CBS, NBC ban ad on gay acceptance

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad? :confused:

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...


Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Homosexuality is not an action, nor is it a choice. One either is homosexual or one is not.

If Jesus has forgiven a homosexual for who he or she is, then what? With forgiveness comes acceptance; otherwise, nothing at all is actually "forgiven", and the very concept is meaningless.

Jesus doesn't forgive people for who they are, but for what they have repented of.

People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.



 

Gen Stonewall

Senior member
Aug 8, 2001
629
0
0
The UCC is unfortunately confusing "love" with acceptance. If they would spread the central teaching "deny thyself" and quit their obsession with humanistic advancements in "justice", they probably would not have considered running the ad in the first place. They are the epitome of the churches who seek human advancement over pleasing God.

Another point:

Leviticus is not a "comedy section" as someone pointed out earlier; it still provides valuable teachings. Christians today, if they follow the Bible properly, will generally reject the civil laws, cermonial laws, and enforcement of moral laws, as enumerated in the Old Testament. These were designed for the ancient Israelites and no longer apply today. However, we still follow the moral laws themselves; none of them have been nullified. So when someone says, "No one takes the Bible literally, or we'd be stoning adulterers," remember that the Bible can be followed literally, although we must reject ordinances put in place for something that doesn't exist anymore (the kingdom of Israel). God's morality does not change, though Christ's death and resurrection did change the way we respond to transgressions.
 

Riprorin

Banned
Apr 25, 2000
9,634
0
0
I think that it would be only reasonable to expect the gospels of Christs to hold more weight in any Christian theological structure than any other book in the Bible

I started reading your post and stopped here. The whole Bible is God's word.
 

JustAnAverageGuy

Diamond Member
Aug 1, 2003
9,057
0
76
Originally posted by: Riprorin
I think that it would be only reasonable to expect the gospels of Christs to hold more weight in any Christian theological structure than any other book in the Bible

I started reading your post and stopped here. The whole Bible is God's word.

Originally said by: Ned Flanders
"I've done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!"

Joking :)
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad? :confused:

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...


Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Homosexuality is not an action, nor is it a choice. One either is homosexual or one is not.

If Jesus has forgiven a homosexual for who he or she is, then what? With forgiveness comes acceptance; otherwise, nothing at all is actually "forgiven", and the very concept is meaningless.

Jesus doesn't forgive people for who they are, but for what they have repented of.

People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.

Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

That would be one seriously very fvcked up religion.

And thus it is to be homosexual, something over which you have no control.

No thanks... when religion tells you that you must deny your very human nature, then it is NOT worth believing in. No loving God would condemn people to a living hell like this. (presumably the same God who made them homosexual to begin with)
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad? :confused:

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...


Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Homosexuality is not an action, nor is it a choice. One either is homosexual or one is not.

If Jesus has forgiven a homosexual for who he or she is, then what? With forgiveness comes acceptance; otherwise, nothing at all is actually "forgiven", and the very concept is meaningless.

Jesus doesn't forgive people for who they are, but for what they have repented of.

People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.

Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

That would be one seriously very fvcked up religion.

And thus it is to be homosexual, something over which you have no control.

No thanks... when religion tells you that you must deny your very human nature, then it is NOT worth believing in. No loving God would condemn people to a living hell like this. (presumably the same God who made them homosexual to begin with)

Once again - desire is one thing, acting out is another. And quite frankily most Christian related religons do deny heterosexual desires - that whole abstience thing?.

The choice is left to the person if they are going to act on it.

Would you say the same to men who have the desire to get laid every night? That for them to be celebate would be just as "fvcked up"?
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad? :confused:

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...


Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Homosexuality is not an action, nor is it a choice. One either is homosexual or one is not.

If Jesus has forgiven a homosexual for who he or she is, then what? With forgiveness comes acceptance; otherwise, nothing at all is actually "forgiven", and the very concept is meaningless.

Jesus doesn't forgive people for who they are, but for what they have repented of.

People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.

Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

That would be one seriously very fvcked up religion.

And thus it is to be homosexual, something over which you have no control.

No thanks... when religion tells you that you must deny your very human nature, then it is NOT worth believing in. No loving God would condemn people to a living hell like this. (presumably the same God who made them homosexual to begin with)

Once again - desire is one thing, acting out is another. And quite frankily most Christian related religons do deny heterosexual desires - that whole abstience thing?.

The choice is left to the person if they are going to act on it.

Would you say the same to men who have the desire to get laid every night? That for them to be celebate would be just as "fvcked up"?

Actually, not being religious at all myself, I say that ANY consensual sex, between ANYONE (consenting adults, that is), for ANY reason, is a wonderful thing.
 

slurmsmackenzie

Golden Member
Jun 4, 2004
1,413
0
0
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: slurmsmackenzie
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: isasir
I had to read the article a few times to make sure I understood it. So the church says it's welcoming people without discrimination and somehow this is a controversial ad? :confused:

Indeed. The church is taking a stance that is both admirable and in line with the spirit of the teachings of Jesus. The controversy is that people don't *really* care about the teachings of Jesus...


Jesus did not teach the acceptance of homosexuality. he taught the acceptance of every person, not their actions. while he defended what's her face from the stoning masses, it wasn't that he was accepting her profession, rather that he was condemning those persecuting her as hypocrites. jesus never taught an acceptance of homosexuality, or any other act condemned by his Father. he accepted saul (paul) the murder... not because he accepted murder, but because "Jehovah is forgiving in a large way".

Homosexuality is not an action, nor is it a choice. One either is homosexual or one is not.

If Jesus has forgiven a homosexual for who he or she is, then what? With forgiveness comes acceptance; otherwise, nothing at all is actually "forgiven", and the very concept is meaningless.

Jesus doesn't forgive people for who they are, but for what they have repented of.

People are confusing two things: being homosexual and practicing homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't itself sinful, but when that person engages homosexual acts, that is the sin.

Being homosexual isn't a choice, but how the person acts out on his desires, is.

Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

That would be one seriously very fvcked up religion.

And thus it is to be homosexual, something over which you have no control.

No thanks... when religion tells you that you must deny your very human nature, then it is NOT worth believing in. No loving God would condemn people to a living hell like this. (presumably the same God who made them homosexual to begin with)

so by having no control you mean something your born with.... genetic?

"This officially sounded the death-knell for the optimism held by Hamer et al. and others looking in this region for the gene leading to homosexuality."

homosexuality is as genetic as domestic violence.
 

Gen Stonewall

Senior member
Aug 8, 2001
629
0
0
Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

The Bible specifically forbids having extramarital sex and engaging in fantasies about having sex with anyone except your spouse. Remember what I said before, "Deny thyself" is one of Jesus' important teachings. The Holy Spirit, fortunately, teaches the believer what to deny and helps him deny it successfully, provided that the believer humbly trusts the Holy Spirit. (Exactly what to deny most often is revealed through Scripture; occasionally it comes through personal revelation if a given believer must give up what most others are otherwise entitled to have, whatever that may be.)
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

The Bible specifically forbids having extramarital sex and engaging in fantasies about having sex with anyone except your spouse. Remember what I said before, "Deny thyself" is one of Jesus' important teachings. The Holy Spirit, fortunately, teaches the believer what to deny and helps him deny it successfully, provided that the believer humbly trusts the Holy Spirit. (Exactly what to deny most often is revealed through Scripture; occasionally it comes through personal revelation if a given believer must give up what most others are otherwise entitled to have, whatever that may be.)

"Deny Thyself"

Hmm... That's a good idea... let's all deny who we are, so that we can live lives against our very natures. Let's exist in a lifetime of misery, because that brings us closer to, er, what, exactly? A "heaven" where what happens? We get to spend an eternity denying ourselves even more?
 

KidViciou$

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,998
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Jesus preferred the company of men over women. He probably was a bone smoker but it would throw the whole Christian world in a tailspin if the truth came out! Well maybe not the Catholics, at least not their Priests.

hahahahahahahaha, oh man, you're going to hell for that one!
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,342
47,576
136
I started reading your post and stopped here. The whole Bible is God's word.



:laugh: Lay off the cough syrup Rip...seriously...we're worried about you man.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Imagine a religion that said being heterosexual was ok, but having any sexual desires that arise from being heterosexual was a bad thing, and that acting on them was certainly a sin. Imagine yourself as a follower of that religion, having to deny who you are every second of every day.

The Bible specifically forbids having extramarital sex and engaging in fantasies about having sex with anyone except your spouse. Remember what I said before, "Deny thyself" is one of Jesus' important teachings. The Holy Spirit, fortunately, teaches the believer what to deny and helps him deny it successfully, provided that the believer humbly trusts the Holy Spirit. (Exactly what to deny most often is revealed through Scripture; occasionally it comes through personal revelation if a given believer must give up what most others are otherwise entitled to have, whatever that may be.)

"Deny Thyself"

Hmm... That's a good idea... let's all deny who we are, so that we can live lives against our very natures. Let's exist in a lifetime of misery, because that brings us closer to, er, what, exactly? A "heaven" where what happens? We get to spend an eternity denying ourselves even more?

I think you'd have a tought time arguing that its always good to give in to your desires. As humans we have desires that if we gave into would result in very bad things happening to not only ourselves, but others. Everyday we all deny ourselves in some way. We don't yell at our boss because of the consequences, we don't punch people in the face when we're angry...

Sin isn't sin because of some arbitrary reason that God decided so we wouldn't have any fun on Earth. Sin is bad, because it is bad for you, even if you don't realize it until much later. God designed a perfect Earth where we could live in perfect harmony with Him, but we messed it up because of our shortsightedness.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Most Christian churches will accept gays into their church, but they will not hesitate to make it clear that they view homosexuality as a sin.

Tolerance of sin is most certainly not the message of Jesus. When Jesus ate with sinners he didn't do it so he could accept their sinful ways, but to offer them forgiveness.

The Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin, a church that follows the Bible believes that, and so to ask them to accept homosexuality as OK simply because of the current social demand for tolerance for all lifestyle choices is NOT acceptable.

http://gotquestions.org/homosexuality.html

Yes, but a sense of proportion may be in order. I think that it would be only reasonable to expect the gospels of Christs to hold more weight in any Christian theological structure than any other book in the Bible. Note that that proposition can be supported easily by pointing out a single contradiction in the Bible. If you do not rank the various proscriptions, than the entire system breaks down. Since for many Christians the entire purpose of their lives is to become more "Christ-like," it seems reasonable to give the Gospels more weight than any other book in the Bible.

AFAIK, the only New Testament reference to homosexuality is in Romans (and let's face it, anything out of Leviticus can be thrashed in about 30 secs - that's the comedy section of the Bible). Thus, any system of beleifs that treats homosexuality as a "worse" sin than any proscription of Jesus (as found in the Gospels) is logically inconsistent.

And yet you find many attitudes among some Christians which would exhibit this inconsistency, and if challenged on these attitudes, the Christian will justify themselves by using religious rhetoric. This kind of logical inconsistency leads many non-Christians (and Christians with dissenting opinions) to beleive that theology is not the only source of these attitudes, and that a good deal of the intolerance is due to simple social prejudice.

Please educate me if I've made any errors in my reasoning.

You raise some fair points. No offense is intended, but the link in my post deals with at least one of your issues. Homosexuality is a sin, but it is not a worse sin than stealing, murder, rape, lieing, etc. They are all sin. The latest obsession with homosexuality and why its such a hot topic is that society is beginning to view it as not a sin anymore in a large part, and since that directly contradicts the Bible obviously the Church is going to come into conflict with society. The majority of people still view murder, rape, lieing, stealing, and a host of other things as morally wrong, and churches agree with that... so that's why the debate is all about homosexuality, and a few other topics right now.

And about the Bible, most churches hold it to be the inerrant word of God, meaning that it is all true, and none of it is "more true" than the other. I think if you really believe that you leave yourself open to bending the truth to live with your own definition of morality, because you find it more appealing, or for whatever reason. Leviticus is 100% true today still, just as much as Romans, and the rest of the New Testament. The difference is that (as someone else mentioned) the Old Testament is filled with a lot of moral laws and punishments that were meant for a specific group of people in a specific time, and no longer apply to us. One obvious example is animal sacrifice, required in the Old Testament, but no longer today due to Christ's sacrifice. It is still true that sacrifices were required in the Old Testament, but that requirement does not apply to us today.

And about biblical contradictions, they simply do not exist. I've heard hoards of examples of contradictions, and what they turn out to be is simply apparent contradictions. Sometimes it can be difficult to understand, but not being able to find an answer you like doesn't mean the answer doesn't exist. If you care to bring up some of your concerns over contradictions, I would be happy to find an answer for you.

 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,342
47,576
136
And about biblical contradictions, they simply do not exist


Oh? For starters...


GEN 1:25: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
GEN 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

GEN 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
GEN 2:19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

------------------------------------------

ISA 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

MAT 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

------------------------------------------

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

------------------------------------------

(concerning how Juda died)
MAT 27:5: "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18: "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out."

------------------------------------------

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

------------------------------------------

(on whether to answer a fool)
PRO 26:4: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

PRO 26:5: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: kage69
And about biblical contradictions, they simply do not exist


Oh? For starters...


GEN 1:25: "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
GEN 1:26: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

GEN 2:18: "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him."
GEN 2:19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Ok for this one I'm not sure what exactly the contradiction is. Are you talking about how in 2:19 it says God has formed the all the animals, where earlier it says he formed them in 1:25? If so, I think its pretty easily seen that its just a reiteration, that God brought all the creatures to Adam to be named, the same animals that he formed out of the ground earlier.

------------------------------------------

ISA 40:22: "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

MAT 4:8: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them"

Once again, I'm having to guess the contradiction you are referring to. Are you saying that there is a contradiction in that the humans are "as grasshoppers" and then in MAT 4:8 have "glory"? Obviously since Jesus did not fall for Satan's temptation he did not see the same glory that the devil was trying to show him as being there. Jesus knew the sinfulness of man. But, like before I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say.

------------------------------------------

Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

Ok here, you really need to read the context of the verses (in fact, both the verses you listed are not the full verses). In Psalms, the righteous flourish "planted in the house of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of our Lord." (Ps 92:12) In Isaiah the same thing goes. "The righteous pass away; the godly often die before their time. And no one seems to care or wonder why. No one seems to understand that God is protecting them from the evil to come. 2 For the godly who die will rest in peace." (Isa 57:1-2). So it's easy to see that while the righteous may perish before their time, they flourish in the purist way, in the kingdom of God due to their righteousness.

------------------------------------------

(concerning how Juda died)
MAT 27:5: "And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself."

Acts 1:18: "And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out."

This is an interesting and common one. I don't have a source right on hand besides Josh McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but evidence shows that Judas hung himself on a tree at the edge of a cliff, below which there was a grassy field. It doesn't take much insight to say that after hanging himself from the tree the branch (or rope) broke and he fell into the field, causing his bowels to come out of him.

------------------------------------------

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

In Luke it says that after saying "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" Jesus died. In John it says he says "It is finished," but it doesn't say he doesn't say anything else after that before dieing. It's not hard to reconcile this if you are willing to accept the fact that each Gospel is just one account of Jesus's life, and each offers something different. The same thing goes for what was written on the cross. Four different Gospels each say somethign different, so which is right? The anser: they all are. It's not a stretch to say that all four statements were written on the cross together... they are not mutually exclusive which is required to say there exists a contradiction.

------------------------------------------

(on whether to answer a fool)
PRO 26:4: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."

PRO 26:5: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."

This one requires insight into what Proverbs is all about. Solomon wrote Proverbs if I recall correctly, and its a book about practical wisdom to lead a righteous life. With these two verses it may seem like a contradiction, but what advice do you take away from these two verses? Well, if you answer a fool's arguement, you could either fall into his trap and become a fool like him, or show him the foolishness of his arguement so he won't continue decieving himself and thinking he is right. It's advice in that it warns you of either course. Obviously, there isn't a black and white situation where you should NEVER answer someone that says something that you know is wrong, just like you can't say you should ALWAYS answer someone that says something wrong. This is practical advice for either situation.

Hopefully those answers can get you thinking. But honestly, no amount of reasoning will convince you if you are not looking for the truth, but rather looking for reasons to reject the Bible. If you are really interested in the Bible and what it teaches, you should read it trying to find truth, not trying to point out falsehoods with a preconception that the Bible must be wrong.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
Welcoming Homosexuals into a Church isn't anymore "acceptance" than Jesus's welcoming of Adulterers, Tax Collectors, and other Sinners into His company. Jesus chose to hang out with "Sinners", something so Radical that the Religious Leaders of the day had him killed. Jesus condemned not the "Sinners", but the Religious Leaders who condemned the "Sinners" and looked down upon the "Sinners". "Christianity has come full circle from doing what Jesus would do, to becoming what Jesus Condemned.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: sandorski
Welcoming Homosexuals into a Church isn't anymore "acceptance" than Jesus's welcoming of Adulterers, Tax Collectors, and other Sinners into His company. Jesus chose to hang out with "Sinners", something so Radical that the Religious Leaders of the day had him killed. Jesus condemned not the "Sinners", but the Religious Leaders who condemned the "Sinners" and looked down upon the "Sinners". "Christianity has come full circle from doing what Jesus would do, to becoming what Jesus Condemned.

Jesus accepted the sinners, but he didn't downplay their sin or say that it was OK by any means. You are confusing those two. By saying the church should accept homosexuals you are really saying the church should accept homosexuality as being right. Those are two entirely different things. The church cannot accept homosexuality as being right so long as it accepts the Bible as being right.

Christians should not attack the homosexual, they should approach him like any other sinner, wanting to free them from their sin and offer them the forgiveness of Jesus. Jesus offered forgiveness from sin, not acceptance of it. In order to be a Christian you must repent of your sins (literally, "turn away from" your sins). Homosexuality is a disgrace to God, but God is merciful and wishes that everyone would accept his forgiveness... but to be forgiven you have to admit that it is wrong.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,783
6,341
126
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Originally posted by: sandorski
Welcoming Homosexuals into a Church isn't anymore "acceptance" than Jesus's welcoming of Adulterers, Tax Collectors, and other Sinners into His company. Jesus chose to hang out with "Sinners", something so Radical that the Religious Leaders of the day had him killed. Jesus condemned not the "Sinners", but the Religious Leaders who condemned the "Sinners" and looked down upon the "Sinners". "Christianity has come full circle from doing what Jesus would do, to becoming what Jesus Condemned.

Jesus accepted the sinners, but he didn't downplay their sin or say that it was OK by any means. You are confusing those two. By saying the church should accept homosexuals you are really saying the church should accept homosexuality as being right. Those are two entirely different things. The church cannot accept homosexuality as being right so long as it accepts the Bible as being right.

Christians should not attack the homosexual, they should approach him like any other sinner, wanting to free them from their sin and offer them the forgiveness of Jesus. Jesus offered forgiveness from sin, not acceptance of it. In order to be a Christian you must repent of your sins (literally, "turn away from" your sins). Homosexuality is a disgrace to God, but God is merciful and wishes that everyone would accept his forgiveness... but to be forgiven you have to admit that it is wrong.

Read the Gospels, Jesus was not a Fire and Brimstone preacher. The confusion comes from the Religion known as "Christianity", it is the same confusion that plagues all Religions. That is the inability to overcome "Sin", so a condemnation of more apparent "Sin" is used to hide Religions' failures. Why did Jesus condemn those who He admitedly called flawless in their adherence to the Law? To be without "Sin" is not the point and Others besides oneself being without "Sin" is completely not the business of the Individual. The Individual is to watch itself and to keep itself from "Sin". "Do not concern yourself about the sliver in your brothers eye, when there is a log in your own."

If "God" hates Homosexuality so much, let Him/Her/It deal with it, but until then there is no reason for a mere Human to Judge another Human.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,342
47,576
136
Ok for this one I'm not sure what exactly the contradiction is. Are you talking about how in 2:19 it says God has formed the all the animals, where earlier it says he formed them in 1:25? If so, I think its pretty easily seen that its just a reiteration, that God brought all the creatures to Adam to be named, the same animals that he formed out of the ground earlier.

Actually I was referring to one instance of animals being created, then man, and then a later instance that man came first and then animals. Where would they be coming from if Adam was alone?

Once again, I'm having to guess the contradiction you are referring to. Are you saying that there is a contradiction in that the humans are "as grasshoppers" and then in MAT 4:8 have "glory"? Obviously since Jesus did not fall for Satan's temptation he did not see the same glory that the devil was trying to show him as being there. Jesus knew the sinfulness of man. But, like before I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say.

Can we agree on this planet being a sphere? Can we also agree you can't view a sphere in it's entirety from any one angle?

Ok here, you really need to read the context of the verses (in fact, both the verses you listed are not the full verses). In Psalms, the righteous flourish "planted in the house of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of our Lord." (Ps 92:12) In Isaiah the same thing goes. "The righteous pass away; the godly often die before their time. And no one seems to care or wonder why. No one seems to understand that God is protecting them from the evil to come. 2 For the godly who die will rest in peace." (Isa 57:1-2). So it's easy to see that while the righteous may perish before their time, they flourish in the purist way, in the kingdom of God due to their righteousness.

I have the full verse of Ps 92:12 as The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Interestingly, I have your quote as Ps 92:13. How about that! So, about that context...

As for your Isa:57 1-2 portion, part of it looks to be on non-KJ origin while the rest seems like your own interpretation. Dare I ask which version of the bible you are using?


This is an interesting and common one. I don't have a source right on hand besides Josh McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but evidence shows that Judas hung himself on a tree at the edge of a cliff, below which there was a grassy field. It doesn't take much insight to say that after hanging himself from the tree the branch (or rope) broke and he fell into the field, causing his bowels to come out of him.

That's certainly within the realm of possibility. I'd be quite interested in seeing this 'evidence.'

In Luke it says that after saying "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" Jesus died. In John it says he says "It is finished," but it doesn't say he doesn't say anything else after that before dieing. It's not hard to reconcile this if you are willing to accept the fact that each Gospel is just one account of Jesus's life, and each offers something different. The same thing goes for what was written on the cross. Four different Gospels each say somethign different, so which is right? The anser: they all are. It's not a stretch to say that all four statements were written on the cross together... they are not mutually exclusive which is required to say there exists a contradiction.


so which is right? The anser: they all are.
This is where your faith pushed you outside the realm of objective critique.

This one requires insight into what Proverbs is all about. Solomon wrote Proverbs if I recall correctly, and its a book about practical wisdom to lead a righteous life. With these two verses it may seem like a contradiction, but what advice do you take away from these two verses? Well, if you answer a fool's arguement, you could either fall into his trap and become a fool like him, or show him the foolishness of his arguement so he won't continue decieving himself and thinking he is right. It's advice in that it warns you of either course. Obviously, there isn't a black and white situation where you should NEVER answer someone that says something that you know is wrong, just like you can't say you should ALWAYS answer someone that says something wrong. This is practical advice for either situation.


And you know what? You're right. While they paint a stark dichotomy upon first sight, the fact that they are following verses does tend to point that way. I hereby withdraw this entry! ;)


Hopefully those answers can get you thinking. But honestly, no amount of reasoning will convince you if you are not looking for the truth, but rather looking for reasons to reject the Bible. If you are really interested in the Bible and what it teaches, you should read it trying to find truth, not trying to point out falsehoods with a preconception that the Bible must be wrong.

I believe you accomplished that with the last one, for sure. For the record, I never searched for reasons to reject the bible and my fellow church members. Much of the bible's contents did that, along with the behavior of those around me, was enough to get me to stop going to church and to call myself an agnostic. I review the bible as a record, a history - nothing more. It contains facts and errors alike, but being the productive of so many mortal minds has brought me to view it as anything but a gift from the divine. I'm not pious enough to start throwing around the T word it seems. I'm sorry if you took offense at my quip about Genesis, I just really do laugh when I read it sometimes.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: kage69
Ok for this one I'm not sure what exactly the contradiction is. Are you talking about how in 2:19 it says God has formed the all the animals, where earlier it says he formed them in 1:25? If so, I think its pretty easily seen that its just a reiteration, that God brought all the creatures to Adam to be named, the same animals that he formed out of the ground earlier.

Actually I was referring to one instance of animals being created, then man, and then a later instance that man came first and then animals. Where would they be coming from if Adam was alone?

Adam was alone in the sense that he was the only human around, so god created Eve. I don't think its a big stretch to assume that since animals were already created (as mentioned earlier in Genesis) Adam being alone simple refers to being the only human around.

Once again, I'm having to guess the contradiction you are referring to. Are you saying that there is a contradiction in that the humans are "as grasshoppers" and then in MAT 4:8 have "glory"? Obviously since Jesus did not fall for Satan's temptation he did not see the same glory that the devil was trying to show him as being there. Jesus knew the sinfulness of man. But, like before I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to say.

Can we agree on this planet being a sphere? Can we also agree you can't view a sphere in it's entirety from any one angle?

Ok, fair enough I kind of missed that. Anyways, the word "circle" is derived from the Hebrew word chuwg, which can be a "circuit" or "compass", referring to something that is spherical, rounded, or arched, not something flat and square.

Ok here, you really need to read the context of the verses (in fact, both the verses you listed are not the full verses). In Psalms, the righteous flourish "planted in the house of the Lord, they will flourish in the courts of our Lord." (Ps 92:12) In Isaiah the same thing goes. "The righteous pass away; the godly often die before their time. And no one seems to care or wonder why. No one seems to understand that God is protecting them from the evil to come. 2 For the godly who die will rest in peace." (Isa 57:1-2). So it's easy to see that while the righteous may perish before their time, they flourish in the purist way, in the kingdom of God due to their righteousness.

I have the full verse of Ps 92:12 as The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree; he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Interestingly, I have your quote as Ps 92:13. How about that! So, about that context...

As for your Isa:57 1-2 portion, part of it looks to be on non-KJ origin while the rest seems like your own interpretation. Dare I ask which version of the bible you are using?

You are correct here, it is Ps 92:12-13 that I quoted, but I think that vs 13 which immediately follows vs 12 is considered "in context". For the second quote, I used the New Living Translation... personally not my favorite but it does simplify the language to make it more universally understood by today's culture, but its not my favorite because you lose a little of the flow that the KJ and NIV translations have. I used it just so I could have two Bibles open to answer your questions faster. ;)

Anyways, the point I was trying to make was that there isn't neccessarily a contradiction here. To flourish doesn't neccessarily mean have a lot of wealth, or material things... if you're a righteous person you flourish with the peace of God, knowledge that you are doing good in his eyes, etc.



This is an interesting and common one. I don't have a source right on hand besides Josh McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict, but evidence shows that Judas hung himself on a tree at the edge of a cliff, below which there was a grassy field. It doesn't take much insight to say that after hanging himself from the tree the branch (or rope) broke and he fell into the field, causing his bowels to come out of him.

That's certainly within the realm of possibility. I'd be quite interested in seeing this 'evidence.'

Surely. Here:

"The limb from which Judas hung was over a precipice, that is, the valley of Hinnom. In fact, to this day there are many dry trees on the brink of this canyon near the traditional site of Judas? suicide. Thus, it could be that the weight of his body on a dry and dead limb broke the limb causing his body to plummet into the canyon and burst open."

Source: http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=488


In Luke it says that after saying "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" Jesus died. In John it says he says "It is finished," but it doesn't say he doesn't say anything else after that before dieing. It's not hard to reconcile this if you are willing to accept the fact that each Gospel is just one account of Jesus's life, and each offers something different. The same thing goes for what was written on the cross. Four different Gospels each say somethign different, so which is right? The anser: they all are. It's not a stretch to say that all four statements were written on the cross together... they are not mutually exclusive which is required to say there exists a contradiction.


so which is right? The anser: they all are.
This is where your faith pushed you outside the realm of objective critique.

You are correct in that I can't prove that the sign above the cross contained all those writings, but what I'm saying is that there isn't a contradiction because that very well could have been the case. The verses aren't mutually exclusive, and so you can't say there's a contradiction because there's nothing that says that couldn't have been the case.

This one requires insight into what Proverbs is all about. Solomon wrote Proverbs if I recall correctly, and its a book about practical wisdom to lead a righteous life. With these two verses it may seem like a contradiction, but what advice do you take away from these two verses? Well, if you answer a fool's arguement, you could either fall into his trap and become a fool like him, or show him the foolishness of his arguement so he won't continue decieving himself and thinking he is right. It's advice in that it warns you of either course. Obviously, there isn't a black and white situation where you should NEVER answer someone that says something that you know is wrong, just like you can't say you should ALWAYS answer someone that says something wrong. This is practical advice for either situation.


And you know what? You're right. While they paint a stark dichotomy upon first sight, the fact that they are following verses does tend to point that way. I hereby withdraw this entry! ;)


Hopefully those answers can get you thinking. But honestly, no amount of reasoning will convince you if you are not looking for the truth, but rather looking for reasons to reject the Bible. If you are really interested in the Bible and what it teaches, you should read it trying to find truth, not trying to point out falsehoods with a preconception that the Bible must be wrong.

I believe you accomplished that with the last one, for sure. For the record, I never searched for reasons to reject the bible and my fellow church members. Much of the bible's contents did that, along with the behavior of those around me, was enough to get me to stop going to church and to call myself an agnostic. I review the bible as a record, a history - nothing more. It contains facts and errors alike, but being the productive of so many mortal minds has brought me to view it as anything but a gift from the divine. I'm not pious enough to start throwing around the T word it seems. I'm sorry if you took offense at my quip about Genesis, I just really do laugh when I read it sometimes.

No offense is taken. To tell you the truth you are one of the nicer people that I encounter and discuss Biblical contradictions with.

You are right in that a lot of Christians can actually drive people away from Christ... but I hope that their actions alone do not cause you to lose faith. I believe that you can find God in the Bible if you really read it with an open mind and heart. And yes, the Bible was written over many centuries by very different people... tax collectors, lawyers, fishermen, prophets, kings, etc, but the still remaining uniformity of the Bible's message never fails to astound me, especially due to its origins.

 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
When you really begin to see all of the shortcomings and inaccuracies of the Bible itself, you will come to realize that you put all of your faith into a 2000 year old book written by ordinary men. If all humans lived and abided by the Golden Rule we'd have nary a problem I'd say. You don't need the Bible to tell people how to live moral lives.
 

Trevelyan

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2000
4,077
0
71
Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
When you really begin to see all of the shortcomings and inaccuracies of the Bible itself, you will come to realize that you put all of your faith into a 2000 year old book written by ordinary men. If all humans lived and abided by the Golden Rule we'd have nary a problem I'd say. You don't need the Bible to tell people how to live moral lives.

The Bible is not just a book on ethics... like CS Lewis said:

"The road to the promised land runs past Mt Sinai."