedience. In the following chapter Paul began chastising the Roman Christians to whom he is writing about these issues for judging people; an interesting point to follow up with, especially from the sex-o-phobic Paul.

You are absolutely right, but I wasn't the one saying homosexuality, i was just saying sodomy, also it has nothing to do with what I want, i could care less, i don't think god, or any creator, intelligent designer^SM has anything to do with any of it. I don't believe in Hell, or in people being banished to a bad place because of their actions, or their beliefs.

I don't care who screws whom and in what hole so long as is it consenting adults.

DingleberryMoose: king_nacho: Having said that, i don't know anybody personally that believes the bible in the word of God. There are plenty that believe there are those parts that are quoted from Jesus, are the word of Christ, and as such are the will of God. But everybody I know sees the Bible as a guide, and understands that it was written by man, and as such is in part subject to man's faults

You don't know many Southern Baptists, do you?


I know one person that used to be. We go have drinks from time to time.

MITHRA (about 2000 B.C.)
("He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made on with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." An inscription to Mithras which parallels John 6:53-54. This inscription is inside the vatican... in the tomb of saint peter.)

Born of a Virgin
His father was a carpenter.
His birth was attended by angels, wise men and shepherds, and he was presented with gold, frankincense and myrrh.
He was persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
He was of royal descent.
He was baptized in A river.
He worked miracles and wonders.
He raised the dead and healed lepers, the deaf and the blind.
He used parables to teach the people about charity and love.
"He lived poor and he loved the poor."
He was transfigured in front of his disciples.
In some traditions he died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
He rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
He is called the "Shepherd God" and "Lord of lords," and was considered "the Redeemer, Firstborn, Sin Bearer, Liberator, Universal Word."
He is the second person of the Trinity, and proclaimed himself the "Resurrection" and the "way to the Father."
He was considered the "Beginning, the Middle and the End," ("Alpha and Omega"), as well as being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. - His disciples bestowed upon him the title "Jezeus," meaning "pure essence."
He is to return to do battle with the "Prince of Evil," who will desolate the earth

==================================================================
-or-
==================================================================

HORUS (prior to 3100 B.C.)
(The most common of the crosses used by these pagan Egyptians, the crux ansata, was later adopted by the Christians)

He was born of a Virgin.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
He was called "the Good Shepherd."
He was considered "the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," thousands of years before the appearance of Christ.
He had his principal festival on spring equinox, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or "Lord's Supper."

==================================================================
-or-
==================================================================
Attis of Phrygia (c.1400 BCE)

Attis was born of the Virgin Nana.
He was considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
His body as bread was eaten by his worshippers.
He was both the Divine Son and the Father.
On "Black Friday," he was crucified on a tree, from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
He descended into the underworld.
After three days, Attis was resurrected.

FarkinHostile: king_nacho: Type 1 Faith doesn't even show up in a google search, so you'll excuse me for not knowing what the levels of faith are, and a google search for "Professor Kurtz" comes up with some law professors, and an arts professor, so I'll apologize for not really caring what any of those mean.

So, your very limited experience is not all that accurate. Anecdote is not Evidence. Sorry.

I also find the admitted cherry picking of what is to be believed/interperted literally and what is not to be....amusing, As if printing it in red makes it irrefutable.

I wasn't making a scientific argument, just pointing out my experience, which isn't very limited at all, two thirds, meaning a vast majority of the population don't see it as the word of God, and that survey was 5 years ago, so who knows what the number is today. But I tend to not hang out with fundies. They get all uptight if I buy them a dance at a strip club, or swear, or drink too much.

Even the fact that the different books which cite the same conversation with Jesus don't use the same words.

snarfyboy: king_nacho: You are absolutely right, but I wasn't the one saying homosexuality, i was just saying sodomy, also it has nothing to do with what I want, i could care less, i don't think god, or any creator, intelligent designerSM has anything to do with any of it. I don't believe in Hell, or in people being banished to a bad place because of their actions, or their beliefs.

I don't care who screws whom and in what hole so long as is it consenting adults.

I think I can agree with that. Almost any time the bible gets blamed for homosexuality, it seems to be anal-sex - which I assume is how you are using the word "sodomy". That why I think Romans is the best argument against homosexuality in the Bible, since it includes men and woman and forgoes any of the mechanics involved. But then it's paired with that whole pagan ritual, probably implying fertility rituals/orgies which was not necessarily committed by gay people. Paul was almost certainly against homosexuals acts - as he seems to have it out for all sex - and I actually find it interesting that he doesn't present a more solid argument against homosexuality. I suppose because it was actually much lower on people's radar back then then it is today.

Generally speaking yes, sodomy I would say typically refers to anal sex, but certainly could be expanded. I think as far as Paul and the church were concerned that was the one they would single out first. As for prominence, who knows, there were Roman Orgies, but i don't think the Church could really do anything about that, so they picked their battles.

I think most of the current argument around this stuff is still coming from the fringe groups of Christianity. But they get the most coverage because they get the most rage going.

Nick the What: Still gonna' go with "It's pretty clear".

Honestly, the very first thing we learned in Religious Studies was that any concept from a 3000+ year old oral history of a bronze-age, honor/shame, high context culture under active military occupation at the time that seems "pretty clear" almost certainly wasn't.

FarkinHostile: king_nacho: I wasn't making a scientific argument, just pointing out my experience, which isn't very limited at all, two thirds, meaning a vast majority of the population don't see it as the word of God, and that survey was 5 years ago, so who knows what the number is today.

Well, again, that is a huge amount of bible literalists, too many for my comfort. Another 47% believes the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not literally so. Regardless, it seems believers, as you admit, cherry pick what they want to believe, and even that would be fine if they all didn't try to legislate their beliefs.

But all of this digresses from the original point that the entire topic of Theology is irrational, other than it's effect on human history and development.

Inspired by is fine, so long as they recognize that people are doing the interpretations and writing it down, and other people are interpreting that.

Nick the What: snarfyboy: Nick the What: Leviticus makes it pretty clear homosexuality is a sin. I don't know how the NT plays into it either way, other than to explain how to treat sin.

Leviticus makes a vague statement about a man laying with another man as if she were a woman. That could mean any one of a number of sexual practices that were common in the region at that time. You are using a modern view to interpret ancient cultures. The fact is that many non-gay men participated in same-sex acts for a variety of reasons, most of which would seem very bizarre to us today. For example, after a battle it was common to rape the vanquished to shame them - by forcing them to act like a woman. Another, which may be relevant to Leviticus was fertility rituals where woman were not allowed to participate (did I mention how misogynistic the old times were?), so one male priest would play the part of the man and another male priest would play the part of the woman - a man laying with another man as if she were a woman.

Now, did the ancient Hebrews have a modern understanding of homosexuality? Not likely, even though homosexuals obviously existed then. But historical sexual morality and interpretations of such can be a tricky thing to understand without knowledge of the cultures. Everyone tends to think that the ancients think they same way we do now, but they did not. Bottom line, if Leviticus was a prohibition against homosexuality in modern times, it would not have been so specific to a certain sexual act. I mean, it completely forgets about half the homosexual population.

So you're saying it's vague because it could mean, "Don't have ritualistic pretend gay sex, because it's a sin, don't have have "shaming" gay sex because it's a sin, but straight up gay sex is fine."?

Still gonna' go with "It's pretty clear".

What is a "modern understanding of homosexuality"?

Kind of a loaded questions isn't it? does homosexuality imply sexual activity? Does Heterosexuality imply sexual activity. Can you be gay and not have sex, can you be strait and not have sex?

Or does the act of having sex and with whom create the label? If you claim to be homosexual, but never have sex, are you? Or is it the emotional bond? Does a man having an emotional bond with a woman, but going out and having anal sex with a man from time to time make him gay, or bi? Or does just like some anal sex? Our desire to group and label everything is silly, people are people, and on this plane of existence people are created equal.

If there is a god, and he has a problem with it, then it is for him to deal with. I would rather he stop being so passive aggressive about it, and just tell us which way to go. I've explained to my wife I don't read minds, nor take hints, but if you simply ask I'll be happy to do it.

TheOmni: And I know this is a somewhat clichéd response by now, but I still haven't heard a real satisfying answer to it. I just want to ask them why do they believe that being gay is a sin, but ignore the other messages in the bible about shellfish and blended cloth being a sin and slavery being fine and dandy?

Has anyone really answered that? Seems like a pretty obvious question.

Guy on guy action is horrifying to me but girl on girl is beautiful so I can't very well love one and condemn the other, that would make me a hypocritical asshole. Instead of the regular asshole I already am.I think Jesus would agree.