Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student

last SG · 2005-08-06T20:53:45+00:00

Originally posted by Honeybunz: [b]An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of...

stupidissmart SG

wahah .. can we say all these doesn't matter since Christ fulfilled the law? we use the argument from heng's fren. I realize their argument very convenient against pple like SIS .. haha

I have probably answered tis countless times before. Just immediateley after jesus say "fulfill" he say tat all these laws have to be kept without a single stroke dissappear FOREVER.

when your PC shouts company to fall in, does he say "everyone fall in" or "unit x coy y fall in"?

Silly example. When the gov says the country practise meritocracy, does it means only christian get meritocracy while non-christian get otherwise ? Why use a totally different subject as an example ?

Where does it say they are equally important?

they r both treated equally as detestable or abomination. So in a sense they r not of a lower sin of "unclean"

For the 1001 times .. I say again .. the Christian position is condemn the sin and not the sinner - "Neither shall I condemn you, go and sin no more". Why are you always putting up a strawman?

Wat is the diff ? Homos r gonna be treated differently regardless of whether u focus on the sin or sinner.

It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians

How do u set tat tis rules r for jews and not for christians ? Why doesn't homosexuality become the rules for jews and not for christian as well

To treat someone as a criminal is to throw him in jail. Any gay christian you know got thrown into jail? You are forgetting that when we condemn the sin, we do not condemn the sinner. It's NOT personal...

I do hear of cases where death sentence is given to gays people when they r murdered.

You don't believe in the bible, so it does not matter to you or any other non-Christian.

It matters because it will inevitably affect the behavior of christians and they will affect other people from other beliefs

Today it's about prawns the next will be about bats then comes the dragon etc etc. I know that there is no way you will be satisfied. You just disagree with the Christian doctrine, any Christian doctrine. At least with the other non-Christians, we can agree to disagree. You just want to pick a fight. To be honest, I really don't give a damn what you agree or disagree with. It had stopped mattering a long time ago. The only reason why I respond to you today is so that other readers do not get only your caustic opinions but be given another viewpoint as well.

Com'on, am I wrong to talk about prawns in tis topic ? It is in fact raised by an article posted by earthling before. If there is no loop holes in it where can I get the ammunition to debate on thse issues ?

This entire thread is about one Christian POV vs another Christian POV. I will not comment on non-Christian/atheistic/agnostic/pagan values. Why not? Because I respect their choices. Can you respect Christian choices? Obviously not, seeing you never fail to barge in with your long and tedious delivery.
Leave your scepticism at the door, this discussion has nothing to do with you, unless you are either a gay-Christian and has a close friend who is one, neither of which I think you are.

Strange, I thought the title of this thread speaks of something else. The posts I have given r not irrelevant. They do mention about the biblical scripture and IMO r really valid points. Why focus on the sin of homosexuality while conveniently forget other rules such as prawn eating and many others. Why the double standard ? Isn't tis the case of mix and match watever u like to believe rather than really following the word of god ?

Chin Eng SG

How do u set tat tis rules r for jews and not for christians ? Why doesn't homosexuality become the rules for jews and not for christian as well

I didn't set the rules. As much as I take that positively, such studies were done by various learned people (who probably do not mean a thing to you) OT was written before there were Christians. How can a law exist for people that did not exist at the time a law was passed. Romans and Corinthians and Acts exist after Christianity was formed.

I do hear of cases where death sentence is given to gays people when they r murdered.

Shocked who was murdered? gay people? and they were given death sentenced? to a murdered gay people? huh? were they given the death sentence because they were gay or because they murdered? again, who was murdered?

It matters because it will inevitably affect the behavior of christians and they will affect other people from other beliefs

Most people can see that my argument is between non Gay Christian POV and Gay Christian POV. Any behaviour is towards Gay Christians and unless you admit to being one or is close to one, it does not matter to you... bbbut, you being SIS, everything that a Christian does matters to you.... I am glad that we influence your life as such....

I am sure you can find ammunition without anyone giving you any. Laughing Afterall to you the entire Bible is already full of contradictions. So why put the blame on another person?

Precisely, why focus on homosexual but ignore bigamy, adultery, promiscuous sex, paedophile etc. So do you also think that because man is created lustful, therefore it is alright for man to be adulterous and lead a promiscuous life? Do you consider these behaviour good and natural? I would like your comment on these since you feel like expanding the topic.

You did not answer my earlier question: DO YOU RESPECT A CHRISTIAN'S CHOICE as I am able to respect a non-Christian's choice?

Icemoon SG

oh s-h-i-t .. got to ask heng's fren on this. Laughing

Silly example. When the gov says the country practise meritocracy, does it means only christian get meritocracy while non-christian get otherwise ? Why use a totally different subject as an example ?

That's right. When the gov says country practice meritocracy .. does it say foreign workers also get same treatment? Laughing We have to admit the OT contains laws meant for people receiving the covenant, yet at same time recognise some commandments apply to all mankind. How to tell them apart is not the point here.

I hope it is clear that "thou shall not murder" applies to all mankind heh, though this is in the OT as well.

they r both treated equally as detestable or abomination. So in a sense they r not of a lower sin of "unclean"

I think we can only conclude they are worse than those "unclean" sins.

Wat is the diff ? Homos r gonna be treated differently regardless of whether u focus on the sin or sinner.

of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them.

[email protected] SG

I've talked about 1 Cor with some of my xtian friends.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

They ask why do u take it out of context as well?

it states clearly here "homosexual OFFENDERS", not just "homosexuals"

I've been told that this listing of "homosexual OFFENDERS" comes from the biblical city of Lot, where a group of men were hornier than Satan himself n raped anyone who entered their house, be it men or women, and it is this homosexual RAPE itself that is a sin, not homosexuality itself. How do u explain this?

And also, I've kindly provided a website by Les Gay Bi and Trans Xtians. Why don't u have a look and explain where they get their POV from? Don't be so self-righteously dismissive about it. I feel that its worth a look and some dissection into what they are saying as well. As far as it goes, all along here, your insistance is that YOUR view IS the xtian view. Might u not consider that other xtians might hae a valid point of view as well, and that might u not be mistaken?

besides as sgdiehard said:

clap, clap, clap,..... very well said, indeed. I have learned a lot from the exchanges on this issue, more from the Christians than the pro gays or gay forumites. Biased? whatever they may say, but it is better, safer to submit to the authority of God and obey his words spoken in the Bible.

u say its safer to submit to the authority of god and obey his words spoken in the bible.

i will point out that:

1) nobody is saying we shouldn't submit to the authority of god.

2) the bible are not his spoken words. it is the word of MAN who wrote what they THOUGHT what god had said.

3) are u 100% sure that your personal understanding of the bible is absolutely correct?

4) are u not letting your own biasedness fool u into thinking your personal understanding of the bible IS correct?

5) 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

If you xtians can quote me this as saying homosexuality is wrong and yet other xtians who aren't gay can point it out that when u ignore the "offender" that follows "homosexual", you are also taking it out of context, might u not be grossly mistaken in some of your interpretations, however minute your mistake in overlooking some words might be?

SO u need to get it clear:

The owner is allowed to write the rules because this is HIS gym and the rules are for the good for all who use the gym, members can testify to that. Members don question the rules for they believe the owner knows better and members submit to His authority.

Bash the christians, the church, and all christian organisation as you like, it is true that some do deserved criticism or canning on the backside, but if you are questioning God, twisting the Bible, do it at your own risks

U say that members don't question the owner because the believe he knows better, but im asking u, the owner didn't write the rules, he told his member of staff to write the rules based on a rough guideline, and the member of staff writes it up as best as he could, but with his own views, prejudices and misunderstandings written into those rules, are u going to simply follow them blindly in the belief that the owner personally wrote the rules himself without making clear who actually wrote the rules?

So why do u say i am questioning god when i am questioning the bible itself, which was written NOT by god but by man? I am questioning if the bible hadn't been written with some human prejudice, biasedness, views, belief, misgivings and misunderstandings in? If for even a passage like 1 Cor 6:9, xtians can give 2 different explanations which both sound logical, then who are YOU to say that i am twisting the bible, and that you are not? The risk might be on your own heads all this while, that I will remind u.

Chin Eng SG

You know I find this really strange. On one hand, you denounce Christians as myself as being incapable or inadequate to translate/interprete the Bible, on the other hand, you go check with your friends. I sincerely hope that your Christian friends are learned enough to give you the correct answers.

1 Corinthians 6:9 (NIV)
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.
They ask why do u take it out of context as well?
it states clearly here "homosexual OFFENDERS", not just "homosexuals"
I've been told that this listing of "homosexual OFFENDERS" comes from the biblical city of Lot, where a group of men were hornier than Satan himself n raped anyone who entered their house, be it men or women, and it is this homosexual RAPE itself that is a sin, not homosexuality itself. How do u explain this?

umm.. shall we go back to the original Greek language in which 1 Corinthians was written: The word "homosexual" in the NASB version is the Greek añóåíïêïßôçò (arsenokoites). It occurs two times in the New Testament. The KJV translates it as abuser of (ones) self with mankind once, and defile (ones) self with mankind once. 1 one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. (Strong, J. (1996). The exhaustive concordance of the Bible : Showing every word of the test of the common English version of the canonical books, and every occurence of each word in regular order. (electronic ed.) (G733). Ontario: Woodside Bible Fellowship.)
The 1901 ASV, the KJV, translate it as "abusers of themselves." The NASB and NKJV translate it as "homosexuals." The NIV as "homosexual offenders." The RSV as "sexual perverts." Something just struck me.... "arsenokoites" coitus via the arse????
Please, I did not make all these up. Go read up a good concordance or commentary on the various verses of the Bible or pick up a good English/Greek dictionary...... of course it is also entirely possible that your friend(s) are also very learned.... but I doubt so.

And also, I've kindly provided a website by Les Gay Bi and Trans Xtians. Why don't u have a look and explain where they get their POV from? Don't be so self-righteously dismissive about it. I feel that its worth a look and some dissection into what they are saying as well. As far as it goes, all along here, your insistance is that YOUR view IS the xtian view. Might u not consider that other xtians might hae a valid point of view as well, and that might u not be mistaken?

errr. where did you get the notion that I said that MY VIEW IS THE CHRISTIAN VIEW.... at best I say that my view is my view as a Christian with my own understanding of the Bible. I'd said many times - you got more supportive evidence from the Bible, I'd be happy to read them. I did not reject your claims, which really is far and few in between, without explaining why. There are obviously two views, one: a pro gay Christian camp, the other an anti gay Christian camp. I just happen to be in the one you are not in. Please stop saying that I am insisting that I am right. If this is the case, every single individual, you including is doing that. EH folks had already commented about how I'd approach this topic. I don't think there is a misunderstanding on where I am coming from. On the other hand, you have mixed your friend's pro-gay Christian view with your non-Christian view on homos so much so that I really don't know what you are arguing for.

Anybody can set up a website and state the views, which in itself does not mean anything. Safehaven is closer to home. I'd read most of the articles in it. It would be a stand of gay-Christian. They have attempted to deal with Romans and 1 Corinthians by quoting the naturalist theory, the acceptance of behaviour plus the need for self-rights - all of which has nothing to do with the Bible.

From all your postings, it'd be safe to declare that you are either a gay-activist, or a gay. Like I'd said it does not matter to me who you are. I don't care. What matters is your inconsistent stand - by admitting that your friends' opinions are the correct one and those in EH that are anti-gay is wrong. Why is his opinions more correct than mine? Is it because they are already fundamentally in agreement with yours?
I am asking you to give us the benefit of doubt, and dig a little deeper. A young Christian can make all kinds of claims about the work of God and various deviant belief. What you need to do is not just to believe them, or me, at all. There are methods to read the Bible. The worst one being to take everything at face value without going to the original translation and see what a root word really mean when it was written or to make claims that we should not listen to wisemen because we are all given a brain.

One more thing, if you don't believe in the Bible, don't use a verse to support your claims...

[email protected] SG

so all along u're saying that its my friends who are unlearned and that u're learned?

u said this: I am only addressing Christian gays who attempts to justify their position by twisting scriptures and make political human rights statements. Note the POV here that it is by definition that a Christian's authority is the Bible.

this statement alone, makes it clear that u think u are right, and that those xtian gays who, like u have their own understanding of the bible, are "twisting scriptures and making political human right statements"

isn't that like saying your own understanding is right and non-twisting of scriptures while theirs are? u have your evidence, they have theirs, I am handicapped here in that I don't read the bible like u or them, so while u can argue back with your personal knowledge, in presenting them, as far as biblical evidence goes, i can only present what they've told me, and worse still because some of them are in a different time zone, i have to stay up till 3 or 4am in the morning just to ask them about their xtian POVs and supporting evidence from the bible, which if u insist you are entitled to, then so are they, even as xtians. U just keep saying they are twisting scriptures, aren't u indirectly saying u must be right because u don't? but who are u to judge that they are twisting scriptures? as u so self-righteously point out, if your view is my your as a Christian with your own understanding of the Bible, then so are their views, for they truely believe in xtianity as well, unlike me. Thus i need to ask u. Who be you, to say that they are twisting scriptures? What im doing here is not to say definately my friends have the correct view. if i think that way, why do I present your views to them and why do i need to push them so hard? Another point I need to clarify. While im not gay, I believe in gay-rights and the abolishment of bigotry and prejudice in all forms, social and religious, and as such, even tho it doesn't affect me directly, i argue as fiercely as any gay person would about this issue.

So make it clear. I am arguing against this anti-gay mindset, that it is a sin or unnatural, because that is the root of all discrimination against homosexuality. THAT, is what im arguing for.

as for using verses, in any contest, it is always best to use your opponent's strength against him. if u so believe in the bible, then where there are doubts about what u can understand from the bible, am i not entitled to raise the question?

Chin Eng SG

no I am saying, why the inconsistency and make remarks that Christians in EH are not able to intepret the Bible while on the same note accept at face value what you are told by your friends. They are probably as smart as I am or as I as dumb as them.

The fact that there is a claim that Eccl 7:13 is in support of homosexuality is already a twist in scripture. There is virtually nothing in the book of Eccl that talks about sex. Want sex? Try Song of Solomons.... that one x-rated.

Let's assume you are right and I am twisting scripture: which part would that be? So far, only Romans and 1 Cor and possibly Acts were quoted by me. Can you tell me precisely which verse have I twisted. Teach me so that I will learn.

The issue is NOT ABOUT GAY RIGHTS! The issue is about the Christian theology on homosexuals no different from the Christian theology on adultery or sexual promiscuity. If you feel that because you don't read the bible enough, don't get yourself involve in this topic. No need to spend the next few nights (mornings) emailing your friends. Get them to post their defense themselves, I am sure they can get access to Sgforums wherever they are. Let them post their own defense.... you say, it's about rights, correct? They have every right to come in a post whatever they want. No one will chase them away. In that respect, you are right: they intepret one way, and other Christians, including me intepret another.... all I am asking is: how can one read Eccl 7:13 to be supporting homosexuals and ignoring the condemnation in Romans and 1 Corinthians? Just explain these verse to me, base on their understanding.

I am not self-rightoeous lah... I have plenty of sins and I know what they are. I do not go justifying my rights to commit them.

[email protected] SG

but they are entitled to their understanding that Ecc is support of homosexuality. who are u to say that that is twisting the scripture? did u not say it is down to an individual's understanding? again who are u to judge whether that is twisting the scripture?

Chin Eng SG

any understand has to have a basis, otherwise I will "understand" a window to be a door and vice versa, and I will use these the wrong way. The declaration that there is an understanding is insufficient. So again, on the assumption that your friends are correct, what basis is this understand latched to:

Under most conditions, it would be:
1. an explicit, unmistakable verse.
2. an hidden meaning, revealed when an original text (greek, aramaic, hebrew) is read.
3. a cross reference to parallel incident.
4. cross checking with the various versions.
5. commentary by various bible scholars and seminaries

So please tell me how Eccl 7:13 becomes supportive of the gay movement. Because you are NOT the person having THAT understanding first hand, you need to be convinced on the reason why it is a verse supporting homosexual. And please don't forget to find out for me how I twisted Romans and 1 Cor. I really need to know.

[email protected] SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:

[b]any understand has to have a basis, otherwise I will "understand" a window to be a door and vice versa, and I will use these the wrong way. The declaration that there is an understanding is insufficient. So again, on the assumption that your friends are correct, what basis is this understand latched to:

Under most conditions, it would be:
1. an explicit, unmistakable verse.
2. an hidden meaning, revealed when an original text (greek, aramaic, hebrew) is read.
3. a cross reference to parallel incident.
4. cross checking with the various versions.
5. commentary by various bible scholars and seminaries

So please tell me how Eccl 7:13 becomes supportive of the gay movement. Because you are NOT the person having THAT understanding first hand, you need to be convinced on the reason why it is a verse supporting homosexual. And please don't forget to find out for me how I twisted Romans and 1 Cor. I really need to know.[/b]

i will ask. u aren't getting out so easily. i will be going out now, i will give u an answer over the weekend.

Chin Eng SG

Laughing take care... have a good weekend..... better still, ask them to reply directly...

[email protected] SG

1st 7 replies are very troublesome. otherwise they would probably reply directly.

earthlings73 SG

Err.. The word "homosexual" does not appear until 1869. So how would an ancient greek word be tranlated to mean homosexual in English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex," being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" and the Latin root sex- meaning "sex." The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymously published 1869 German pamphlet written by the Hungarian Karl-Maria Kertbeny.

stupidissmart SG

Chrtistianity was based on jewish scriptures. How can they forsake their teachings completely and assume they r different ? In tat case why should the mesiah exist of r people who do not exist at tat time ? The OT is included as part of the bible for a reason. Jesus in the NT had himself said the importance of the OT laws. U wanna defy him ?

who was murdered? gay people? and they were given death sentenced? to a murdered gay people? huh? were they given the death sentence because they were gay or because they murdered? again, who was murdered?

There were articles from earthlings tat shows gays being murdered. Sort of death sentence being laid onto them isn't it ?

Tat is very interesting but all along I have been arguing from the scripture point of view isn't it ? Or r u gonna tell me christian don't read bible ? And as said countless time, the teaching of christainity is gonna affect people of all belief and religion, which obviously include me. So I can't comment on anything tat is gonna influence me. But anyway u r gonna reply the same thing back anyway

Bigamy, adultery involves another third party (current partner) so it is wrong and no one will stand up to it. Paedophile is a crime committed on another person who is deemed not matured enough to undertsand the nature of the business. For promiscuous sex, it depends on your definition of it. If u talk about a hooker doing it for a living and religious people go all out and condemn and curse them, I will stand up for them as well. If u talk about sex with boyfriends, I will stand up for them too. If u talk about nymphomaniac, it really had a very damaging influence to his wellbeing and at the current moment it is considered as a mental illness and as such, should be encourage to visit the pyschatrist. And as such, we do see eye to eye on such issues

Seems u r keen on expanding issues, why don't u expand on the topic of masturbation and contraception while u r at it ? These 2 points r perhaps the topics tat seem incredibly wrong IMO yet upheld by the religion to be right. We probably do not se eye to eye on these 2 so u wanna discuss them ?

You did not answer my earlier question: DO YOU RESPECT A CHRISTIAN'S CHOICE as I am able to respect a non-Christian's choice?

Lets say I am powerless to a choice made by christians. A poitn I need to make is there r many christians who do not respect the choices made by gays. However this being a forum, why don't we jut thrash it out and talk about it to get deeper understanding on the issues.

That's right. When the gov says country practice meritocracy .. does it say foreign workers also get same treatment? We have to admit the OT contains laws meant for people receiving the covenant, yet at same time recognise some commandments apply to all mankind. How to tell them apart is not the point here.

I hope it is clear that "thou shall not murder" applies to all mankind heh, though this is in the OT as well.

So u mean u get to pick and choose the laws tat u like and follow them while conveninetly throw all the other laws to the jews ? From the wordings of the bible, it show tat all followers of god have to follow these laws. In the case of a country tat practise meritocracy, even if u r a foreign worker, u get fair treatment and can get promoted and a pay raise if u r more hard working than the rest. Tat is the ideal state tat the country is striving for.

of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them.

And to the homosexual, wat is the diff ? To them they r gonna be treated differently whether they focus on the sin or the sinner

Chin Eng SG

Originally posted by earthlings73:

Err.. The word "homosexual" does not appear until 1869. So how would an ancient greek word be tranlated to mean homosexual in English?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual

[b]The word homosexual translates literally as "of the same sex," being a hybrid of the Greek prefix homo- meaning "same" and the Latin root sex- meaning "sex." The first known appearance of the term homosexual in print is found in an anonymously published 1869 German pamphlet written by the Hungarian Karl-Maria Kertbeny.

[/b]

What you'd stated is true. Words may appear over the years within a certain language, but it does not mean that similar words did not exist in other languages. In all honesty the greek term I had used "arsenokoites" can mean different things to different people - whether it meant homosexuals or as some of us had termed - homosexual offenders. It all depends on who did the research. Nonetheless the truth remains that it refers to some kind of sexual offence.

The point I am trying to drive is that the Romans and 1 Corinthians has very little in terms of space to move around translation. And to compound the issue further, historically, Corinthians is known as a city with heaps of sexual deviant practices (just check any history book). Hence when we attempt to look at the relevancy of Ecclesiastes against Corinthians, Eccl has nothing specific or explicity that is sexual in nature while the entire passage in the 1 Corin quotation has heaps of issues with regards on sexual conduct. Anyone seeing
Eccl as having a sexual message is seeing an implied message and a very very very loose one at that.

At the end of the day the argument will return to whether homosexuality is natural or not. And if it is, does that also mean that God had intended it to be so, which is what I think the Eccl verse is taken to mean. If this is the case, then we should ask ourselves if a person is born with the propensity to be violent, then should this person seek help. Or a person who is born to have an unnaturally high sex drive, he should attempt to reign it in. So my argument really is: if someone is born in a certain way, should this person attempt to modify his behaviour and ultimate modify his religious creed to suit his lifestyle.

I am aware that all the non-Christian postings in this thread is pro-gay (not that you guys are gay yourself). I am not anti-gay. I am saying that there are many Christians who will change their basic religious tenets to suit their personal agenda. My stand in this is no different from the way I see City Harvest Church or the white supremist churches in the world. Call me ultra-conservative or non-progressive, but that's the way I see it.

Chin Eng SG

Why do you care if I "defy God"? What does it matter to you? The Messiah is the Alpha and Omega. He exist for all. Jesus in his time, made a mockery of some of the laws in the OT... When Jesus died, he forgave the sins of all who will accept him as his personal saviour, hence the act of crucifixion and resurrection promised salvation for all who will accept him from that time on - nothing difficult, just basic Biblical theology.... anyway you don't believe in Jesus, so it probably don't mean anything to you. Laughing

There were articles from earthlings tat shows gays being murdered. Sort of death sentence being laid onto them isn't it ?

yeah... and black people get lynched too, so what's your point? Murdered gay people by Christians only? There are huge bunch of anti-gay non-Christians out there... why put the blame on Christians (again?)

How can you argue from a point of view that you do not believe in? Oxymoron isn't it? The only reason for your to argue using the Bible is so that you make a mockery out of Christianity - that is not "arguing from the Scripture" it is arguing AGAINST the scripture. But coming from you, I am used to it.
Teaching of Christianity affect people all the time??? No lah, currently the teachings of Jihadist is affect more people more of the time..... losing love ones because of suicidal bombers etc etc... I like to read some of your comments on this. You know, since our last exchange, I'd have not seen any more of your comments in the other forums.... see that you are still keeping EH high on the rating... thanks.

Bigamy is not wrong if the multiple partners agree isn't it. So assuming that is so, would you ok it? Maybe being a nymphomaniac is normal, so no need treatment what? Interesting phrase - current moment is considered a mental illness..... Very Happy

Seems u r keen on expanding issues, why don't u expand on the topic of masturbation and contraception while u r at it ? These 2 points r perhaps the topics tat seem incredibly wrong IMO yet upheld by the religion to be right. We probably do not se eye to eye on these 2 so u wanna discuss them ?

Shocked Masturbation old issue right? One thread many moons ago right? Same mexican standoff right? Remember the blood and the sweat? Talk before already.
Shocked Contraception, no issue what. I am not RC. I use condom. Actually quite frighten here.... I say I use condom, you might whack me using the RC stand. If I say I don't support contraception, you also whack me by saying I conservative.... so not sure where you want to go here???? Wah damn scared alreadddy...

I agree with you that there are many Christians who are very unyielding in their stance with regards to many non-Christian issues. I do not happen to be one of them. And again I repeat myself: I am not anti-gay. I am anti Christians who change their basic religious creed to suit their own agenda. How many times must I repeat this statement before it is understood? But you say you are powerless because of choices made by Christians.... as I remember you were not happy with Christians who go into other forums to discuss choices made by other non-Christians. Isn't this contradictory? You come in because it's our fault, we go to other places to discuss it is also our fault.... so you think everything is our fault???? Shocked
Well seems you did not really answer my question because you shifted the blame to the Christians.... let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is everything wrong caused by Christians only?
What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of course got diff. One implies the theology is wrong and full of discrimination, the other only says xtians sometimes get too arrogant and forgot what the Lord has taught them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to the homosexual, wat is the diff ? To them they r gonna be treated differently whether they focus on the sin or the sinner

although not really my point lah... but my opinion is one can be discriminated without discrimination put on them. Sometimes it is a martyr's syndrome. When you read about comments by black people, it always seem that the whole world is against them, but many issues are really a lack of self worth.
To the gays out here reading this. Please walk with your heads held high, don't let anyone look down at your choice.
Myself and my boys have been called fatty or variation of this name all our lives but we do not feel discriminated and continue to maintain our self confidence. I am not saying the problems faced by gays are the same as us. You fellas probably have gone through worst, but the feeling of discrimination can be two ways, given and perceived.

And one more time: I AM NOT ANTI-GAY! I AM ANTI CHRISTIAN WHO TRANSLATE THE BIBLE ANY OLD HOW..... braack!!! vomitting blood already.... not to you SIS... just a little pek chek....

Take care buddy.... how's work.... not too busy I hope.... Laughing

sgdiehard SG

1) nobody is saying we shouldn't submit to the authority of god.

Obviously we do not submit to the same God. To each his own.

2) the bible are not his spoken words. it is the word of MAN who wrote what they THOUGHT what god had said.

The Bible IS the spoken word of my God, the God who sent his son Jesus Christ to die for my sin on the cross and resurrected on the third days. This is what I believe, by faith initially, and through experience, the walk with Jesus, God confirmed to me that the Bible is indeed His word.

3) are u 100% sure that your personal understanding of the bible is absolutely correct?

I read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit, I interact with God through prayers, so that I can be clear of His word and His will. I learn from other Christians, including scholars, but more from Christians who experienced God. If I act anything foolish, either with wrong understanding or twisted meaning of His Word, or against His will, knowingly, Gods discipline will be on me, and I will have to be accountable to Him. His is a living God and He knows what everybody is doing.?

4) are u not letting your own biasedness fool u into thinking your personal understanding of the bible IS correct?

If I agree that I am biased then I wouldnt be doing what I am doing. The intention to speak out my understanding of God is not to condemn, but not to condone. If somebody is diabetic, it would be wrong if I do not say anything when he is chewing bars of chocolate. But if he insists that chocolate is not sugar, then I rest my case.

If you xtians can quote me this as saying homosexuality is wrong and yet other xtians who aren't gay can point it out that when u ignore the "offender" that follows "homosexual", you are also taking it out of context, might u not be grossly mistaken in some of your interpretations, however minute your mistake in overlooking some words might be?

Christians will have to account to our God in the end for what we do. If we use the word of God to condemn others unjustifiably, or if we intentionally twist the word of God to justify a wrong doing, then our punishment would be greater than those non-Christians, who do not know God!! If non-Christians call themselves Christians and twist the word of God to justify a sin, well, they better hope that they have a chance to repent in the future and may God have mercy on them. Each of us has to watch out what we say, especially when we quote the word of God.

The rules were written for a long time, the owner confirmed what were written through the experience of members. If anybody has any doubt, they can always go to the owner. You decide, ask him for clarification on what you do not understand, if you want to enter the gym, or if you choose to question him on his right to set the rules, you probably has decided that you do not want to go in.

Our fundamental difference is that you do not believe that the Bible is the word of God, to you it is written with some human prejudice, . but to me, the Bible is the basis of my belief, without which, there is no Christianity!! With such fundamental difference, I cannot hope for your agreement on issues whose morales are based on the Bible. Thank God, the world is big enough to accommodate all kinds of people.

Discussions and arguments among Christians are theological, discussions with non Christians are at most philosophical, but Christianity is a personal encounter with God, it is not a philosophy, can share experience but cannot debate. Also my knowledge is not so good as uncle Eng and Icemoon lah... Embarassed

stupidissmart SG

Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?

It is basically because the pope had sort of place an encouragement for people to be anti-gay. As such, the number of people who r anti-gay increases. Why put the blame on them ? Because they made the problem worse

I have probably heard tis from u a billion times and I have probably answered them too. If I use science to discuss about homosexuality nobody really give a damn about it. If I use the scripture then will christian start to pay attention to it because they can't brush it aside as wrong. The real question is, U believe they r infallible words from the god. U thought tat the way u make sense of it is the only way. I am trying to show tat either they r really just empty words or the way u translate the verses may not be the correct/only way

Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be. From the way u reply it seems u r gonan stop, curse or perhaps cut off relationship with him if he choose to do the things which tat really isn't anything wrong with it. Nymphomaniac is obviously more destructive to his own self and to others than being homosexual Rolling Eyes As said before, it is consider as a mental illness. So wat is your problem with it

Isn't tat wat I have been arguing about Rolling Eyes U think your interpretation is right and others r wrong. Tat is why u come in and said out your points. I think your interpretation is wrong, which is similar to your behavior and I come in and states out why I feel u r wrong (emphasising on homosexual acts yet ignoring other blatant laws tat were stated)

But you say you are powerless because of choices made by Christians.... as I remember you were not happy with Christians who go into other forums to discuss choices made by other non-Christians. Isn't this contradictory? You come in because it's our fault, we go to other places to discuss it is also our fault.... so you think everything is our fault????

Why don't u refresh my memory but tellign when have I ever not happy with christian who go into other forums to discuss choices made by non-christians ? Wat do u mean by choices made by non-christians ? U mean these non-christian choose to be buddhist and some guy go in and shoot their religion ? Please use less vague words so I get a better picture of wat u r complaining about

Well seems you did not really answer my question because you shifted the blame to the Christians.... let me ask you a couple of questions:
Is everything wrong caused by Christians only?
What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off?

Did I ever say everything wrong is caused by christian ? Rolling Eyes Why do u get tis idea from ? Wat do I hope Christian discuss in EH. Why, tis very topic about homosexuality etc should be discussed in EH. Did I say i am pissed off ? So everybody who argue for the sake of gays r all pissed off while u r the only one tat is not pissed off ?

The words made by the pope is already a blatant attack and cause much discrimination on gays. U mean when the pope say tat gays r wrong, making a lot of christians reinenforced with tis idea and come out openly, and proudly to say they discriminate gays is really the homosexual fault because they have a low self esteem ? Com'on... when a country openly condemn another u also see much backlash form the abused country as well

Take care buddy.... how's work.... not too busy I hope....

Hopefully after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh Mr. Green

Icemoon SG

Wait .. let's go one step at a time, shall we? Is his interpretation on homosexual acts correct or wrong? If wrong, why is it wrong? Dun care whether he emphasized homo acts yet ignored other blatant laws.

Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?

The issue is not whether a homo can receive salvation, but whether a homo christian who has received Christ should keep his old habit. Now, if a behaviour is considered a "sin" (note how Scripture defines sin, in particular how the OT defines sin .. check a hebrew lexicon), then it would be not pleasing to God. Now if something is not pleasing to God, then it should not be done, cos God has loved you, will you bear to break His heart? So don't bring in "Jesus promised salvation regardless of laws u break" .. obviously xtians shouldn't use this to justify them telling lies and other bad things.

It is basically because the pope had sort of place an encouragement for people to be anti-gay. As such, the number of people who r anti-gay increases. Why put the blame on them ? Because they made the problem worse

So should we blame the non-xtians who are anti-gay as well? Are you saying they are less guilty than those xtians who "made the problem worse"?

I have probably heard tis from u a billion times and I have probably answered them too. If I use science to discuss about homosexuality nobody really give a damn about it.

Not all issues can be discussed via science. If science shows a person suffering from "genetic booz effects" (forgot what was the term Uncle Eng used), hence natural the way you define it, then should we allow him to indulge in alcohol? This is not a scientific issue you know?

Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be.

Moral issue. If you volunteered to be stabbed by me, is it right? If I kill you, am I a murderer? I heard the state views suicide as a criminal case? Why is the state so kaypoh?

The words made by the pope is already a blatant attack and cause much discrimination on gays. U mean when the pope say tat gays r wrong, making a lot of christians reinenforced with tis idea and come out openly, and proudly to say they discriminate gays is really the homosexual fault because they have a low self esteem ?

Nope. You twisted his point. He means many gays complained they are discriminated, but many times it is 'cos of lack of self worth. They complained until it is like the whole christian world is against them.

Chin Eng SG

Basic biblical theology ? If jesus cruxification and resurrection promised salvation regardless of laws u break then why condemn homosexual ?

If this is the case, then there is really no need to recognise sin, we also should not condemn bigamist, drug addicts etc either. The issue here about salvation is whether one wants to acknowledge his behaviour as sinful. Only then will salvation come.

What has the pope got to do with me? My opinions, as well as the whole bulk of protestants are entire our own...

Nope, you can use science to discuss homosexuality for non-Christians. My argument is still: Christians should not misuse scripture to justify their stand. Period. Yes I believe that the Bible is the infalliable word of God as should every Christian. A Christian should not change that. Where you are concern, you don't see the Bible as a Christian does, so it make this entire exchange rather difficult.

Then let me ask u tis question. If bigamy and everybody, including the children agree to it, r u gonna condemn and stop him ? If u ask me, it is their business and since they r so happy with tat decision, let them be. From the way u reply it seems u r gonan stop, curse or perhaps cut off relationship with him if he choose to do the things which tat really isn't anything wrong with it. Nymphomaniac is obviously more destructive to his own self and to others than being homosexual As said before, it is consider as a mental illness. So wat is your problem with it

You only assume that being nymphomaniac is destructive.... and it is considered as a mental illness.... but doesn't the bulk of the society considers homosexuality a mental illness too...? And who decides what a mental illness... obviously it depends on who you are siding isn't it. Where bigamy is concern it is a social decision isn't it. Even if the participants agree to it, the society and the government condemns it doesn't it...

Isn't tat wat I have been arguing about U think your interpretation is right and others r wrong. Tat is why u come in and said out your points. I think your interpretation is wrong, which is similar to your behavior and I come in and states out why I feel u r wrong (emphasising on homosexual acts yet ignoring other blatant laws tat were stated)

No, where this case is concern, I don't think you are wrong: from the non-Christian stand point. All I am asking Heng is to tell me where, as he claimed, that I have twisted my scripture.... I had already state my views on the other laws of the OT. I know you will continue to disagree with many of these because your mindset and world view of Christian is different from Christians, so this one got no ending.

What the difference between Christian who goes into a Buddhist forum and telling them that they are wrong and you coming to EH and telling us we are wrong?

Did I ever say everything wrong is caused by christian ? Why do u get tis idea from ? Wat do I hope Christian discuss in EH. Why, tis very topic about homosexuality etc should be discussed in EH. Did I say i am pissed off ? So everybody who argue for the sake of gays r all pissed off while u r the only one tat is not pissed off ?

I was ASKING a question. I did not say you made that claim that everything wrong is caused by Christian? I am asking if you think that way, and you have already answered that question.
The second one is also a question: What do you hope for Christians to discuss in EH that does not piss you off? again you have answered that question.

Again the Pope thing. hey, I don't care about the pope. My opinions are entirely my own. As I'd clearly stated: I have an issue with individuals or groups who use the Bible for their own agenda. I am sure we agree on the stand on City Harvest. See, here is where we may have disagreed (but I think did not) that CHC has twisted scripture for their own benefit.
The difference is that you are sympathetic to homosexuals but not to the folks at CHC. Look, I am sympathetic to the homosexual plight too, and declared that they should have their own rights. Just don't use unrelated verse like Eccl to make these claims and ignore the strong words in Romans and 1 Corinthians.

Hopefully after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh
after tis week I will be more free. Bad news huh

Buddy, I can tell that you are very compassionate person who have your own brand of justice and I respect that. Also I agree with you that many Christians are really a pain in the neck. My angle for this argument is a very very small angle: the Christian intepretation of the Bible to suit one's needs. Anyone wishes to counter that must prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that Eccl HAS HOMOSEXUAL IMPLICATION and ROMANS/CORINTHIANS has other meanings. It as simple as that. As much as there are other verses in the OT that condemns homosexuality, I have refrain from using that as prove because I don't wish to go through the OT/NT differences again as well as the difference between the Mosaic convenant and the New convenant concept in the Bible.

Not really bad news lah.... you know we don't talk that much anyway.... Mr. Green All I want is for some comprehensible explanation from gay-Christians as to how Eccl is homosexual related and that Romans/Corin does not apply to them.... and possibly any other evidence that the Bible condones homosexuality...

« Previous Page Next Page »