Originally posted by Esau Cairn
So why did he create people, communities, societies living in desolate & uncharted places on this world...unreachable by the spread of Christianity...only to have them condemned for not following his Faith?
1) You're not going to get a response from the original poster who founded this thread. He apparently got banned the other day.
2) If you have Bible questions, you might consider searching somewhere other than a forum comprised largely of non-Christians, Agnostics, and Atheists.
3) If you are indeed looking for an answer from the Bible, "create" is probably not the right word to use. The following account may or may not explain to you why:
Genesis 11:1-9
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen+11%3A1-9&version=AKJV
Originally posted by dadudemon
Woah, that only took many years. I thought it would have happened a long time ago.
There's a meme generator for that? I have been lax in my searches.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not quite sure I understand you.Do you [b]dis
agree with the premise that homosexuals have higher incidence of depression, or no? [/B]
I think in any society where something is still largely unsupported, high incidence of depression is the norm. In the Victorian era, when sex was largely kept hush-hush and women especially were left without social mobility, equality, etc., they were typically more depressed.
I'm not sure how this proves anything other than the correlation between societal pressure and depression, which is self-evident.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
There's a meme generator for that? I have been lax in my searches.I think in any society where something is still largely unsupported, high incidence of depression is the norm. In the Victorian era, when sex was largely kept hush-hush and women especially were left without social mobility, equality, etc., they were typically more depressed.
I'm not sure how this proves anything other than the correlation between societal pressure and depression, which is self-evident.
I think they are trying to link depression with wrong doing. That would mean that professional criminals would also suffer from depression. I don't know, but I would think that is not the case.
Since the worst criminals are explicitly sociopathic and do not suffer from depression related to their acts, this seems like a dead end (or a lame attempt to say being gay is naturally wrong).
I don't get why religious people feel the need to harp on homosexuality, but they don't care about any of the other religious prohibitions introduced by the OT, like cutting their hair at the temples, touching pig's flesh etc. Or, if you prefer NT only, why aren't they out there working for charity and focusing and making the world a better place instead of being the Ass Police?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Since the worst criminals are explicitly sociopathic and do not suffer from depression related to their acts, this seems like a dead end (or a lame attempt to say being gay is naturally wrong).I don't get why religious people feel the need to harp on homosexuality, but they don't care about any of the other religious prohibitions introduced by the OT, like cutting their hair at the temples, touching pig's flesh etc. Or, if you prefer NT only, why aren't they out there working for charity and focusing and making the world a better place instead of being the Ass Police?
The people who wrote the bible were big homophobes, and they may have had good reason. With the human population as small as it was, someone in the community not having children could be presided as a threat. However, with today's population at 7 billion, I don't think we need to worry. Fewer people reproducing makes more sense now, then it did then.
This statement is not meant to be a judgment. It is just my opinion.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people who wrote the bible were big homophobes, and they may have had good reason. With the human population as small as it was, someone in the community not having children could be presided as a threat. However, with today's population at 7 billion, I don't think we need to worry. Fewer people reproducing makes more sense now, then it did then.This statement is not meant to be a judgment. It is just my opinion.
"The people who wrote the Bible were big homophobes ..." is NOT meant to be a judgement? 😕
How would you have written that statement differently if you HAD meant it to be one?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
"The people who wrote the Bible were big homophobes ..." is NOT meant to be a judgement? 😕
How would you have written that statement differently if you HAD meant it to be one?
I don't go around judging people, so I don't know. I simple write as quickly and down and dirty as I can.
A definition is needed:
homophobe
a person who hates or fears homosexual people
(Google definition)
There is no judgment in the definition.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This statement is not meant to be a judgment. It is just my opinion.
Shaky, assuming sustained future interactions, I suspect you and me are going to learn a LOT concerning language and mainstream definitions from each other ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
judge
verb
1
to give an opinion about (something at issue or in dispute)
<the committee will judge the case solely on the evidence>
2
to decide the size, amount, number, or distance of (something) without actual measurement
<considering the amount of dough we have, I judge we'll get about six dozen cookies out of it>
3
to form an opinion or reach a conclusion through reasoning and information
<I judge that the girl has had a troubled relationship with her mother>
4
to have as an opinion
<I judge that he knew what kind of woman she was when he married her>
Synonyms allow [chiefly Southern & Midland], conceive, consider, deem, esteem, feel, figure, guess, hold, imagine, judge, reckon [chiefly dialect], suppose, think
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/judge%5Bverb%5D
He's attempting to take the argument to you instead of debating the initial points, or at least obscure it into non-relevance. Whether or not you want to say calling the Bible homophobic is a personal judgment call or a statement of obvious fact is besides the point.
BWR, how's that natural principles According to You definition coming along?
It is difficult for me to think about homophobia being a driving force behind some of the anti-homosexual behavior in the Old Testament.
But, thinking about a homosexual getting stoned (not by weed) to death strikes me as homophobia.
A man sticking his penis into a woman's vagina is certainly the way sex was designed/evolved. That is not disputable. But we also do silly things like anal sex, handjobs, foot jobs, buttsex, and axillary sex. Humans are a very sexual species. So, naturally, they would "do sex" with all sorts of variations. So, we must also conclude that sex was designed/evolved to be variable in the ways I have mentioned. That variation would include homosexual relations, too.
I think the "no homo" ideas came from the notion that they needed to make babies and lots of them due to high infant mortality. Anti-homosexual laws would be a fairly natural consequence. It could also serve as a means of differentiating themselves from other groups. Then there's the logical idea that some of it was breed by fear of people who were different. Lastly, there is the natural aversion that many people have that homosexual acts are disgusting.
The religious angle comes in with the notion that "Natural man is an enemy of God." Meaning, regardless of whether or not being homosexual is natural (part of creation), there is a specific set of commandments God has for us to follow and one of those is either heterosexual relations in the bonds of marriage or asexuality. All other sexual urges that deviated from those two options would be a deviation from the intended creative process God made.
But, one could argue that God created the deviation on purpose and it is only humans that are perverting God's intentions. This could also be true. For me, I sit somewhere in between. I think God did have an intended purpose and he did inject a dice roll into His intended purposes to create a deviation from a perfect system. The reason for the deviation is to create opposition for man: to become masters of our consciousness and ascend to a higher level of consciousness. But, because of the theology associated with most Judeo-Christian religions, the natural outgrowth is to assume our spirits are created and put into a body sometime after the moment of conception. Then that leads one to believe that God created a shitty life/universe for us to live in and God is a Sadist.
Not so if you bring a little bit of Mormoness into the equation. 🙂 If you think of it as a choice, meaning, we chose to be born into this existence, God is not longer a sadist but we are masochists...that or philosophers wishing to expand our consciousness. Obviously, I subscribe to the latter. I think we chose this shitty existence that has a potential for a shitty dice-roll when we are born into this plane. So, that's why I think homosexuality is natural and still fits into God's plan.
My idea is that homosexual should be allowed to marry, adopt, etc. They should get all rights as anyone else. Let the religious clubs set their religious club requirements (such as, "no gays allowed"😉. Let the God sort it out when we die (and if we reincarnate to get another dice roll, so be it).
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Already gave it, Moose.You should actually read through that thread sometime.
I did. What you claimed was a definition wasn't one. You should try rereading the thread sometime.
In fact, when I asked you to reiterate your entire argument using your own words, you couldn't do it. You have to rely on block quotes which don't directly support your point and buzzwords which themselves have no inherent meaning.
If you can't concisely explain your point, you obviously don't have one.
The problem isn't that I'm not giving concise answers.
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
The problem is rather that, when I GIVE a concise answer, you redefine your question.
For instance, you asked if I would laugh at an adult who seriously believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
The answer I gave was essentially, "In real life? No. I wouldn't."
Can't get much more concise than that.
You then redefined your question though, saying that isn't what you asked.
I can re-post that exchange here if you want.
In the meantime though, as Shaky now seems to be in the habit of saying,
"a definition is in order" (or is that "a definition is needed"?)
This time we'll give just enough so you can perform a "Fallacy of Equivocation" as your response, as you took advantage of the chance to redefine your question already IN that other thread concerning that "natural principles" query:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
def·i·ni·tion
noun \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\
: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definition
So, that's the definition OF "definition.
And that I certainly gave:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
The problem isn't that I'm not giving concise answers.Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
The problem is rather that, when I GIVE a concise answer, you redefine your question.
For instance, you asked if I would laugh at an adult who seriously believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny.
The answer I gave was essentially, "In real life? No. I wouldn't."
Can't get much more concise than that.
You then redefined your question though, saying that isn't what you asked.
I can re-post that exchange here if you want.
No, that's unnecessary, and we both know why; the point wasn't "would you LOL in their face" or "would you LOL if they were your beloved senile grandma", both of which were attempts at answering the question without taking a hard stance on the validity of those belief systems over Christianity, which was the original point. Your discussion style seems to favor misdirection and obfuscation over directly approaching things and seeking to communicate your viewpoint in a way other people can understand.
In case you forgot the original point of contention:
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Yes, some things are hard to believe, but the story of Creation requires a complete "and then magic made it all happen" mindset to be taken seriously. You would tease an adult mercilessly for believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth-fairy, or the Easter Bunny, but if they believe in Magic Six-Day Creation Yahweh, they must be taken seriously.
In the meantime though, as Shaky now seems to be in the habit of saying,
"a definition is in order" (or is that "a definition is needed"?)This time we'll give just enough so you can perform a "Fallacy of Equivocation" as your response, as you took advantage of the chance to redefine your question already IN that other thread concerning that "natural principles" query:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
def·i·ni·tion
noun \ˌde-fə-ˈni-shən\: an explanation of the meaning of a word, phrase, etc. : a statement that defines a word, phrase, etc.
: a statement that describes what something is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitionSo, that's the definition OF "definition.
And that I certainly gave:
Okay, so your definition is legit because it fits the broadest scope of 'definition', even though the terms within it require elaboration and it is not a definition I can find on say, Merriam-Webster.
Also, and it didn't make your point any clearer. I'm asking you again:
What are 'natural principles'?
Again, to clarify since you easily forget the point of contention when you're busy nitpicking Shaky or abruptly leaving to tend to your varied, busy lifestyle:
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
There's a book by Henry Cloud entitled "Integrity".
In it, he outlines that trust in a person is based on our belief in both their character and their competence.
Cloud also asserts that, to test whether a thing is good or not, you should examine the "wake" it leaves behind.The wake traditionally associated with a religion like Islam ...
well, there's a reason I mentioned 911.Some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society.
Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles.
Actually, according to a philosopher like Steven R. Covey, some belief systems yield good things in people's lives and benefit society BECAUSE they are in alignment with natural principles.
^ "Some belief systems are also in alignment with natural principles".
This was derived from your non-personal answer relating to Henry Cloud, and at no point did you satisfactorily define it. Here's the lame attempt at corporate buzztalkwhatever you did attempt:
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.
What this definition requires:
1. Elaboration on what are 'fundamental truths'.
2. How are fundamental truths findable in nature and verifiable.
3. How are they different from logical axioms.
4. How can they, as abstracts, predict anything.
5. How can causation arising from seemingly axiomatic constructs relate to homosexuality/belief systems/whatever.
6. What measure of reliability is 'almost unfailingly'.
7. What are ordinary circumstances.
8. Who determines all of the above as an authority.
9. What does any of this Greek salad mean?