Moving this religious argument to Great Debates.
Look here, Mr Troll, since you’re claiming that you know the Biblical stand on things, you can’t just conveniently dismiss a whole book in the Bible devoted to the topic with a wave of the hand saying it’s “truly controversial”. Could I not also then dismiss your so-called bible references to the contrary saying they too are “truly controversial”? :rolleyes:
And, just because it’s fun doesn’t make it wrong.
Find me one verse where the Bible explicitly states sex within marriage is sinful and we’ll talk.
Hey man I don’t claim to know a damn thing… not jack fucking shit… it’s your world my overly aggressive, obviously Christian brother, preach on! What church do you go to? You must have orgies in the middle of the fucking sanctuary… hell, count me in! Why don’t you answer my question instead of noting the weakest book that does not even make it in to half the bibles printed, yet everything I’ve cited does? hmmm.
I’ve got to go to bed, but here’s some stuff to chew on. Remember I don’t believe it I don’t write it.
http://www.geocities.com/claudetyler/re.htm
I fully expect this tread to be completely destroyed by the time I wake up, but mine is just one life, and I’ll die soon so why not?
Hi Thaidog. I’d like to share something with you that may rekindle a faith that may be inside of you, waiting to burst on out. I feel for your situation. I really do. I’m a Christian, and as little a hypocrite as I can be. I witness daily to people about the gospel, talk to drunk and homeless people on the street and read my bible daily. I have taken up my cross and follow Christ, and I’m not some old guy who’s been doing it for years. I’m only 24, and pretty much everyone in my church (there’s the odd hypocrite) is involved just as much as I am.
I believe in creation, but I also believe that at the current time there isn’t enough information to prove either creation of evolution, so I don’t argue the topic. Sex is a part of a man and woman coming together, but sex outside marriage is lust. As Jesus said, to even look upon a woman (or man) lustfully is to commit adultery in your heart with them. This is all very basic bible understanding.
There will always be people in the church who don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s been that way since Jesus’ day, and it’s still that way today-- no big surprise. But keep in mind, the bible says that each man will stand or fall on his own before God. It has nothing to do with other people, and while I can understand how much of a let-down it is to be surrounded by people who lack knowledge (a problem with a lot of Catholics) the onus really is on your to open the bible and learn learn learn. Not nitpick about it and wind up discouraged again, but to learn why things happen in the bible. Let that grow your faith.
Email me if you’d like to know more, or ask here. People talk about biblical errors, but I’m yet to see any that have me quaking in my biblical boots 
Siege…
“but I don’t believe masturbation is sinful. I also don’t believe homosexuality is sinful. Promiscuity, using sex to harm, using sex to dishonor one’s self and God, these things are sinful.”
I think you need to hit the scriptures a little harder. This is about as unbiblical as you can get. I challenge you to maturbate and not have lustful throughts at the same time, or use it to indulge your flesh. There is nothing even remotely God-honouring about this-- as Paul says, you sin against your very body while doing these things.
“…then why was Christ’s very first miracle changing water into wine at a wedding? If you like, feel free to throw in the whole “wine bad; grape juice good” thing if you like…”
If you understood what the jars of water were used for at the wedding, you might see the foreshadowing of Christ’s blood washing them of their sins.
Boy oh boy… as if we needed an example of what Thaidog was talking about…
anyway…
Do you think that the amount of evidence is actually altered by your belief in its existence?
**
Cite, please?
Actually, you’re wrong. It was said to Adam and Eve (Gen 1:28) and then repeated twice again to Noah (Gen 9:1 and 9:7). And in both cases, it’s clear that it’s meant that people should reproduce. Or is it your statement that Noah and his children should have not had any more children and humanity should have become extinct after they died?
Furthermore, God promised Abraham that he would have numerous descendants. How was he to do that without having sex?
God promised a son to Manoah. How was he to have a son without sex?
Elisha promised a son to the Shunamite woman? Would God have fulfilled Elisha’s promise if it involved them committing a sin?
Zev Steinhardt
I’m curious how reactor reconciles the two contradictory accoutns ofd Creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25. And I think my sig would be relavant here.
(a)Thaidog that is indeed a serious chip on your shoulder. You sure you want to keep carrying it?
(b) Thaidog makes a common assumption, so common it’s made by hundreds of millions of Christians themselves, about Christianity saying that sex in and of itself is gravely sinful and Marital Sex is only a safety valve. BUT… “Better to marry than to burn” was an admonishment by Paul to fellow early church-leaders in one of the first Christian communities, and the passage deals with a situation where Paul says, if you’re going to emulate me you should do like me (be celibate) because sex distracts you from godly pursuits; but if you can’t handle it, go on and get married (like everyone else does). In another letter he goes on and states that Deacons and Bishops should be married (further specifying Bishops should have a long-standing well-established family).
© OTOH, yes, standard Christian doctrine is that non-marital sex is sinful (specifics depend on your particular church/philosophical school). But that would be because if you follow the standard doctrine, God has set forth that sex is for marriage. So it’s doing it in a way contrary to God’s rules that makes it sinful, not doing it itself. Just as drinking wine is not sinful but showing up drunk at the temple is. Sure it’s arbitrary. So? It’s someone else’s religion.
(d) TD is factually flat-out wrong on this:
The Song of Solomon/Song of Songs/Canticles/ whatever you call it in your translation, is included whole in EVERY version of the Christian Bible. Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, even Ethiopic. And in the Hebrew Tanakh. It is part of the universal canon, NOT of the Apocrypha.
(e)
You really should recommend to me whatever are those herbs you are taking. I have had enough trouble managing one girlfriend at a time and even then often begged off to stay home for a quiet evening with a book or a video. Are those the stuff I get offered in my e-mails every day?
No, but seriously, the “natural promiscuity” theory has been dealt with in SO many threads…
(f)
You DO realize, coming across like that will be of NO help in your goal? How do you expect any believers here to have anything resembling a receptive attitude to what you have to say?
(g) I see that Reactor has shown up with the Strict-Biblical Christian POV. Good. Pick up some slack and give some balance to us who are more like Christian-influenced philosophers. Two admonishments though, Reactor: Upbraiding other people responding to TD of being unbiblical or bad Christians is really not relevant in this thread, since some of those posting are NOT Christian or if so are NOT Biblical Fundamentalists (*) and the debate is with Thaidog, not with them; and, remember what is said of he who exalts himself when proclaiming your own credentials: you need not hide your lamp under a bushel, but be mindful of the story of the Pharisee and the Publican.
(*)and if you are going to argue about whether you can be Christian w/o being a BF, you’ll need to go to a different thread
Uh, oh… um… guys, are we gonna take this thread into a debate with Reactor?
Well, a debate with Reactor would be more fruitful, or at least more interesting, than one with Thaidog, who clearly does not have a coherent or informed POV.
I don’t see an alternative; Reactor’s post is merely a representation of one of the sides in this debate, isn’t it?
By the way, the reason I picked on this statement:
Is that it is almost a word-for-word replica of what I once said, a few years back.
What I actually meant was “I tried debating creation/evolution with some guys once, but it turned out that they knew what they were talking about and got my arse handed to me, so I don’t argue the topic any more - I’m hoping it will all go away.”
I didn’t mean that. I meant there isn’t enough solid proof on either side. It’s true that I don’t know every single in and out of the evolutionary process, but who does? I could comment on it if I did some hard research, but it wouldn’t convince anyone, and I wouldn’t discover everything (afterall, understanding evolution is something no one has quite got down pat, since we can’t witness macro).
For the record, I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.
The whole thing is like commenting on politics. You can’t know everything about the guy you’re voting for in the election, but you choose to go with him anyway… you choose a side, and in this case I choose what the bible says because the things of a more spiritual nature (that testify to God’s existance in my life) hold more weight. Evolution doesn’t even come into it for me. Maybe that’s hard to understand for some, but…
If people want to know about evolution and work it all out, they should do the research themselves, and get caught up in it. That isn’t the point of the bible, but it’s an excuse that’ll keep them busy for a while
Mangetout
“Do you think that the amount of evidence is actually altered by your belief in its existence?”
I notice more for it, yes.
gobear
“Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25”
This is caused by a Hebrew story telling technique, where events are retold in different orders. If you’d like further information on this, you can find it on the net if you look for it. I can give you some info at some point, too.
“Uh, oh… um… guys, are we gonna take this thread into a debate with Reactor?”
I sure hope not
Thaidog, at your convenience I’ll meet you anywhere in Raleigh – I suggest the Third Place on Glenwood, but whatever works for you, so long as the noise level is low enough for conversation – and buy you a cup of coffee and try to answer some of your problems/objections. No evangelization – well, no intent to make it into a “convert-Thaidog” sort of session; I believe what I believe, and I’ll be honest about that with you – just an opportunity to talk about what all is on your mind, particularly with religion.
Not everybody thinks that the Bible is the be-all and end-all of existence. I’m prepared to give you rational grounds for most of what I think, if that’s what you’re looking for, or just lend a sympathetic ear, if that’s what you need.
Just let me know if you’re willing.
There is no difference betwen micro and macroevolution; it’s a false dichotomy. Go to talkorigins.org to get a basic grounding in the nature of evolutionary biology.
In other words you blind yourself to any evidence that contradicts your ancient text. Got it.
Wait a sec, you can’t have it both ways. If the Biblical Creation account is literally ture, as you have previously stated, then you don’t get to dodge the discrepancies in the two accounts by attributing them to “Hebrew storytelling technique”.
I’m not surprised.
A point to note here: wine isn’t just a symbolic thing. It’s something God gave man to drink and enjoy, yes, physically. (Not to the point of drunkenness, obviously.)
When Jesus turned the water into wine, it wasn’t just a symbolic act, it was also simply for their pleasure, and I might venture to say, for his own too.
“He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for man to cultivate-- bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens the heart of man…”
Ps 104
When it comes to Creation/ Evolution, I too believe in Creation happening exactly as Genesis reports it. I know God, and I simply believe what he says is true. Our knowledge may be limited or blind in some spots. I believe one day we’ll find out what the Bible reports is more accurate than we know.
To a non-Christian, it might seem like foolishness. But imagine if you had a friend who is in the car manufacturing business, who’s an expert on their inner workings of cars. He’s successfully diagnosed your car’s problem and repaired it beautifully every time it goes wonky. Whenever he says something about your car, even though you’re doubtful, it always turns out that he was right, and in fact it was exactly what you needed to know. What’s more, he’s such an honest fellow and he truly cares about you, so he’d never want to bluff you about anything…
After a while, whenever he says something about your car, you just believe him, even though you (with your limited knowledge of the car) can’t see how it could be true. You know that one day you’ll find out that he was right. Similarly, then, for Christians, with God and Creation.
Meh, I’ll take science over the bible any day because science is ttestable and self-correcting; religion is not
Somebody really needs to inform the fundies that argument from analogy is really weak. But I can play it, too. . .
Let’s assume your buddy sold you a car, and told you it was made in America and just came off the assembly line a week ago. But then you look at the owner’s manual and it’s in Japanese. You glance over at the odometer and see that the car has 10,000 miles on it.
Now what are you going to believe, your friend’s word or the evidence of your own eyes?
Let’s say my friend is perfect, he would never play me out, he’s gotten me through a lot worse scrapes before at a great cost, I know him from personal experience… I’d believe him. I’d ask him what’s going on, but I’d ultimately trust him.