Dok And Peppy's Mass Debate

Do you have sex?... and you married?

I know the answer... but I just wondered if you feel it's your duty to help yourself turn away from that particular sin or not?

Also isn't it a sin to drink alcohol too and eat meat with blood still in it(Old testement)

... and as for unholy thoughts .... we're all screwed on this one

Love Clairexxx

 

You can interpret the bible in a million different ways. On that basis, sin is what you choose it to be.

 

Hi everyone, "scared me off" yeah right i've just been away for the last few days, living my life outside the computer. saw you been reading up on a few more of my posts, i'll stand by what i have said i was just being honest any one want to take the piss i really don't give a fuck.

this topic does seem to have died if it has turned into a search about Peppy's posts to find something contraversial though so i'll see you all on another thread, no point kicking a dead man in the ribs. cheers to anyone who has actualy taken this seriousely though.

 

Ummm... huh?

I'm not following you here. My point is that there's no nice, simple list of sins in the bible upon which everyone can agree. Therefore, it becomes a matter of interpretation. Some people will see Leviticus as sufficient justification for regarding homosexuality as a sin, while others will regard it as an outdated set of cultural laws from thousands of years ago that was never intended to be applicable in the modern world.

 

Shame to see you duck out of the discussion, dude. But then homophobia is ultimately unjustifiable, even from a christian perspective.

 

didn't mean anything i said in a nasty way, just we seem to be going round in cricles and neither of us are gonna change our veiws. has been a cool topic though.

 

Oh, I know you didn't mean it in a nasty way Peppy. That's one of the many problems with christianity though. It allows you to dress prejudice up in respectability.

 

Homosexuality is no more of a sin that shaving your beard or not owning slaves.

 

i have a friend at work who's a really commited christian (and an all round lovely person) and she has a gay daughter. her attitude is that as far as she's concerned, her god is a loving god who accepts her daughter no matter what coz thats the way he made her. its all about how you chose to interpret the bible, and i think thats a lovely interpretaion.

peace and love
stardust
xxx

 

But short of god dropping down for a chat and presonally telling you what is and isn't sin, the only way you know what's wrong in the eyes of god is through the interpretation of thr bible. And different prople have different interpretations. If it was as you seem to be making out, you wouldn't have so many branches of christianity, would you?

 

I think that's an overly simplified way of looking at it. It all depends on whether you believe christianity must inherently embrace every word of the bible as truth. Many christians simply don't believe that. In my opinion, for very good reasons.

Which is fair enough. But that's why I say it's impossible to come up with a comprehensive list of what is or isn't sin - because it's a matter of how you, as an individual, interpret the bible and your faith.

Lol, not sure! Couldn't work it out!

 

Firstly, that's may be the way you see it, but other christians would see it differently.

Secondly, didn't you say earlier that there's much confusion caused by translation? Surely if god wanted the bible to be understood, he'd have prevented it from being translated differently in just the same way that he prevented it being written differently?

Thirdly, the bible contradicts itself. If it's the inspired word of god, that would mean god is contradicting himself, which hardly seems likely.

Fourthly, much of the bible requires interpretation. It doesn't simply provide you with a clear list of dos and don'ts. So yet again, personal interpretation enters the equation - yet another reason why many christians see their faiths differently to one another.

Well many other christians would say the same thing, and yet they may have arrived at entirely different interpretations of their faith. Who's to say who's right?

 

God is!










or is it the guy at the gates?










maybe the guys who wrote the book but I don't think you can ask them any more...

 

It's the guy at the gates.


You wont see him for a while yet though his gatekeeper shifts are usually like 2-10 on mondays and 9 till 4 on fridays.

 

Yeh, language has changed so much in the last god knows how long. (eek pun)

Which leads straight back to the interpretation issue.

The New Testement asside, I really can't see that we can take the Old Testement seriously as a rule book for life.

I guess I'd have to read it carefully cover to cover, but so far I don't trust it's the word of God at all.

 

We could debate this one for ever. The bible's full of contradictions - but if you don't want to accept that, you'll try and rationalise your way out of them.

Couple of examples: the god of the old testament is clearly vengeful and violent. Christ preaches a message of love and forgiveness. These two messages are in no way consistent.

The gospels all differ in their account of the crucifixion.

When christ is arrested in the garden of gethsemane, despite his teachings of non-violence, one of his followers is carrying a sword.

I could go on, but it's a subject all in itself.

So god considers the bible important enough to ensure that only his divinely inspired word makes it in there in order to avoid confusion, but despite this, he still allows linguistic misunderstandings to creep in? Kinda defies the point a bit, doesn't it? And how can you know that the bible is all "approved by god" but the linguistics aren't?

 

But the direct teachings of jesus indicate that god is peaceful and loving.

"Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit the earth"

"Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be called Sons (and Daughters) of God."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

"Blessed are the Merciful, for they shall obtain mercy."

"If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. If someone demands your coat, offer your shirt also."

Not much sign in the old testament of god turning the other cheek or being merciful!

So wiping out the first-born children of an entire country was 'necessary'? Not really the act of a loving, forgiving god, is it?

You do realise that the gospels aren't contemporary accounts, don't you? It's widely accepted that the first gospel wasn't written until AD70 at the very earliest - a full forty years after the death of christ. So they're hardly likely to be accurate accounts. And if they report the crucifixion differently, how can we be sure of their reliability in any other area?

So you think that the christ who overturned the tables of the moneylenders would've tolerated his followers walking round with swords?

But if god is capable of manipulating reality to ensure that only his divinely inspired teachings are included in the bible, then surely he's also capable ensuring that this important book is translated accurately? If he cares enough to intervene to ensure only his approved words make the final edition, then you'd kinda think he wouldn't want to be misquoted or misinterpreted either.

As you can see though, this is all theory. It's all guesswork. You don't know the workings of god's mind anymore than I do. So you're not in a position to say for a certainty that the bible is divinely inspired. You might believe it to be, but many christians believe differently, and your point of view is no more or less valid than theirs.

 

But we're talking about the inconsistency between the old and the new testament. Regardless of whether you think god was justified in slaughtering thousands of babies, the point remains that the god portrayed in the old testament has no similarity to the god that christ describes. Can you imagine jesus killing thousands of babies?

But he let them carry swords? Wouldn't that be kinda like taking a gun to a buddhist meeting?

Fair enough. It's good that you can be honest about gaps in your knowledge rather than just trying to bullshit.

 

the fact is that if you are going to take the religious approach using the medium of the hebrew bible then you should probably know that the word that now means "homosexual" before the translation into latin and english once meant " promiscuous man of sodom" just a little peice of info handy for an especially technical debate over the ethics of being a faggot ( i can say that because i am one)

 

God created man in his own image (in biology this is asexual reproduction)

God and adam created eve (as adam is in god's image this is homosexual reproduction)

Adam and Eve: the introduction of hetros got us kicked out of the garden of eden, gave us disease and death, their children were incestuous murderers?!?
Leviticus says that man mustn't lay with man as he would women, doesn't say you can't be gay just says you can't have sex with a man as you would a women, in other words hetros can't partake of the divine acts that occured between adam and god.