Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Hmm....there is a spiritual significance against interweaving of fabrics.Originally posted by Chin Eng:in the days where all fibre is natural, it is just practical not to mix fibres because the shrinkage will cause the entire fabric to tear. We do use that much natural fibre nowadays so the purpose no longer exists - common knowledge.
Not only common knowledge.
Some other time maybe or Icemoon would like to unleash his jewish history knowledge.
p.s We must keep in mind the laws which God passed to Aaron in Mosaic dispensation bears meanings(whether applicable to modern age) and most which is foreshadow of the NT.
Cheers -
Yup, Icey sure can throw some Jewish insight into this discussion. That's is way beyond me....Originally posted by M©+square:Hmm....there is a spiritual significance against interweaving of fabrics.
Not only common knowledge.
Some other time maybe or Icemoon would like to unleash his jewish history knowledge.
Cheers
Still it's an OT issue, written to the Jews.... not to Gentiles....
So Icey, your shirt same fabric or not
-
What i'm trying to say is. That law exist is not the reason you've gave - common knowledge.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Yup, Icey sure can throw some Jewish insight into this discussion. That's is way beyond me....
Still it's an OT issue, written to the Jews.... not to Gentiles....
So Icey, your shirt same fabric or not
Cheers -
Yeah I know, there usually is some symbolism in Hebrew law, but many times there is also a practical reason behind it.Originally posted by M©+square:What i'm trying to say is. That law exist is not the reason you've gave - common knowledge.
Cheers
BTW, does any know which passage talks about this fibre thing..... I just can't seem to find it..... the only one I found is Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Is this the only reference (besides the other gospels?)..... -
My personal understand of God's law against Interweaving of fabrics during Mosaic era is because to protect the Isrealites from disobedience and drifting into pagan worship of other race/tribes.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Yeah I know, there usually is some symbolism in Hebrew law, but many times there is also a practical reason behind it.
BTW, does any know which passage talks about this fibre thing..... I just can't seem to find it..... the only one I found is Matthew 9:16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.
Is this the only reference (besides the other gospels?).....
The meaning in it is this. -
of course I am not the right one. who am I? just an old geezer with a little interest in theology and apologetics.... If I am not the right one, than it makes all of us totally disqualify to discuss this issue, afterall we are only "internet researchers"...Originally posted by F Bunta:I also understand that the scriptures are subjected to human interpretations, thus the different denominations (Catholics, Presbytarians, Adventists etc). In this sense, the bible can only be interpreted in 1 correct way thus only 1 (or worse, none) denomination would get it right. The crucial question is:are you in the right one?
point is: there is a bulk of Bible Scholars who are a heck lot more qualified than me (or anyone else in EH) to intepret. Still there will be people who will disagree with these scholars. So to answer your question, based on your criteria, no one can interpret the Bible, 'cos there will be others will ask: are you qualified enough?
May I now ask you a question: Is your question to me a fair one?
the difference between denominations? Not by a lot. Some minor points on whether baptism is immersion, sprinkling etc, or whether photography can be taken at the sanctuary during wedding, or can musical instruments be used etc etc... you know minor stuff.... Major ones, not many.... the gay issue being one of the more critical one, at least in the US. Besides the Methodist and the Anglican churches, the Lutheran church had recently (this week?) been debating on this issue. The crux of the issue is really not theology, but personal rights (which the Americans are famous for).
At the end of it all, maybe homosexuality is OK, together with bestiality, polygamy and peadophiles.... then maybe the world will be a happier place. but I have my doubts.... -
got book and verse or not????Originally posted by M©+square:My personal understand of God's law against Interweaving of fabrics during Mosaic era is because to protect the Isrealites from disobedience and drifting into pagan worship of other race/tribes.
The meaning in it is this.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
really? and whos to say what is considered taking it out of context? on whose authority are u judging that on? who are u to say that God for sure did not create homosexuality? Besides, i might point it out to u that I did not take it out of context, rather, a xtian friend of mine highlighted several passages to me when we were discussing the debate of whether homosexuality is God's creation or not. And I'd like to hear your explanation on xtians, who aren't gay but who feel that homosexuality is a sin, and who can use the bible to argue that view. How do u explain it, and how can u tell me for sure it isn't the homophobic xtians who are quoting the bible out of context? nothing here seems to be certain does it? How can I trust u when u say u're quoting passages in context and they are quoting passages out of context? how can i and WHY should i trust any of u?
know what? I sort of expected that seeing that it's part of your siggie.... haha
So you think the reference is to a "straight" guy vs a "bent" (homo) guy?
[b]The book of Ecclesiastes is sometimes considered a pessimistic and discouraging book. But, it should not be viewed this way. It is true that Solomon devotes most of the book to a consideration of the futility of life (the word "vanity" occurs 37 times). But, this view is approached in the context of life "under the sun" (a phrase which occurs 29 times). In other words, life is only vain if we have a "this world" concept of life. Solomon's conclusion is a
warning against such an attitude. He encourages the reader instead to "remember thy Creator" and to "fear God, and keep His commandments". This God-centered approach to life puts everything in perspective, and gives greater purpose to all that we do.
Extracted from http://www.oconcofc.org/ecclesiastes.pdf.
Nothing in Ecclesiastes is about a gay life style. The writing was ascribed to King Solomon in his later years where he has gone through his life, in his so-called wisdom and realised that everything is empty without God.
Try reading Ecc 7:13 in another language and see if the supposed implication of gay lifestyle is still present.
This is a classic example of taking ONE verse out of an entire passage and reinterpreting it to suit one's agenda.[/b] -
its written in the bible, and if u don't follow this, then who are u to say we must take other things written in the bible to be true? If u xtians do not strictly follow what's written in the bible, how do u want to convince us that the bible is 100% accurate with regards to the things written inside? How do u want us to believe that u are allowed on your own authority to decide which part of the bible u wish to follow and which u don't? Duplicity, that is.Originally posted by Chin Eng:in the days where all fibre is natural, it is just practical not to mix fibres because the shrinkage will cause the entire fabric to tear. We do use that much natural fibre nowadays so the purpose no longer exists - common knowledge.
AFTERTHOUGHT: my mom, who sews, mentioned once that some cloth just could not be sewn together, so may still apply to some fabric. One need to check with a seamstress or tailor. -
the duplicity, as i've explained, is in you yourself not following certain things written in the bible, and then taking others which suits your views and saying that they are the absolute truths, and that whatever that fits in with your own personal view of what is wrong as a sin, and whatever that doesn't, as "subject to revision"Originally posted by Chin Eng:so a line can be drawn - as long as it's not a Christian one????
what duplicity? care to explain?
this duplicity manifests itself as "it is a sin to be homosexual but it is not a sin to wear clothing of mixed fibres" even tho both are written as "do not do" in the bible. worse still, like i pointed out, there are statements both for and against homosexuality, who are u to decide that those "against" statements are taken in context while those "for" statements are taken out of context? It would appear that the bible is clearer on the issue of not wearing mixed fibres than it is on homosexuality! and yet xtians do not obey something that is so clearly written, and choose to take stands on a clouded issue. Duplicity, if that is not, then what is it? -
I heartily agree. It seems that way to me as well. For the sake of their egos they aren't ready to accept that they might be wrong and use religion as a front for that narrow-mindedness.Originally posted by F Bunta:Nothing is fair in this world
In my opinion, people expressing their views on social issues and relying on their interpretation of holy scriptures do so to further their own goal and ego, and has nothing to do with defending the faith. -
At this point of time I must ask: Who do you consider to be the right one?Originally posted by F Bunta:I also understand that the scriptures are subjected to human interpretations, thus the different denominations (Catholics, Presbytarians, Adventists etc). In this sense, the bible can only be interpreted in 1 correct way thus only 1 (or worse, none) denomination would get it right. The crucial question is:are you in the right one? -
I shrudder to think what if John 3:16 and John 14:6 happen to be interpreted wrongly .. wahahahOriginally posted by F Bunta:In this sense, the bible can only be interpreted in 1 correct way thus only 1 (or worse, none) denomination would get it right. The crucial question is:are you in the right one?
I should throw this qn back to heng's fren - do they have confidence in interpreting the above 2 verses correctly?
-
well let's not get to emotive about this thing.Originally posted by HENG@:really? and whos to say what is considered taking it out of context? on whose authority are u judging that on? who are u to say that God for sure did not create homosexuality? Besides, i might point it out to u that I did not take it out of context, rather, a xtian friend of mine highlighted several passages to me when we were discussing the debate of whether homosexuality is God's creation or not. And I'd like to hear your explanation on xtians, who aren't gay but who feel that homosexuality is a sin, and who can use the bible to argue that view. How do u explain it, and how can u tell me for sure it isn't the homophobic xtians who are quoting the bible out of context? nothing here seems to be certain does it? How can I trust u when u say u're quoting passages in context and they are quoting passages out of context? how can i and WHY should i trust any of u?
for starters, do all the research you can on the book of Ecclesiastes. You WILL NOT FIND any reference on homosexuality in this book from all prominent Bible scholars (who are not my friends).
I did not quote from any friends.
So far I have show text from Romans and 1 Corinthians, and please use all language and versions you can lay your hands on, and they will say the same thing.
On the other hand, you'd quoted from Ecclesiastes, which in any language (or from any Bible expository) does not refer to homosexuality.
Not a single quotation from any supposedly homophobic source.
Also, don't trust me, don't trust anyone. Read the Bible, the entire book of Ecclesiastes and come to the conclusion yourself that there really is a reference on homosexual - no just one or two words from on verse of 12 chapter book that talks about the sadness of life.
Allow me to give you the New International Version of Ecc 7:13 - Consider what God has done: Who can straighten what he has made crooked?
Let me "give" you another homosexual verse: James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: (KJV WBS YLT) So does this verse prove inclusively that homosexual is ok, afterall the person in the verse is wearing gay clothing?
The dictionary's definiton of gay:
1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.
4. Given to social pleasures.
5. Dissolute; licentious.
The problem here is: meaning number 1 is a very very new definiton.
I don't know who you friends are, and what they'd said to you, but it is irrelevant in this discussion. You also do not need to believe what I'd written. You need to read the passages where we both quoted from, ask yourself what is the context they were written - these are simple task that I teach my sons when doing comprehension. Decide again, if there is any positive reference on homosexuality in the Bible.
You conclusion can be:
I don't believe in the Bible - that being the case, no need to argue from the angle of the Bible.
Inconclusive - than you need to do more research in books written by Bible scholars, no need to quote friends or debate with someone like me who knows very little.
Homosexual is OK for you - which is fine with me, if you are a non-Christian. -
damn it .. this is the classic bible fundamentalist argument. this is why they say creation took 6 human days.Originally posted by HENG@:its written in the bible, and if u don't follow this, then who are u to say we must take other things written in the bible to be true? If u xtians do not strictly follow what's written in the bible, how do u want to convince us that the bible is 100% accurate with regards to the things written inside?
now the same argument is used against xtians like uncle eng ..
Only certain groups of xtians can tackle this qn from ah heng. Those whose denomination is grounded in hermeneutics and theology. will fandango and laoda pls come out?
RCs can try ans, but they can always invoke the Pope, so no fun.
-
Hope you don't think that I am expressing my view on social issues.Originally posted by F Bunta:Nothing is fair in this world
In my opinion, people expressing their views on social issues and relying on their interpretation of holy scriptures do so to further their own goal and ego, and has nothing to do with defending the faith.
I am expressing my views as a Christians on Christians who has another trend of thoughts. As I'd said before, and again I reiterate, non-Christian gays - no problem with me. My entire trend of comments focus only on gay-Christians.
One question: why is it when Christians express our views (even one as purposely focused on Christians as mine is) will eventually be concluded that I have a goal and ego to satisfy scratching head now.... -
Not me.... I never said that I am right, I only stated that your quotation of Ecc has nothing to do with homosexuals, according to all known bible scholars.Originally posted by HENG@:I heartily agree. It seems that way to me as well. For the sake of their egos they aren't ready to accept that they might be wrong and use religion as a front for that narrow-mindedness.
I thought I had dealt with this before.... sigh....Originally posted by HENG@:its written in the bible, and if u don't follow this, then who are u to say we must take other things written in the bible to be true? If u xtians do not strictly follow what's written in the bible, how do u want to convince us that the bible is 100% accurate with regards to the things written inside? How do u want us to believe that u are allowed on your own authority to decide which part of the bible u wish to follow and which u don't? Duplicity, that is.
Target audience!!!! Some books are not meant as action items for you and I!!! sheesh!!! Every book as a theme, an intent and a target audience. Books in the Bible is NOT an action item for all.
OT books are meant for the Hebrews between 4000 to 300BC.... I am not a Jew, I did not live in those times (although I would have loved to).
NEO... the one... or Jet Li THE ONE or Anakin Skywalker... the chosen one....Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:At this point of time I must ask: Who do you consider to be the right one? -
Neo rearranged becomes 'oNe'!
-
im sorry but on whose authority do we decide that the bible scholars are 100% right as well? Are they not human too? It seems the case here is that none of u can prove beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a sin. If being xtian means to discriminate against homosexuals and label homosexuality a sin, then no I won't ever be xtian.
So its ok not to follow certain parts of the bible if u find it inconvenient. Oh of course its easy to say "oh that bit wasn't meant for me"
I'm sorry, but I suppose the way u and Icemoon keep telling me what the bible actually means and who which part is intended for, u 2 sound like u actually WROTE the bible yourself. -
cannot be so pathetic right? I'm sure God gave us brains so we can understand literary work.Originally posted by HENG@:I'm sorry, but I suppose the way u and Icemoon keep telling me what the bible actually means and who which part is intended for, u 2 sound like u actually WROTE the bible yourself.
Actually I can counter argue this way. Your friends seem to think we cannot pick and choose. But they still pick and choose right? cos they never wear the correct fabric also mah. So they are guilty of the same sin of "take your pick". So if they cannot resolve it among themselves, I dun tink it is fair for them, or you the representative, to shoot xtians here the question. -
thats why im asking this question: if xtians cannot even agree amongst themselves what is right n wrong, why should they be imposing their muddy and unclear issues on the non-believers? why should we trust what u say? Because u could turn out to be wrong, the bible could turn out to be wrong, how can we trust anything in the book or anything any of u say?Originally posted by Icemoon:cannot be so pathetic right? I'm sure God gave us brains so we can understand literary work.
Actually I can counter argue this way. Your friends seem to think we cannot pick and choose. But they still pick and choose right? cos they never wear the correct fabric also mah. So they are guilty of the same sin of "take your pick". So if they cannot resolve it among themselves, I dun tink it is fair for them, or you the representative, to shoot xtians here the question.
THAT is why God gave us brains... so we can think independently of what religious leaders want us to think. -
Inborn tendency is tougher to deal with because the ultimate claim is - God created me this way.... so go with the flow. Well, I am born with the tendency to be overweight, am diabetic, and myopic. So do I ignore my condition (because God created me this way) and continue to eat, drink and be merry? Unfortunately I cannot do that, I need to deal with it. Has it been easy - nope, it is actually very tough. Along the same line, is paedophile a medical condition? I really don't know. Maybe it is - some groups of the populations turns you on. I know that some types of women turns me on, others (even the prettier ones) don't. So can I also claim that perhaps it is natural?
However if u have a tendency to be fat, does anyone tell u it is a sin to be fat ? Did anyone put out a public announcement tat all people who r fat r sinners and being discriminated ? Even people of other faith r affected as they r being discriminated by the believer of christainity/catholic. Wat happen to the so called free will ? If it is nature, then we shouldn't discriminate these people. U r not born of the condition, tat is why it is easy for people to say "deal with it".This statement is only partly true. The true part is that humans can and wil interprete anything to their convenience.
Tat is very funny, is homosexual part of the 10 commandments from OT or the 2 iron laws in NT ? It is not either. U r refering to the other laws from the OT and from the OT u can find out other laws such as not eating prawns, stoning non-virgins or releasing pigeons after a period. U r really pick and choose the kind of laws u want isn't it ? If u find the OT laws r for Jews only, then Jesus Christ is only for Jews and not for the other people since the messiah is mention in the OT. Without OT, Jesus is a fraud with nothing tat backs his claims.
The part of something being written that "God stated that everything in the scriptures are iron laws that cannot be changed" is a little dubious. What cannot be changed is the content (think a verse in Revelation supports this). There are very few so-called "iron laws" in the Bible. There are probably ten in the OT (10 Commandments), and probably only two in the NT (Love God, Love others as God has loved us). Things written by the Apostles in the letters pertains to public and private conduct that may apply to certain groups of people, many of these points are actually pretty practical.Along the lines of homosexuality, why not broaden the scope to include bigamy (which is condoned in the OT), bestiality and paedophiles. So where do we draw the line?
Why not let POLITICIANS, who had undergo studies for the pros and cons, look more indepth to the CURRENT science and knowledge while balancing the moral aspect to decide instead of religious leaders ?OT books are meant for the Hebrews between 4000 to 300BC.... I am not a Jew, I did not live in those times (although I would have loved to).
SAYS who ?? The messiah is from the OT if wat u say r true, then jesus is for jews only. If u say tat u do not live in the times of 4000-300 BC so u do nto have to follow OT, but u r not living in 0 BC to 300 BC as well. Why follow the 2000 year old book ? -
So the story still goes around at - who has the authority to say what's right and what's wrong. No end lah, this path. Chin Eng - no authority, Bible Scholar also no authority. Wow, now I am on the same class as them.... thanks...Originally posted by HENG@:im sorry but on whose authority do we decide that the bible scholars are 100% right as well? Are they not human too? It seems the case here is that none of u can prove beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is a sin. If being xtian means to discriminate against homosexuals and label homosexuality a sin, then no I won't ever be xtian.
Discriminate against homosexual is wrong! Discrimination means, do not give this individual the chance to prove him/herself in a course of life he/she chooses, which is very very different from calling a spade, a spade, in this case calling a sin, a sin. I-did-not-start-calling-homosexuals-sinful, Paul the apostle did. The Romans and Corinthians verses leaves very little room to maneuver. The Bible also says for us not to get drunk. So if on the basis that you want to get drunk and refuse to become a Christian, you are entitled to your choice. Hey, no hard feelings.... I have no personal agenda with you. I am not looking to convert any one within EH....
Say you open a letter written by someone to your family member asking/telling them to do something, would you have the impression that the writer is writing to you? Pick up (or borrow) a good study Bible and look at the intro for each book, you will find the theme, intent and audience clearly stated.Originally posted by HENG@:So its ok not to follow certain parts of the bible if u find it inconvenient. Oh of course its easy to say "oh that bit wasn't meant for me"
It does not take an idiot to know that the book of Romans was written to the (tah dah!!! drum roll) ROMANS - Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
The book is meant for Christians who lived in Rome who are probably not Jewish in race.
It is not as simple as "oh that bit wasn't meant for me".... I wish it is.... then I might pick the part about having multiple wives.... ha ha
ok, so what would you have us do? I am asking for a practical answer, in the context of a Christian forum. Give opinion: "u 2 sound like u actually WROTE the bible yourself". Don't give opinion: may be come across as too proud.Originally posted by HENG@:I'm sorry, but I suppose the way u and Icemoon keep telling me what the bible actually means and who which part is intended for, u 2 sound like u actually WROTE the bible yourself.
I am begging to tell us what you want us to do.
Reply or don't reply?
Give a serious reply or tell a joke?
Please, please tell me what I should do in future when encountering Christian issues??
As I'd said, if this thread is about non-Christian gay, I would even bother to write. I have no comments or issues with it. The thread (which move from the topic) is about gay Christian and gay Church. There is a dire need to quote from scripture and offer a Christian perspective. If it offends you, perhaps you'd want us to agree with everything you say, ignoring the things we are aware of? -
so u'e going to tell me that certain parts of the bible doesn't apply to u? and oh, since u said that the 10 commandments are written in rock, tell me where it says homosexuality is a sinOriginally posted by Chin Eng:Say you open a letter written by someone to your family member asking/telling them to do something, would you have the impression that the writer is writing to you? Pick up (or borrow) a good study Bible and look at the intro for each book, you will find the theme, intent and audience clearly stated.
The interesting thing here is, are u ready to accept the things u are UNAWARE of, and change your thinking and acceptance of what u were aware of? That is what offends me, that xtians seem to think they MUST know it all and they MUST be right and that the way the THINK they understand the scripture MUST be right and that they aren't willing to even acknowledge that they might be mistaken because of the things they aren't aware of, or because of the things they do not want to acknowledge.Originally posted by Chin Eng:ok, so what would you have us do? I am asking for a practical answer, in the context of a Christian forum. Give opinion: "u 2 sound like u actually WROTE the bible yourself". Don't give opinion: may be come across as too proud.
I am begging to tell us what you want us to do.
Reply or don't reply?
Give a serious reply or tell a joke?
Please, please tell me what I should do in future when encountering Christian issues??
As I'd said, if this thread is about non-Christian gay, I would even bother to write. I have no comments or issues with it. The thread (which move from the topic) is about gay Christian and gay Church. There is a dire need to quote from scripture and offer a Christian perspective. If it offends you, perhaps you'd want us to agree with everything you say, ignoring the things we are aware of? -
hey, no one in this thread is imposing our "muddy and unclear issues on unbelievers".Originally posted by HENG@:thats why im asking this question: if xtians cannot even agree amongst themselves what is right n wrong, why should they be imposing their muddy and unclear issues on the non-believers? why should we trust what u say? Because u could turn out to be wrong, the bible could turn out to be wrong, how can we trust anything in the book or anything any of u say?
THAT is why God gave us brains... so we can think independently of what religious leaders want us to think.
One more time: I don't care if you, a non-Christian, is gay or not. I don't want to impose my views on you. You took the liberty to quote Eccl 7:13 which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Yes, I can be wrong.... in the course of eternity, maybe the Bible is wrong.... maybe we are all wrong, but what's the point. The point is: for one person to call him/herself a Christian, this person must believe in the Bible. If the person cannot/will not believe in the Bible, don't call one self a Christian. If an organisation calls itself a Christian church, it must not change the tenets of Christianity. The entire argument/exchange centers on the definition of what a Christian is and what a church should be. That is all to it.
Please, please, don't ever ever say that I'm imposing my views on you. Where did you get the idea from?
Yes, God gave you brains to think, please re-read Ecclesiastes in totality.