Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Of course I mean the intended creation of life commanded by God lar. In the end, it is still not biblically accepted lo, is it? When you procreate with a female, it would be deem as having "adultary" with that female, biblically. In the end, still not accept lo? Right? Wondering if I make sense.Originally posted by ben1xy:i think they will rebutt that they still can procreate with a female even though the person is homosexual.
jnwk ... u go to the politics forum ... there is a thread on homosexuality there la... a lot of the said and done arguements are there .. go see see bah
-
my stance is similar to uncle eng...Originally posted by jnwk:Of course I mean the intended creation of life commanded by God lar. In the end, it is still not biblically accepted lo, is it?
if they are not christians.. they can choose whatever sexual orientation they want.
but if they are.. it's not biblical
thats my personal stance la -
Ya, since we are Christian, we will have to answer the question biblically and not conform to them because we want to try to pursuade them that it is not accepted ma. In the end, they have to make a choice.Originally posted by ben1xy:my stance is similar to uncle eng...
if they are not christians.. they can choose whatever sexual orientation they want.
but if they are.. it's not biblical
thats my personal stance la
Biblically, procreation with a female though the person is homosexual, it deemed as having "adultary". It means sin lo.
Anyway, of course they are not christians, they belong to the world and can choose whatever orientation they want ma. We cannot stop them right.
That's my view lar.
-
"How did these various pieces come to be regarded as Scripture by Jewish and, later, Christian communities? There were no committees that sat down to decree what was or was not a holy book. To some degree, the process of Scripture-making, or canonization as it is often called (from the Greek word kanon, a "measuring rod" ), involved a process, no longer completely understood, by which the Jewish community decided which works reflected most clearly its vision of God. The antiquity, real or imagined, of many of the books was clearly a factor, and this is why Psalms was eventually attributed to David, and Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes (along with, by some people, Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha) to Solomon. However, mere age was not enough. There had to be some way in which the Jewish community could identify its own religious experiences in the sacred books.
So wat is your conclusion ? The bible is fallible and subjective to each people interpretations ? If one want to read it to show tat OT is relevant, there r scipture evidence tat support his cause but if another wanna ignore the old laws he can again selectively read and believe the other sections of the bible ?
This occurred, at least in part, through an elaborate process of biblical interpretation. Simply reading a text involves interpretation. Interpretative choices are made even in picking up today's newspaper; one must know the literary conventions that distinguish a news report, for example, from an op-ed piece. The challenge becomes much more intense when one reads highly artistic texts from a different time and place, such as the Bible. "
Conclusion? Interpretation, contextual understanding is important.Okay, let's talk biblically lar. In the beginning, God made man and women. And He wants them to multiply. God made women because He knows that man desire company. With women made, God commanded them to multiply and bear fruit.
Tat is right. In the bible god made man and woman and they have to be united and bear offsprings. SO if going by tat principle people who didn't marry also commit the same offence as homosexual. God made adam and eve not made adam itself. So aren't priest tat vowed calibracy commiting the same offence as homosexual ? At least being homosexual may means he still can have sex with girls and still give offsprings. Can being priest tat substain from such acts leads to pregnancy ? If it can't doesn't it mean they r against the god wonderful plan of filling earth with people ?
The question I would like to ask you is: Can homosexuality lead to pregnancy and bear child? If it can't, doesn't it mean against God's wonderful plan of filling the earth with people? It is definitely not pleasant to God and God did not make homosexuality. Disability/handicap is a consequences of sin. It has reflected that the earth is in a sorry state of condition. But homosexuality is consequence of sin entering earth. It is a reflection of how man desire accompaniment to fill the void in them. In my view, and biblically, homosexuality is a sin lo. -
You did mentioned that Jesus as a Jew follows all the OT laws..... he is NOT married. So I take it that you will now proclaim that Jesus sinned because he is NOT married. Roman Catholic priests vowed celibacy as they follow the example of Christ (RCs please feel free to correct this if I am wrong). Paul, too, encourage leaders in the young church to celibate... but with the understanding that it will be difficult for some, allow for marriage to occur. So, Paul, being an extremely intellectual Jew, actually discouraged marriage? Hmm... you think he'd know better????
So wat is your conclusion ? The bible is fallible and subjective to each people interpretations ? If one want to read it to show tat OT is relevant, there r scipture evidence tat support his cause but if another wanna ignore the old laws he can again selectively read and believe the other sections of the bible ?
[/quote]
Definition below lifted from Mirriam Webster Online Dictionary:Main Entry: in·ter·pret
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French interpreter, from Latin interpretari, from interpret-, interpres agent, negotiator, interpreter
transitive senses
1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms
2 : to conceive in the light of individual belief, judgment, or circumstance : CONSTRUE
3 : to represent by means of art : bring to realization by performance or direction
Main Entry: con·text
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, weaving together of words, from Latin contextus connection of words, coherence, from contexere to weave together, from com- + texere to weave -- more at TECHNICAL
1 : the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 : the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : ENVIRONMENT, SETTING
Interpretation and contextual understanding need to a basis to stand on.
Interpretation and contextual understanding is NOT a off-tangent deletion and insertion of meaning.
See definition above for explanation of meanings. Not only are you not trying to understand the context of biblical writings, you are also not trying to understand the meaning of the word interpretation.
Believing in the Bible is not merely to believe everything single dot and dash written in it. Believing in the Bible is acknowledging that the occurence of all the events stated. Understanding that some portions of the Bible is meant for some people only IS NOT disbelieving the Bible.
[quote]
Tat is right. In the bible god made man and woman and they have to be united and bear offsprings. SO if going by tat principle people who didn't marry also commit the same offence as homosexual. God made adam and eve not made adam itself. So aren't priest tat vowed calibracy commiting the same offence as homosexual ? At least being homosexual may means he still can have sex with girls and still give offsprings. Can being priest tat substain from such acts leads to pregnancy ? If it can't doesn't it mean they r against the god wonderful plan of filling earth with people ?
-
See definition above for explanation of meanings. Not only are you not trying to understand the context of biblical writings, you are also not trying to understand the meaning of the word interpretation.
Com'on man... where in my reply does it give u the impression tat I do tno know the meanign of "interpretation" or "context" ? Basically u still did not manage to answer the key question why doesn't christians have to follow the OT laws. Scriptually speaking it do imply tat christian do have to follow jewish customs and practises and even jesus himself follow them faithfully.Believing in the Bible is not merely to believe everything single dot and dash written in it. Believing in the Bible is acknowledging that the occurence of all the events stated. Understanding that some portions of the Bible is meant for some people only IS NOT disbelieving the Bible.
Aren't u interpreting it in a way tat it defies wat the scripture has been saying by ignoring passage from Dt and jesus speech etc ? U can't fit both sides simultaneous so in the end is really selective believing.You did mentioned that Jesus as a Jew follows all the OT laws..... he is NOT married. So I take it that you will now proclaim that Jesus sinned because he is NOT married.
Hear tat jnkw ? Jesus himself is not married despite god making adam and eve. In fact he don't even seems to have a good relationship with the girls then. So your claims about "adam and eve" etc r really.. well... wrongRoman Catholic priests vowed celibacy as they follow the example of Christ (RCs please feel free to correct this if I am wrong). Paul, too, encourage leaders in the young church to celibate... but with the understanding that it will be difficult for some, allow for marriage to occur. So, Paul, being an extremely intellectual Jew, actually discouraged marriage? Hmm... you think he'd know better????
Well, if they really wanna follow christ, might as well ask someone to crucified them at the age of 30+ as well Anyway, jesus is god, not men. So anyway it has nothign to do with him about filling earth with men. If u ask me, maybe christ not married is not so important tat everyone have to follow his example. Did christ tell everyone not to get married ? -
First, I would like to thank you for having an interest in my answers.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Hear tat jnkw ? Jesus himself is not married despite god making adam and eve. In fact he don't even seems to have a good relationship with the girls then. So your claims about "adam and eve" etc r really.. well... wrong
In the beginning, God's plan is good but this plan has now become not good because of adam and eve. Look at the sorry state the planet earth is facing. God cursed the earth because of sin!
Jesus came to fulfil the laws according to God's will. Jesus is both fully man and fully God, and his main purpose that He came to the world is according to the plan of the Father - to save the lost.
In the first place, please understand that not being married does not mean that they have commited homosexual and so they will not commit the same offence as homosexual by not getting united (ops did I misunderstood you? Nvm, read below to clarify lar..) . I would assume that you know the meaning of the word "homosexual" ba. You said that "At least being homosexual may means he still can have sex with girls and still give offsprings". But the bible tell us that Jesus told us: "4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is right. In the bible god made man and woman and they have to be united and bear offsprings. SO if going by tat principle people who didn't marry also commit the same offence as homosexual. God made adam and eve not made adam itself. So aren't priest tat vowed calibracy commiting the same offence as homosexual ? At least being homosexual may means he still can have sex with girls and still give offsprings. Can being priest tat substain from such acts leads to pregnancy ? If it can't doesn't it mean they r against the god wonderful plan of filling earth with people ?
So we know that in the beginning God wants man and women to be united as one and not commit adultary. God created man to be joint with women lawfully. However, since sin has come into the world, man can no longer fulfil this plan according to God's pure justice. Therefore, there is nothing wrong to being not married as Paul has also encouraged us to remain single, if that is possible. It is also a sin to have sex with other girls.
As for the priest thingy, Chin Eng has answered your question. (Thanks Chin Eng.
) According to Catholic tradition, Priest is supposed to represent Christ. Therefore, Priest pratise calibracy . Please correct me if I'm wrong with this because I'm not a Catholic.
If you have further interest in my answer, do reply and I will try my best to answer them, if that is within my knowledge.
[THE ABOVE IS MY VIEW AND THE ENQUIRIES ARE BIBLICALLY ANSWERED.] -
I have answered that question and the answer is "NO" based on Hebrews chapter 8 and 9. According to these passages Christians are under the New Covenant..... and in case you're wondering, I also do not celebrate Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah either. I also do not take kosher food.....Originally posted by stupidissmart:Com'on man... where in my reply does it give u the impression tat I do tno know the meanign of "interpretation" or "context" ? Basically u still did not manage to answer the key question why doesn't christians have to follow the OT laws. Scriptually speaking it do imply tat christian do have to follow jewish customs and practises and even jesus himself follow them faithfully.
I have also stated (many) times, the Deut as well as Lev were addressed to the Jews. I have also explained that in Matthew Jesus was talking to the Jews...Originally posted by stupidissmart:Aren't u interpreting it in a way tat it defies wat the scripture has been saying by ignoring passage from Dt and jesus speech etc ? U can't fit both sides simultaneous so in the end is really selective believing.
It is not selective believing....
Of course you can continue choose to decide that I am selecting my verses... it does not really matter to me what you think.
As long as the Christians here in EH are in agreement that I have done nothing wrong, that's all I am concerned about.... -
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Com'on man... where in my reply does it give u the impression tat I do tno know the meanign of "interpretation" or "context" ? Basically u still did not manage to answer the key question why doesn't christians have to follow the OT laws. Scriptually speaking it do imply tat christian do have to follow jewish customs and practises and even jesus himself follow them faithfully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
Because this Q&A is not written by me, and if you have further enquires, please divert your questions to:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Questions.html
Thank You. -
Please read this : Do not wholly trust the materials from the internet.Originally posted by jnwk:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Com'on man... where in my reply does it give u the impression tat I do tno know the meanign of "interpretation" or "context" ? Basically u still did not manage to answer the key question why doesn't christians have to follow the OT laws. Scriptually speaking it do imply tat christian do have to follow jewish customs and practises and even jesus himself follow them faithfully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
Because this Q&A is not written by me, and if you have further enquires, please divert your questions to:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Questions.html
Thank You.
Cheers -
Thank you for your concern. I have done my research. This site can be trusted.Originally posted by M©+square:Please read this : Do not wholly trust the materials from the internet.
Cheers
Thank you. -
suit yourself.Originally posted by jnwk:Thank you for your concern. I have done my research. This site can be trusted.
Thank you. -
ok.Originally posted by M©+square:suit yourself.
-
So reading thru it seems that u people still can't see the grey areas. u can only see black or white. even if i feel some parts of the NT are right and some are wrong, u want to pin a label on me that says i either "accept it" or i "don't accept it". So u have so many passages in the NT, and u can only either collectively believe them all or not? Thats stupid. No wonder it seems I can't get anything thru to u lot. Fine if u're so insistant on seeing it as something wrong, don't be surprised when u die and u find out otherwise. Im perhaps not going to waste my time on u lot. There are better Christians to know and to talk to.
-
that was uncalled for...Originally posted by HENG@:So reading thru it seems that u people still can't see the grey areas. u can only see black or white. even if i feel some parts of the NT are right and some are wrong, u want to pin a label on me that says i either "accept it" or i "don't accept it". So u have so many passages in the NT, and u can only either collectively believe them all or not? Thats stupid. No wonder it seems I can't get anything thru to u lot. Fine if u're so insistant on seeing it as something wrong, don't be surprised when u die and u find out otherwise. Im perhaps not going to waste my time on u lot. There are better Christians to know and to talk to.
ask any Christian do they accept the bible as the truth.. they'll tell u they do. it will be unreasonable to tell a christian to accept the gospel but reject the epistles. the NT are the truths that the christian holds too. and u r expecting them to reject the epistles?
on what basis??
and Christians that can see your point are good christians.. and christians that dun are stupid? that speaks heaps abt you heng. as long as it is the HENG way .. everything is good. if it differs... it's bad?
u have a very high opinion of yourself eh? -
If u believe your religion gives u the right to make someone whos doing nothing wrong feel bad about themselves, make their lives miserable, go ahead. so THAT is what your religion is about I see.
I've had enuf trying to talk to u. Faith may be a good think, but blind unthinking faith? U can't talk to people who have blind unthinking faith, who aren't even willing to be open about changing their mindsets about certain matters, then what then?
I was open enough to sit down and read thru the Bible with my friend to see what your justifications were for your stand, to even consider if u are right, but are any of you willing to even adopt that sort of openess of mind? No. All I get is blind stubborn faith. Well then theres nothing else to talk about is there? My time is better spent elsewhere. -
Maybe he is refering to unorthodox one......Originally posted by ben1xy:that was uncalled for...
ask any Christian do they accept the bible as the truth.. they'll tell u they do. it will be unreasonable to tell a christian to accept the gospel but reject the epistles. the NT are the truths that the christian holds too. and u r expecting them to reject the epistles?
on what basis??
and Christians that can see your point are good christians.. and christians that dun are stupid? that speaks heaps abt you heng. as long as it is the HENG way .. everything is good. if it differs... it's bad?
u have a very high opinion of yourself eh? -
Christianity teches us to love the person and condemn the sin. Christians are not righteous... we sin too. but we do not justify our sinning using the bible. we acknowledge our sins and we repent. As i have said.. if he is not Christian .. he is free to choose and no Chrsitian should condemn him .. because he is not bounded by biblical truthsOriginally posted by HENG@:If u believe your religion gives u the right to make someone whos doing nothing wrong feel bad about themselves, make their lives miserable, go ahead. so THAT is what your religion is about I see.
Most of us are grown adults here. do u think i do not see where u r coming from? in the same manner .. abortion is also not permitted. of coz i understand human rights. and like i mentioned before .. i have homosexual friends. i do not judge them because i have no right to.Originally posted by HENG@:I've had enuf trying to talk to u. Faith may be a good think, but blind unthinking faith? U can't talk to people who have blind unthinking faith, who aren't even willing to be open about changing their mindsets about certain matters, then what then?
do u try to see it from our perspective? u mentioned that your friend doubts Paul. The crux of Christianity lies in the truth of the bible. and u r advocating that the epistles are false?
and we have understood your stand. u explained abt the epistles.. which we have explained to u why .. we can't reject it. For the simple reason that it is divine revelation. and if it says that homosexuality is not allowed. then it isn't.Originally posted by HENG@:I was open enough to sit down and read thru the Bible with my friend to see what your justifications were for your stand, to even consider if u are right, but are any of you willing to even adopt that sort of openess of mind? No. All I get is blind stubborn faith. Well then theres nothing else to talk about is there? My time is better spent elsewhere.
i am sorry if i end up sounding like i am against homosexuality.
again i have to make my stance clear. i do not discrimininate against homosexual. i live in Australia and i hate it when they get jeered and laughed at and people stoop to calling them names like faggots, dykes, etc. that should not be condoned. NV EVER should a human being be treated in that manner -
I think the links he posted belongs to the orthodox christian kind .. go elsewhere find ans by different authors their ans also cannot deviate too far.Originally posted by M©+square:Please read this : Do not wholly trust the materials from the internet.
Cheers
of course it'll be interesting if you could point out what's wrong. -
wah .. u tink what .. EH is a redirect site ahOriginally posted by jnwk:Please read this:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html
Because this Q&A is not written by me, and if you have further enquires, please divert your questions to:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-Questions.html
Thank You. Always give website ans and always the same site. -
Hey, who's making you feel bad. If you are a homosexual and is NOT a Christian, I really don't give a s-hit.Originally posted by HENG@:If u believe your religion gives u the right to make someone whos doing nothing wrong feel bad about themselves, make their lives miserable, go ahead. so THAT is what your religion is about I see.
I've had enuf trying to talk to u. Faith may be a good think, but blind unthinking faith? U can't talk to people who have blind unthinking faith, who aren't even willing to be open about changing their mindsets about certain matters, then what then?
I was open enough to sit down and read thru the Bible with my friend to see what your justifications were for your stand, to even consider if u are right, but are any of you willing to even adopt that sort of openess of mind? No. All I get is blind stubborn faith. Well then theres nothing else to talk about is there? My time is better spent elsewhere.
You can claim that you sat down with your friend to examine the Bible, I like to know a few things:
1. Why the Bible, if you are not a Christian? Why the need to justify your inclination?
2. Who's this friend? It's like me approaching my best buddy who may be a chemist for medical advice when I am sick. He may know something about medication but he's not a doctor. Sure.. probably this person has the same inclincation as you but whatever that maybe, but what's his/her take on the epistles? Sames as yours? Then this person should stop calling himself a Christian.
3. On what basis are you using to take away parts of the Bible? Just because something did not agree with your view? or just because some were written by men? Under this assumption, the entire NT is written by man. Why make the distinction between the Gospel of John and the letters of John, or the Gospel of Matthew and the epistles of Paul....?? It goes back to your basis of definition. At least most of the atheists that visits EH are consistent in this point - they totally do not believe in the Bible. You are taking out parts that did not agree with your lifestyle and gives superfluous meanings to other verses.
4. You said you spent time reading the Bible, then where is the support for homosexuality? You stumble verse upon verse that condemns it and you TAKE IT OUT????
Blind faith is, of course, bad. But so is blind reliance on your personal opinion. I am more than willing to reconsider my standing, if you can show me a clear verse in the Bible that supports homosexuality. You on the other hand is totally unwilling to accept that perhaps you and your friends are wrong even when confronted with Biblical verses which you suddenly feel to have the liberty to discount.
YOU STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED ON ECCLESIASTES - AND I AM STILL WAITING. and do your friends have any answer to your claim? -
Chin Eng defending the sacred Scripture ..
-
Before faith is belief; before belief is examine/test/question everything (besides Christianity).
1st examine and question everything -> 2nd believe The Truth -> 3rd place faith in and have confident in the One who is coming -> 4th Growth spiritually leads to stronger faith (not= blind faith) -> 5th Produce fruits and good deeds -
An Eternal Now... Here's an article that documented Dalai Lama's conversation on the gay issues..Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Haha.. actually I wasn't following the thread. But since I was somehow expected to reply
I shall...
I do not support homosexuality but I do not discriminate homosexuals. However there are rules Buddha laid down which prevents homosexuals from entering the Monastic community (becoming monks/nuns). Homosexual acts are also considered as Sexual Misconducts... so naturally it will result in bad karma.
I believe homosexuality can be changed, it is definitely not genetics (which means nobody is borned gay), it is a common misconception. There are also evidences that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan (you can search the net).
http://quietmountain.org/links/teachings/gayrites.htm
In the scripture itself.. Sexual Misconduct is one of the "precepts".. Homosexuality was not labelled as a Sexual Misconduct until more recently, when Western Religions (through colonisation) came to this region..
Also, read this article from wikipedia..
Buddhism
One of the five precepts of Buddhism states that one is to refrain from sexual misconduct or, more accurately, one is to refrain from indulging in sexual desire. Most Buddhist schools construe this to mean that monks and nuns are to practice celibacy. However, there has been a diversity of opinions on this matter ranging from strict vows of celibacy to Japanese Buddhist schools that taught heterosexuality was to be avoided for clergy.
For laypersons today, this precept mainly applies to adultery. However, wide ranges of interpretations are possible about what exactly constitutes "sexual misconduct" and therefore the different schools of Buddhism - or even different individual monks - at different periods of time have offered varying opinions.
Interpretations of what constitutes misconduct include sex outside marriage (relatively modern idea), sex with another person without the consent of your life partner(s), or the historically prevalent view that it was limited to describe rape, incest and bestiality.
Buddhist schools condemning homosexuality is a recent development and there is no scriptural basis upon which it is to be condemned. Prior to colonialism under Abrahamic countries homosexuality was sanctified by Buddhist leaders throughout Asia.
Different countries held various views, for example in China where believers often belong to Confucianism as well, exclusive homosexuality was discouraged because it would prevent a son from carrying out his Confucian religious duty to reproduce, all at the same time non-exclusive homosexuality was permissible and widely practiced.
Within Japanese traditions homosexuality was said to have been started by the Bodhisattva Manjusri of wisdom and the sage Kukai while in China it is attributed to the Yellow Emperor, the father of China.
In India, Tibet, China, Southeast Asia and Japan, areas where Buddhism was or remains one of the chief religions their cultures have been historically unconcerned with the gender of sexual activity or the object of desire. -
Another Wiki Article to digest..Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Haha.. actually I wasn't following the thread. But since I was somehow expected to reply I shall...
I do not support homosexuality but I do not discriminate homosexuals. However there are rules Buddha laid down which prevents homosexuals from entering the Monastic community (becoming monks/nuns). Homosexual acts are also considered as Sexual Misconducts... so naturally it will result in bad karma.
I believe homosexuality can be changed, it is definitely not genetics (which means nobody is borned gay), it is a common misconception. There are also evidences that homosexuals have a shorter lifespan (you can search the net).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Buddhism
One last article.. Quite a good read..
http://www.buddhanet.net/homosexu.htm
As to your last point.. Whether something has a genetic cause or not got nothing to do with whether the behaviour is changeable or not.. One of the biggest misconception abt the "nature" vs "nurture" debate is that "nature" = "genetics" which is not entirely correct.. Beyond genes, the foetus will react to the mother's hormones while in the womb, and other various factors.. I have posted a long article in another thread:
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=151383
This article shows you that the idea of "gays" not "genetically determined" and hence can be changed has very poor support..
Ah.. Just imagine if someone gets discriminated, cannot lead a "normal" life because the society doesn't see them normal... Do you think the homosexuals will lead a longer life?