(February 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm)Ryantology Wrote:

(February 17, 2013 at 11:22 am)Drich Wrote: Just like a history student can read a given history book for the first time alone side the teacher who has been teaching out of that book for twenty years, and possibly get everything on page.. It is extremely unlikely. If what you suggest were common place then why do we need history teachers anyway? Why not just have students read their history books like you claim to be able to read the bible and save our collective communities billions of dollars a year? Oh that's right because without having someone, with what you identified as a "preconception" the students would all most likely trivialize the whole subject, get lost in what they think they already know and quit before they have a working understanding of the subject.

Sound familiar yet?

If a history teacher told me that his interpretation of history is more accurate than mine because he has read a certain book on the subject more times than I have, I would immediately dismiss him as the fraud he was.

So in your world, experience and in depth study, and even in some cases translation of certain passages from the orginal texts is consider fraudulent behavior?

Ok, let test your claim. Why not let us look at the passage that has inspired this red herring expedition and you take all of your 'reading ability' and explain what you think the passage in mat 5 means, and why you think that is a good or bad thing. Let see if a blind reading (one that ignores orginal text, the full context of the, passage, and what the rest of the bible has to say) can actually reflect what the bible says as a whole.

---

(February 17, 2013 at 11:20 am)Question Mark Wrote: If it were proven that any religion were correct, then acceptance of the notion that any form of sex is "impure" might be acceptable. Until such a time as this is proven, empirical evidence as to the legitimate dangers of any action. Any law posited by a god or goddess without given explanation is arbitrary, and morality and laws should not simply be arbitrary, it's unjust. There is no strong secular reason for why any of the LGBT community should be oppressed in favour of heterosexuality.

I do not care what the lgbt community does or why. So long as they do not misrepresent scripture as you did earlier.

(February 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Drich Wrote: So in your world, experience and in depth study, and even in some cases translation of certain passages from the orginal texts is consider fraudulent behavior?

No. You are qualified to tell me what a passage said in the Bible. You are not qualified to tell me that your interpretation of that passage is superior to mine.

Quote:Ok, let test your claim. Why not let us look at the passage that has inspired this red herring expedition and you take all of your 'reading ability' and explain what you think the passage in mat 5 means, and why you think that is a good or bad thing. Let see if a blind reading (one that ignores orginal text, the full context of the, passage, and what the rest of the bible has to say) can actually reflect what the bible says as a whole.

I've already explained what I think it means, several times in this thread and others, and whether it's good or bad is not relevant to me.

What I want you to do is to show me why you believe that, in spite of what Jesus said in that passage, Christians can pick and choose which parts of Old Testament law they want to follow, and which ones they can ignore. I want you to show me why, when Jesus warns that adhering to the law makes a difference in how one will be held up in the afterlife, that he doesn't actually mean anything of the sort.

If you try to tell me that my interpretation is wrong because other parts of the Bible contradict it, you're barking up the wrong tree, because the Bible is full of contradictions. Matthew 5 ends with a big one: Jesus tells people to love your enemies, and turn the other cheek to them, finishing with “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Of course, one need only open a random page in the Old Testament to see that the 'perfect' heavenly father does not, ever, turn the other cheek or love his enemies. He annihilates them, drowns them, has their babies slaughtered en masse, makes rape slaves out of their women. Jesus tells people to be pacifists in one breath, then he tells them to aspire to be bloodthirsty psychopaths in the next.

(February 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Drich Wrote: I do not care what the lgbt community does or why. So long as they do not misrepresent scripture as you did earlier.

How did I misrepresent scripture?

(February 17, 2013 at 12:23 pm)Zone Wrote: Even if it's meant to be a sin the idea in Christianity is that you're being saved from your sins so you will need to sin at least a bit in order for there to be some kind of point. You will just have to feel guilty about and repent regularly.

The Romans in Paul's day thought the samething.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

Chapter 6 starting at verse 1

I'm rather sure I presented the position of scripture rather accurately. Is there something particular you want to point out?

(February 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Question Mark Wrote: I'm rather sure I presented the position of scripture rather accurately. Is there something particular you want to point out?

Nothing I haven't already said three or four times in this thread already.

(February 17, 2013 at 4:14 pm)Drich Wrote:

(February 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm)Question Mark Wrote: I'm rather sure I presented the position of scripture rather accurately. Is there something particular you want to point out?

Nothing I haven't already said three or four times in this thread already.

What a perfectly clever way of avoiding the question. A sentence or two of explanation would not tax you too much I hope.

(February 17, 2013 at 2:27 pm)Question Mark Wrote:

(February 17, 2013 at 2:06 pm)Drich Wrote: I do not care what the lgbt community does or why. So long as they do not misrepresent scripture as you did earlier.

How did I misrepresent scripture?

What you said on page four about the rules concerning homosexuality in the book of Leviticus, do not accurately represent the biblical perspective on the sin of homosexuality.

Ahh, I think we might have had a small miscommunication here, and I see why you said what you said, I think. What I meant by asking for an explanation, is for you to point out in what way my representation of homosexuality in the bible is incorrect. I've read every passage I can find regarding sexual "deviances", and I can find nothing of an explanation as to why they're bad, it just states that they are.
From this I deduce that the only reason they're bad is because your god says so, and that by definition is law handed down by arbitration. Am I wrong? If so, how?

(February 17, 2013 at 2:19 pm)Ryantology Wrote: [quote='Drich' pid='402754' dateline='1361124391']So in your world, experience and in depth study, and even in some cases translation of certain passages from the orginal texts is consider fraudulent behavior?

Quote:No. You are qualified to tell me what a passage said in the Bible. You are not qualified to tell me that your interpretation of that passage is superior to mine.

i never said anything about my interpretation being superior. Because superior is a term that can mean anything depending on how you wish to interpret the passage. I have only ever represented that my interpretation would be complete and contextual. If you think putting something in a complete context is 'superior' to what your doing, then that is your business.

Quote:I've already explained what I think it means, several times in this thread and others, and whether it's good or bad is not relevant to me.

Actually you have not done anything accept repeatedly point to the same verse over and over again. When I ask you what you think it means you change the subject. This is where the conversation ends. I will not participate in any other requests until you make the effort I have asked you to make here.
Because everything else you are asking completely hinges on how you want to view a given passage. Understand I do not deny this passage nor am I over looking it. You seem to think it is a bad thing and I simply want to know why.

Again until you take the time to explain your self, you have ended this conversation.

---

(February 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Question Mark Wrote: Ahh, I think we might have had a small miscommunication here, and I see why you said what you said, I think. What I meant by asking for an explanation, is for you to point out in what way my representation of homosexuality in the bible is incorrect. I've read every passage I can find regarding sexual "deviances", and I can find nothing of an explanation as to why they're bad, it just states that they are.
From this I deduce that the only reason they're bad is because your god says so, and that by definition is law handed down by arbitration. Am I wrong? If so, how?

You are not wrong. All 'acts' have no intrinsic moral value in God's economy. Acts are only ever considered sinful or righteous because God assigns them their titles. The acts themselves are meaningless.

---

(February 17, 2013 at 4:27 pm)Question Mark Wrote: Ahh, I think we might have had a small miscommunication here, and I see why you said what you said, I think. What I meant by asking for an explanation, is for you to point out in what way my representation of homosexuality in the bible is incorrect. I've read every passage I can find regarding sexual "deviances", and I can find nothing of an explanation as to why they're bad, it just states that they are.
From this I deduce that the only reason they're bad is because your god says so, and that by definition is law handed down by arbitration. Am I wrong? If so, how?

You are not wrong. All 'acts' have no intrinsic moral value in God's economy. Acts are only ever considered sinful or righteous because God assigns them their titles. The acts themselves are meaningless.