Quantcast

Jump to content


Atheism, Nontheism, Antitheism


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 06 October 2005 - 03:21 PM

Well it's good to give hard facts, but essays generally kill a debate because it's to much to take at a time, so slow down a bit.

By the way, somewhere in Genesis homosexuality is pronounced as a sin. It's not straight up, but it's talking about the sins of the world before the Great Flood, and one being gay men/homo sexuality, and that's in all versions of the bible (Even Old King James), it's rather clear.


I referred to Genesis in my long post, just not by name.

What Genesis talks about is the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. It is never stated by any book in the Bible that Sodom and Gomorrah had anything to do with homosexuality. See post above. The word sodomy originates in 16th century England, because for a long time people have had the conception that Sodom and Gomorrah was referring to a multitude of sins, one of the majors being homosexuality. Like today, it was a big debate in those times. But while they quite clearly list all the sins of the two cities, homosexuality is never actually said.

So it is a matter of opinion, really. Some verses could be referring to homosexuality, or they could be referring to gluttony. Some verses could be referring to beastiality and incest, or they could be referring to homosexuality. Even when you go to the Greek and Hebrew sources, it isn't clear, because it is hard to translate the language (because languages do change over time, words lose meaning or gain new ones, etc). Genesis is as notorious as Paul for being extremely "odd" language. Whereas Paul is a personal account, nobody knows really where Genesis came from, and the style of the language...the voice...does not fit later books in the Bible and thus it is hard to translate. However homosexuality is never actually stated like it is in Leviticus, which I also talked about. ;)

And King James Version is the most recent version that is popular (though there are many more recent, none hold the real sway that the older versions do, for good reason). It's only about four hundred years old. =P Rather infantile, in the scheme of things.

Edited by Casilla, 06 October 2005 - 03:25 PM.


#2 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 October 2005 - 04:24 PM

Well think of it this way : It may be wrong but If you are single you could always have more girls to choose from. Or if your a girl more guys. And we are overpopulated as it is. O well Homos are cool because they choose to live their life the way they want without forcing themselves to be thrown a bunch of logic and shit. not to mention they actually have some decency to adopt a kid, which at least shows theyll raise a kid. My bro told me when your an adult you gradually realize the point of life isnt to reproduce. If you want to raise a child, raise one. But the main point of life is yourself.

Anyways, the idea is life shouldnt be lived by a set of rules and punishment. Live life to the fullest. Its not a long life, it passes like you wouldn't imagine.

Not even nessecarily you have to listen to me, but you get what im saying

I like Christians. Quite a few are very very nice to me. I do not like intolerant atheists that cant just keep trying to take a piss on people that believe in a god. but thats only imop. not telling their side of the story, since idk

Edited by Link, 06 October 2005 - 04:25 PM.


#3 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12,070 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 October 2005 - 07:19 PM

First off, I said Old King James Version, noting the 'old' and it's a hell of alot older then 400 years, all the "the's" are "thy" and stuff :p

And as far as homosexuality, I will look it up. Im just going to go back to my basic logic. Sex basicly originates from the way a woman get's pregnant, but now we have like condemns and stuff, and it's for pleasure, which was of course not the original intent. So, from that, you don't get a baby from two men freaking each other, so obviously it's wrong..

Ok, you say the meaning of sex has changed from creation to pleasure. Would you say that anything for pleasure is wrong? Even coming at it from a christian standpoint, think of it like this: God made it feel good for a reason.

#4 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 06 October 2005 - 07:41 PM

First off, I said Old King James Version, noting the 'old' and it's a hell of alot older then 400 years, all the "the's" are "thy" and stuff :p

And as far as homosexuality, I will look it up. Im just going to go back to my basic logic. Sex basicly originates from the way a woman get's pregnant, but now we have like condemns and stuff, and it's for pleasure, which was of course not the original intent. So, from that, you don't get a baby from two men freaking each other, so obviously it's wrong..


Um. Excuse me? Old King James Version? Do you even know anything about your Bible and your religion? I mean, really, Alias, that is just...learn about your religion, my God. There is no such thing as the "Old" King James Version.

The King James Version is a Protestant Bible that originated when King James took Tyndale and Wycliffe's translations and made the first Early Modern English translation of the Bible in complete. Though the Church of England - the first Protestant church - was started through less than savoury means (read: King Henry VIII wanting a divorce), one of the main redeeming principles was that the average person did not have to go through a priest in order to "commune" with God and know God's word (the Bible). Before King James Version, there were no Bibles available to the PUBLIC at all, and in Easy-To-Read Modern English. This is what was revolutionary about the KJV. Henry had a Bible, called the Great Bible, as well...which wasn't open to the public, though it was in English...I just know that it was a mishmash of Tyndale and the Vulgate (Catholic Bible) and Luther's German translation, and not really a formal edition.

The Book of Common Prayer, the psalms, found in Protestant churches doesn't come from the KJV, actually. It comes from the Great Bible. So there you go.

But remember, the Protestant religion was created with King Henry VIII created the Church of England so that he could get a divorce and didn't have to go through the Catholic Church's power. That isn't to say the idea didn't exist before - that was what Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther were all about, but Henry was the only one who had the power and the "need" to start up his own Church. King James I had his version translated and published in 1611. That makes it 394 years old.

The "thee" and "thy" doesn't have anything to do with how old something is. That is called formal English, and it it was used still up into the early 20th century for extremely formal things, normally religious. It of course lost popularity. It wasn't even normally spoken word in King James's time. Even Shakespeare, who lived before King James, used formal English sparingly.

Ye Olde English is from the Middle Ages, the Dark Ages, Chauncey's time. Most people could not, without any schooling, read Ye Olde English these days, because it is so far removed from our own English.

And there were never any true Ye Olde English versions of the Bible. There were...incomplete translations and more of a general "gist" writing. However it wasn't banned by the Church at the time, as it was later.

Wycliffe made a translation (in the 14th century), actually, but he was labelled a heretic by the Church and burned, and all his books burned as well. Now, some versions survived, which Tyndale and later King James used, but they were not accessible to most people, and the point of the KJV was that it was a pubically accessible Bible, which had never been done before. ;)

As for your logic regarding homosexuality...do not get me wrong, that is sound logic as to why homosexuality would be regarded poorly in a dying community, as often were the ancient Hebrews, always on the move, it seemed.

But homosexuality has not always been regarded as a "sin", even in Hebrew and Christian lands. And you must remember...the two societies to which Western Civilization owes the most regarding politics, philosophy, great works of Art and Logic...the Greeks and the Roman Republic...were blatant homosexuals. It was not regarded as a relationship any different than heterosexual relationships, except for the fact that you needed one of the later to produce an heir. :) The other society we owe to...the British Empire...guess what all the scholars and leaders in the Court and Parliament read and still read? The Greek logos and the Roman politics. =P

Clearly neither were detremental to either society. The Greeks in Athens, responsible for demokratia, only closed its schools of thought when it fell to the Byzantine Empire (ie Holy Roman Empire in the 6th century AD). Roman Republic eventually became the Roman Empire, which ruled the known world, and then the Holy Roman Empire, which lived its life trying to recapture old glory. Both are tremendously responsible for our way of life today, and don't let anyone tell you anything differently. ;)

Edited by Casilla, 06 October 2005 - 08:30 PM.


#5 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12,070 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 October 2005 - 07:54 PM

I will say this. The Dead Sea Scrolls are, first off, Jewish texts. Not Christian. They were written from around 200 BC to 150 CE. In other words, the Jews writing these texts lived through the time of Jesus. They contain not only lost books of the Bible (I mean Hebrew Bible, Old Testament), but they also contain different VERSIONS of the same books (like Jeremiah, Psalms). And I am not talking minor differences. Major, glaring differences between books that are even in the standard Christian Old Testament today. And these were not secret texts - it is believed that the different versions were well known at the time of the Councils, as there has been evidence in older writings, but nobody had the actual texts (they were outlawed) until now.

And oh! Before I forget. Gospel of Phillip...which is a freakin' trip if you haven't read it. Ditto on the Gospel of Mary Magdalene...but anyway. Phillip was found in the Nag Hammadi Library, not the Dead Sea Scrolls. That idiot, Dan Brown, said that it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Da Vinci Code, which has caused a lot of confusion recently. But that is certainly not the case! If you've read Da Vinci Code...I'm sorry. Please forget it. If you haven't read it, by God, don't, unless you go into knowing that all of it is fictional, even the three "facts" he mentions in the front of the book. Well, okay...the address of the Opus Dei American Headquarters is correct.

Nag Hammadi Library, by the way, is the trove of Christian documents they found in Egypt. Which, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, contain different versions of the same books, and completely new or lost books. These were about 4th century AD, and were hidden after Council of Nicaea decided on canon, and outlawed everything else.

Damn! I knew I had something wrong... I mixed up the dead sea scrolls with the egyptian ones.

Anyway, about the 'true christian' thing. I was raised Presbyterian (Witherspoon [a presbyterian] signed the Declaration of Independance!) and naturally thought that all other Protestants as well as Catholics were totally messed [Aside: agreed on the Baptists and Mormons]. However, I cannot agree with you on your view of Catholicism as the truest form of Christianity. One of the main tennants of Protestantism is that we can commune with God without the use of a priest. Jesus never specified whether we needed a priest or not, but it may have just slipped his mind considering he can just look up (or down, or side to side, depending on how you want to look at it) and say "Hey Dad, what should I do?" or better yet, he doesn't need to because he is God incarnate. That whole point is just opinion (IMO :p ).

I tend to take a more Hindu outlook of Christianity (not from the perspective of a Hindu, just the view they have of religion) in that they're all different paths to the same thing. We might have different names for God and different ways of doing things, but they are the same thing inherently. Everything is much easier that way when talking to Christians.

#6 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:05 PM

Damn! I knew I had something wrong... I mixed up the dead sea scrolls with the egyptian ones.

Anyway, about the 'true christian' thing. I was raised Presbyterian (Witherspoon [a presbyterian] signed the Declaration of Independance!) and naturally thought that all other Protestants as well as Catholics were totally messed [Aside: agreed on the Baptists and Mormons]. However, I cannot agree with you on your view of Catholicism as the truest form of Christianity. One of the main tennants of Protestantism is that we can commune with God without the use of a priest. Jesus never specified whether we needed a priest or not, but it may have just slipped his mind considering he can just look up (or down, or side to side, depending on how you want to look at it) and say "Hey Dad, what should I do?" or better yet, he doesn't need to because he is God incarnate. That whole point is just opinion (IMO :p ).

I tend to take a more Hindu outlook of Christianity (not from the perspective of a Hindu, just the view they have of religion) in that they're all different paths to the same thing. We might have different names for God and different ways of doing things, but they are the same thing inherently. Everything is much easier that way when talking to Christians.


When I said that Catholics were true Christians, I meant it in more of a rhetorical sense. As in, they have the seventeen hundred year-old doctrine on their side, but that does mean they are true in the *spiritual* sense...which anyone could claim. ;)

And you mean Buddhism, I think, as Hinduism is actually very strict...though it has thousands of different sects. Although, on another note...

Hinduism is considered the oldest organized religion in the world - actually organized, as opposed to Judaism. And it has some of the oldest surviving religious texts...a thousand years older than the Dead Sea Scrolls...

Edited by Casilla, 06 October 2005 - 08:15 PM.


#7 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12,070 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:46 PM

@Casilla

I read the first 2 lines of your post after mine .. *Pulls out Bible* .. right off the front cover "The Bible" ... "-Old King James Version"

Im not retarted, if I have a camera I would even take a picture of it, and I would really appreciate that you keep the those little comments, or whatever you want to call them to yourself next time, thanks.

Another note is that not all protestant churches take form after the one that was started way back then. In my church (Calvary Chapel), we are allowed to use any type of the Bible we please, im not quite sure what your getting at. It seems you are on a different path then me, because you keep thinking im like retarted, when in reality people actually do have different beliefs....

Its the same book, or rather the same translation of the book. And once again, you have failed to address any point other than the minutae. Please, if you're going to participate in debate, participate.

#8 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:54 PM

@Casilla

I read the first 2 lines of your post after mine .. *Pulls out Bible* .. right off the front cover "The Bible" ... "-Old King James Version"

Im not retarted, if I have a camera I would even take a picture of it, and I would really appreciate that you keep the those little comments, or whatever you want to call them to yourself next time, thanks.

Another note is that not all protestant churches take form after the one that was started way back then. In my church (Calvary Chapel), we are allowed to use any type of the Bible we please, im not quite sure what your getting at. It seems you are on a different path then me, because you keep thinking im like retarted, when in reality people actually do have different beliefs....


No, I am only responding in like to your insulting tones to other. As I said, you get what you give. You have been nothing but disrespectful and insulting to people.

What I was referring to, when I basically called you ignorant, is when you said that "Old" KJV is older than four hundred years. That is...just...wrong. How can you not know this? How can you not, when you spend so much time debating this, not check your facts? My Jewish friend knew this! And he's not even observant!

Anyway.

I now know what you are referring to when you say Old KJV...however...it was still only published in 1611. Surely your Old KJV Bible says somewhere about original publication? When people say Old KJV, yes, it is in formal English, but it isn't older than four hundred years old. New KJV would be in informal English...but it is the same book, the same translation, regardless, just in more informal English - normally meant for teens - so that they can better understand it.

And yes, different Protestant Churches use different versions, and some use multiple versions, or don't care. The difference between some versions is very minimal. The difference in others is very great, because while you have two words that are technically synonyms...they can mean a great difference in some situations, or to some dialects. This is the problem with Leviticus. Some versions of the Bible will outright say "homosexuality is a sin", while others actually use the actual translated language. There is a subtle, but in the end, really major difference. Language changes over time.

Yes you are right that we lead to the same thing, but when looking at this, you definantly need to refer to the Bible when comparing. Once you have done so, you can easily tell many faults in some of the religions, and the obvious things they miss. The problem with multiple types, is that some parts of the Bible, are not well explained I should say. So that, people will get multiple ideas on a verse and practically base a part of there religion on it. And then another person with a different view of it will come along, and start a whole new type with their idea, it's a rather tough debate on which is the "correct" one. I say any of them that believe in Jesus, and all his teachings, is good enough for me.


That is the correct sentiment regarding Protestant sects...

However, that is very brutal to say of other religions.

The Bible is not the only religious text, nor is it the oldest. Who are you...who are any of us...to say what is right and what is wrong? Who has the authority?

Adding onto your view of needing a preist of christianity. It's rather clear in the Bible that Jesus is the one you get forgiven by. Considering his Godly figure/powers, it's rather obvious :p Not to mention many of the books in the new testament mention being forgiven by him, as well as all the parables that were told. "Repent, and have eternal life", reffering to repent to jesus, or accept him into your hear, and have eternal life. Sorry I can't point out the exact verse that is in.


Peter and the other apostles were the ones who went on to start the Church in the form it came to be. Mary Magdalene started the Gnostic church which is actually very similiar to what you said above. However, they went all mystical and "Knowledge is Power" and died in 4th century. But it is gnostic values such as this that Wycliffe, and later Luther, started to use for the Protestant reformation. Later, which Henry VIII used as an excuse to start his church. =P

#9 Guest_Casilla_*

Guest_Casilla_*

Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:46 AM

What does that have to do with forgivness, and a priest? (No offense)

by the way, how old are you? You seem to be a hell of alot older then me :p Which would explain alotta things.


It has to do with the Gnostics didn't want to go through a priest to "talk" to God, or be forgiven. Like Protestants. =P Peter and some of the other apostles, after listening to what Mary Magdalene said after coming back from the cave after seeing Jesus resurrected, told her that they didn't believe Jesus had said all those things to her that she claimed. So they went off to start their Church, and Mary and others went off to start Gnostic sects. That isn't saying Mary was telling the truth, but if you ever read into any Gnostic texts...well, it is a trip. It's like taking ancient, Greek science and making it a religion.

Chapter 9

1) When Mary had said this, she fell silent, since it was to this point that the Savior had spoken with her.

2) But Andrew answered and said to the brethren, Say what you wish to say about what she has said. I at least do not believe that the Savior said this. For certainly these teachings are strange ideas.

3) Peter answered and spoke concerning these same things.

4) He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?

5) Then Mary wept and said to Peter, My brother Peter, what do you think? Do you think that I have thought this up myself in my heart, or that I am lying about the Savior?

6) Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.

7) Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries.

8) But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.

9) That is why He loved her more than us. Rather let us be ashamed and put on the perfect Man, and separate as He commanded us and preach the gospel, not laying down any other rule or other law beyond what the Savior said.

10) And when they heard this they began to go forth to proclaim and to preach.

----

That is the scene in question. Freakin' trip, all of Gnostics. Basically, Jesus told Mary to tell them NOT to start a Church, but to go around the countryside and preach.

38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.

---

And I am nineteen, so no, not a hell of a lot older. =P

However, I "decided" when I was nine that I was going to become an atheist - for all the entirely wrong reasons, granted, but now I have new reasons and stand by them - but I soon found out, while living in Kansas, you cannot say such things without an armoury of facts and knowledge to back yourself up. So thus I devoted years to studying religions. :) Purely out of interest, mind, and also so that when I get into debates such as these, I have something to say.

Edited by Casilla, 07 October 2005 - 09:50 AM.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users