Interesting talk btw Athiest Prof & Christian Student
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
fr your info, i did read most of Ecc chapt 7 along with that verse, and i see it as questioning humans as to who are they to declare something unnatural and therefore a sin when God made it with his own hands. It talks of the folly of xtians who, using their human biasedness, judge what they think is or is not god's work. THAT makes it rather pertaining to homosexuality in view of today's context. And do xtians not believe that while the bible was written in the past, thru god's powers he could forsee the future and the bible could thus be written in such a way that we can discover new meanings from old passages in today's context?
hey, no one in this thread is imposing our "muddy and unclear issues on unbelievers".
[b]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.[/b]
And YOU are the one who keeps telling me Ecc has nothing to do with homosexuality, And when u keep telling me something U personally believe, u're imposing your view on me don't u think? Maybe I am imposing some of my views on you, but at least i don't try to deny it. -
I am constantly learning about things that I am not aware of, by this I read statements and comments made by all, which is why I do not think that Pokemon and Harry Potter is satanic as painted by some preachers. Or that rock music is bad for Christians. Or Christians should not eat food offered to idols.Originally posted by HENG@: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 sin
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.
Like to find out from you: where have I said that I am right? Go through all my postings, and you will never find that statement anywhere. I am willing to accept any challenge and when proven wrong, I will apologise and retract my statements (which I have done before).... so on the same note: are you? Are you willing to admit that you may have been mistaken about Eccl 7:13?
All I am stating:
1. Valid only for Christians. Non-Christians, I don't care. I will never impose my views on anyone.
2. Romans and 1 Corinthians is written in plan English, in many versions and languages saying the same thing.
3. No other verses (including Eccl 7:13) has positive things to say about homosexuality.
4. Unless you can provide something from the Bible that allow another dimension to the Romans and Corinthians passage, those passages stands.
5. As the argument is only for gay-Christian (and their supporters) the assumption is that these people recognise that the Bible is the Word of God.
Of course it is now established that there are NO TRUE Bible Scholars in the world and the intepretation of the Word of Gods are left to the masses, perhaps, anything goes.
None of the above are my personal opinions, and until you are willing to enlighten me and make me aware of where I have erred, those five points stand.
The 10 Commandments thing? Contrary to popular belief, it is not something that the church, as a whole, pays a lot of attention to. It was probably fun watching Charlton Heston doing the Moses thing, but that was it. They are good lifestyle rules. And following them is probably good for you.
Yup, homosexuality is not inside, neither is bigamy, bestiality etc etc. So what does that mean? Doing a dog is OK? Is this where you are going? Just because it is not in the 10Cs? Oh, please I am not imposing on how/what you should think but where were going with this one? -
very simply, where we are going is to attack bigotry and discrimination in any guise and any form, be it religion or society.
-
Ok, so I do have the authority to intepret (which is true), and I don't think you have (wouldn't you agree), and according to you (and some other non-Christians) neither does Bible Scholars... so this is a Mexican standoff... all standing around looking at each other, isn't this funny.Originally posted by HENG@:fr your info, i did read most of Ecc chapt 7 along with that verse, and i see it as questioning humans as to who are they to declare something unnatural and therefore a sin when God made it with his own hands. It talks of the folly of xtians who, using their human biasedness, judge what they think is or is not god's work. THAT makes it rather pertaining to homosexuality in view of today's context. And do xtians not believe that while the bible was written in the past, thru god's powers he could forsee the future and the bible could thus be written in such a way that we can discover new meanings from old passages in today's context?
And YOU are the one who keeps telling me Ecc has nothing to do with homosexuality, And when u keep telling me something U personally believe, u're imposing your view on me don't u think? Maybe I am imposing some of my views on you, but at least i don't try to deny it.
Glad you read the entire chapter 7, it can "pertain" anything you want if you choose it, but it will definitely contradict Romans and Corinthians if you want it to pertain to homosexuality. Say, you have a grudge against someone and want to finish him off, and reads chapter 7 and sees that God is providing an answer that you MUST kill the guy, wouldn't this contradict the murder thingy.
I'd like to imaging God in all his wisdom write a Bible with cars and 7-11s because he can foresee the future, but pity the poor folks in history who have no idea what these stuff are. Taking all that in, how can you explain Romans and Corinthians and the fact that there is NOTHING ELSE specifically positive about homosexuality.
The language thing? The "I personally believe" statement? Hey it's semantics. Once I wrote without the personal believe statement, I got accused of imposing too. So now, I clearly state that it is my opinion - I personally believe - it is personal and that means you don't have to agree with me.
Difficult, you know. Can't please everyone. But sorry if I'd confused you.... wish I know how to best express my opinions.
I agree with you on this one - I am totally against bigotry and discrimination. But to state something as sin is not condemning the sinner. Say you are a Christian and gay, if you are my personal friend (someone with a face and a name), I think it is within my rights to point out that something is not right. If you choose no to agree with me, I will still be your friend. I know there will be bigots anywhere and will severe such relationship, but this basis is totally wrong, if one goes with the "condemn the sin but love the sinner" concept. I have had church members telling me off 'cos I (and my sons) play pokemon and read harry potter. It is within their rights, but they don't really give me a hard time about it. At the end of the day, my explanation to them may be working 'cos no one hounds me anymore.Originally posted by HENG@:very simply, where we are going is to attack bigotry and discrimination in any guise and any form, be it religion or society.
Peace.... gotta go... dinner appointment.... -
to tell a homosexual that homosexuality is a sin and that therefore, he can change to be "normal" IS discrimination. It is known as heterosexism.
-
1. Valid only for Christians. Non-Christians, I don't care. I will never impose my views on anyone.
People who r christian will have tis view and treat gays, even if they r from other faith differently.2. Romans and 1 Corinthians is written in plan English, in many versions and languages saying the same thing.
Leviticus 11 :7 'Regard the pig as unclean, for though has a cloven hoof, it does not chew the cud
11.10: 'Of all that lives in the waters of the seas and rivers, you may eat anything that has fins and scales
11.11: 'But anything in the seas or rivers that does not have fins and scales, regard as an abomination. Do not eat their meat and regard their carcasses as an abomination
Looking at the verse tat states eating prawns/pork is wrong and is written in plain english, in many version and languages and they all say the same thing. Yet christian still eat prawns as much as any other people3. No other verses (including Eccl 7:13) has positive things to say about homosexuality.
No other verses say anything good about eating prawns/pork either. So shouldn't the pope made a stand on tis ?4. Unless you can provide something from the Bible that allow another dimension to the Romans and Corinthians passage, those passages stands.
Unless anyone can provide something from the bible tat allow people to eat prawns/pork, the verse still stand. As true christian, u should refrain from eating these food.5. As the argument is only for gay-Christian (and their supporters) the assumption is that these people recognise that the Bible is the Word of God.
It is not only about believers but non-believers as well since christian impression of them has been guided toward a different course due to a remark made by a religious leader -
wait a minute .. now you are arguing as believer or non believer? I thought you are arguing from believer pov, the spokesman for your Christian friends? How come you switch to SIS camp?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?
Note that Uncle Eng is replying from pov of Christian to Christians. Note that you use the Ecc verse to argue that homo is ok, this is Christian pov. -
Your argument is fallacious. If you accept no authority, no basis whatsoever, then it follows your own belief or whatever your friends say also cannot be argued. You just shot yourself, you know that?Originally posted by HENG@:fr your info, i did read most of Ecc chapt 7 along with that verse, and i see it as questioning humans as to who are they to declare something unnatural and therefore a sin when God made it with his own hands.
Reminds me of - "There is no absolute in this world". -
all along i've mentioned those were my friend's views and what they told me from a xtian POV. never said that its my pov. duh. your question in itself is not detailed enuf. i believe in God but i do not believe in xtianity.Originally posted by Icemoon:wait a minute .. now you are arguing as believer or non believer? I thought you are arguing from believer pov, the spokesman for your Christian friends? How come you switch to SIS camp?
Note that Uncle Eng is replying from pov of Christian to Christians. Note that you use the Ecc verse to argue that homo is ok, this is Christian pov. -
If, in order to shoot you and expose the falsity of declaring homosexuality a sin, I have to shoot myself, I'd gladly do it. The fact is, u are arguing, I am arguing, my friends are arguing, and I say that we all should argue, because the issue is not clear. Don't think I never said that u can't argue, but im asking u on whose authority do we decide which human's views of the bible should we all accept, or should we let the bible reach out to each individual in its own uinque way, and if u can't answer that satisfactory, then u can't tell me what u believe is right as much as u can't say that what u believe is wrong.Originally posted by Icemoon:Your argument is fallacious. If you accept no authority, no basis whatsoever, then it follows your own belief or whatever your friends say also cannot be argued. You just shot yourself, you know that?
Reminds me of - "There is no absolute in this world".
Me, im only interested in fighting this wave of heterosexuality hiding behind the guise of religous beliefs. -
ok .. so have we demolished your fren's argument? cos I can counter-argue abt their faith in John 3:16 and John 14:6 mah.Originally posted by HENG@:all along i've mentioned those were my friend's views and what they told me from a xtian POV. never said that its my pov. duh. your question in itself is not detailed enuf. i believe in God but i do not believe in xtianity. Now I very confused .. you like to mix in your xtian fren's view and own view together.
If you are just stating your own view, then I dun tink Uncle Eng cares a damn .. since he is fine with non christian pov on homosexuality. -
demolished my fren's arguments? nope. don't think so. besides that, i don't think there is a proper xtian pov on homosexuality. because both the open-minded xtians and the nay-sayers can argue to death but the open-minded xtians aren't about to let the nay-sayers win as a matter pf principle and the nay-sayers aren't about to give up and admit their errors as a matter of face. so u can't tell me what the xtian pov on homosexuality is. what u or him can do and have done is tell me the nay-sayer xtians' pov on homosexuality. u're far from representing the bulk of xtianity.Originally posted by Icemoon:ok .. so have we demolished your fren's argument? cos I can counter-argue abt their faith in John 3:16 and John 14:6 mah. Now I very confused .. you like to mix in your xtian fren's view and own view together.
If you are just stating your own view, then I dun tink Uncle Eng cares a damn .. since he is fine with non christian pov on homosexuality. -
Actually your fren's challenge is about proper biblical interpretation. Do us a favour. Ask him or her to show us the "proper way" to interpret John 3:16 and John 14:6.Originally posted by HENG@:demolished my fren's arguments? nope. don't think so.
The following don't mix:
1. I believe in the ecc. verse with regards to homosexuality.
2. I don't trust any interpretations.
If I can successfully demolish their point 2, then I think we can progress to next level of discussion.
So have I demolished their point 2?
Come to think of it, they may one day realize actually they are in the SIS camp all along. -
You don't want to believe in the Bible, nor do you want to listen to any of the leaders.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.
By now you should know that the two of them go hand in hand. Isn't it so? -
erm... wasnt the issue between u and eng abt the homosexual christians? abt the point of homophobic behaviour.. u make it sound like only Christians are against it. that isnt true right? and u know it.Originally posted by HENG@:If, in order to shoot you and expose the falsity of declaring homosexuality a sin, I have to shoot myself, I'd gladly do it. The fact is, u are arguing, I am arguing, my friends are arguing, and I say that we all should argue, because the issue is not clear. Don't think I never said that u can't argue, but im asking u on whose authority do we decide which human's views of the bible should we all accept, or should we let the bible reach out to each individual in its own uinque way, and if u can't answer that satisfactory, then u can't tell me what u believe is right as much as u can't say that what u believe is wrong.
Me, im only interested in fighting this wave of heterosexuality hiding behind the guise of religous beliefs.
i think Eng's arguement on the un-acceptability of homosexual behaviour was garnered towards Christians. Because, being Christian, the authority lies with the bible and thats y the bible has the authority to pass judgement or rather set the rules for homosexual behaviour.
lets use an intuitive example; when u enter a gym, it's stipulated that u must be in Sports attire right? u cant barge in and then question their authoirty in setting those rules
oo and Eng i reckoned wasn't judging the entire homosexual population.. but he was juz explaining the unacceptability of homosexual behaviour for Christians. thats 2 very different things -
the catholic church has a firm stance on homosexuality thoughOriginally posted by HENG@:demolished my fren's arguments? nope. don't think so. besides that, i don't think there is a proper xtian pov on homosexuality. because both the open-minded xtians and the nay-sayers can argue to death but the open-minded xtians aren't about to let the nay-sayers win as a matter pf principle and the nay-sayers aren't about to give up and admit their errors as a matter of face. so u can't tell me what the xtian pov on homosexuality is. what u or him can do and have done is tell me the nay-sayer xtians' pov on homosexuality. u're far from representing the bulk of xtianity. -
i don't think point 2 was theirs. I've already told u that this is the stand that some of them are taking now. I've told u b4 and i'll show u again WORD FOR WORD:Originally posted by Icemoon:Actually your fren's challenge is about proper biblical interpretation. Do us a favour. Ask him or her to show us the "proper way" to interpret John 3:16 and John 14:6. The following don't mix:
1. I believe in the ecc. verse with regards to homosexuality.
2. I don't trust any interpretations.
If I can successfully demolish their point 2, then I think we can progress to next level of discussion.
So have I demolished their point 2?
Come to think of it, they may one day realize actually they are in the SIS camp all along.that's why there's a biblical revival within the churches now. a movement within the church to awake chirstians to study and understand the bible.
so john 13:6 and john 4:16 right? i'll ask. do remember that that was written probably by some biased human who had something against homosexuals. but i'll ask.
it's to educate christians that the bible is not a direct memo
non-denomination biblical teaching
ie. teach straight from the bible. with emphasis on the historical context and then how to sensibly extrapolate biblical teachings into real life
and interpret the bible as intellectual as possible
the aim is to let christians to evaluate the bible on their own and educate them to evaluate the bible -
ok accepted. so what if your gym says to enter the gym u need can't be chinese? or that u have to walk on your hands? rules may be rules but when the rules do more good than harm we should look at it and decide whether it is a good rule, and whether whoever who wrote it should have been allowed to write the rules.Originally posted by ben1xy:erm... wasnt the issue between u and eng abt the homosexual christians? abt the point of homophobic behaviour.. u make it sound like only Christians are against it. that isnt true right? and u know it.
i think Eng's arguement on the un-acceptability of homosexual behaviour was garnered towards Christians. Because, being Christian, the authority lies with the bible and thats y the bible has the authority to pass judgement or rather set the rules for homosexual behaviour.
lets use an intuitive example; when u enter a gym, it's stipulated that u must be in Sports attire right? u cant barge in and then question their authoirty in setting those rules
oo and Eng i reckoned wasn't judging the entire homosexual population.. but he was juz explaining the unacceptability of homosexual behaviour for Christians. thats 2 very different things -
omg .. you had made Chin Eng argued for nothing!Originally posted by HENG@:i don't think point 2 was theirs. I've already told u that this is the stand that some of them are taking now. I've told u b4 and i'll show u again WORD FOR WORD:
Uncle Eng seldom so agitated one .. as in he seldom write so much .. he wrote so much cos he thought those points you raised are pov. of Christians.
You realize actually he has nothing against your belief as a non believer? So I don't think it is fair for you to accuse him of imposing his belief on you. -
leaders? goes hand in hand? 1 word: phariseesOriginally posted by SingaporeMacross:You don't want to believe in the Bible, nor do you want to listen to any of the leaders.
By now you should know that the two of them go hand in hand. Isn't it so? -
so did Hitler.Originally posted by ben1xy:the catholic church has a firm stance on homosexuality though -
what? about on whose authority should we decide what the interpretation of the bible should be? about homosexuality? Those ARE christian povs. here lemmie show u ALL they said in their discussions with me, WORD FOR WORD:Originally posted by Icemoon:omg .. you had made Chin Eng argued for nothing!
Uncle Eng seldom so agitated one .. as in he seldom write so much .. he wrote so much cos he thought those points you raised are pov. of Christians.
You realize actually he has nothing against your belief as a non believer? So I don't think it is fair for you to accuse him of imposing his belief on you.that's why there's a biblical revival within the churches now. a movement within the church to awake chirstians to study and understand the bible.
it's to educate christians that the bible is not a direct memo
non-denomination biblical teaching
ie. teach straight from the bible. with emphasis on the historical context and then how to sensibly extrapolate biblical teachings into real life
and interpret the bible as intellectual as possible
the aim is to let christians to evaluate the bible on their own and educate them to evaluate the bible
well.. the bible nv clearly define what sexual immorality is
like i had mentioned, even protestant churches world wide has split into pro-gay and anti-gay sections
haiz.. i disagree with the anti-gay teachings.
hmm.. u shld reserve this verse for anti gay christians
then u shld question them in what authority they decide that a verse should be taken literally or metaphorically
i do realise that r christians who dont think, but just accept what their pastor says
everything in red was uttered by some of my xtian friends, not by me. they are very much indeed xtian povs. -
Ok .. at least the matter is clarified. Thanks.Originally posted by HENG@:what? about on whose authority should we decide what the interpretation of the bible should be? about homosexuality? Those ARE christian povs. here lemmie show u ALL they said in their discussions with me, WORD FOR WORD:
I think you should do us a favour and ask them on whose authority are their "non denominational teaching" based?
I suspect their ans is .. no authority -
Since Catholics form the bulk of Christians (apologies to fandango .. I need this premise to make the argument work) .. so now we have the majority view liao.Originally posted by ben1xy:the catholic church has a firm stance on homosexuality though
Ah Heng, what do you have to say? -
the catholic church is only a hundred or so archbishops, the pope and the vatican people. i'd hardly call that the majority view. or u mean catholics themselves, but u can't tell me for sure that their church's stance is their stance? people might accept a religion but that doesn't mean they have to lose their personal beliefs and misgivings. i have catholic friends who don't think homosexuality is a sin either, but well u know how strong armed the catholic church is, they don't quite dare to voice out their personal views. so no, its not the majority view im afraid. besides, u're still basing it on a premise, and that doesn't quite work out if u can only base it on a premise.Originally posted by Icemoon:Since Catholics form the bulk of Christians (apologies to fandango .. I need this premise to make the argument work) .. so now we have the majority view liao.
Ah Heng, what do you have to say?