• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fish Out of Water: The Gay Gospel [W:42]

afr0byte said:
No, it doesn't break down in the case of a God that supposedly created everything. Everything includes sin, our ability to sin, and our temptations. He, presumably, could have not made sin a thing. If God is responsible for everything, he could have made us all get along and be happy all of the time.
Click to expand...

If God is responsible for everything, sure - but He isn't. He gave us choice (like unto the image of God), and so now we are responsible for things that we make, do, and choose.
 
RGacky3 said:
The chances of Jesus being gay are about the same chances as Bill Clinton being a pedophile .... infact it's less likely. Are you willing to say "we dont' know if Bill Clinton is a pedophile?"

1. There is plenty of evidence, and we can go over that in another thread if you'd like.
2. You don't know if it made the local news or not, because we don't have the records.
3. The gospels came from oral traditiosn that go back to right after his death, we also have epistles that go back way before the gospels that refer to the ressurection.
4. I don't come here to try and defend my religion, most of my discussions here are with other christians over theology, christian ethics and so on, I don't really get that much into apologetic, I attacked your statement NOT because I'm defending my religion, but because your statement is PATENTLY stupid, and I'm calling you out on making a stupid statement.

But here's what I think ... you clearly have disdain for faith ... so you come here to try and bash religion, but in the end you embarrass yourself because you don't know what your talking about.
Click to expand...
Bill a pedophile? It's true that we don't actually know but the lack of evidence points against it. Jesus gay? We have no idea just like we have no idea if he was married or what he did before he claimed to be the Messiah/ A farmer is the best guess currently but it's a guess. Joesph was a stone mason more than likely, there's not a lot of wood around there.

As for your reasons, it's clear you simply like to argue and you will oppose anyone who believes that Christianity is bunk. You have no real faith just like the ones who say if Jesus didn't rise from the grave that would be the end of theirs. They don;t have faith wither, they are looking for a ticket to Heaven and a chance to avoid death. It's childish but normal. And I want most Americans to be Christians. It's much easier to control them when they are.
 
RGacky3 said:
Perhaps, this is a question of forknowledge, a very difficult theological issue.

Arminianists say that he knew what would happen but he didn't cause it, he created creatures with free will, and they choose how they act and his knowledge is independant of that.

Calvinists say everything is pre-destined by Gods command.

Open Theists say God DOESN'T know the absolute future, but can deduce.

Molinism says God knows what creatures would do in given situations, but does not decree or know every situation.
Click to expand...

And Catholics (whom I think have the best handle on this) say that it's both, and that they have no idea how that works.
 
cpwill said:
If God is responsible for everything, sure - but He isn't. He gave us choice (like unto the image of God), and so now we are responsible for things that we make, do, and choose.
Click to expand...

Tell us, can god make a stone too heavy for god to lift?
 
TiredOfLife said:
Bill a pedophile? It's true that we don't actually know but the lack of evidence points against it. Jesus gay? We have no idea just like we have no idea if he was married or what he did before he claimed to be the Messiah/ A farmer is the best guess currently but it's a guess. Joesph was a stone mason more than likely, there's not a lot of wood around there.

As for your reasons, it's clear you simply like to argue and you will oppose anyone who believes that Christianity is bunk. You have no real faith just like the ones who say if Jesus didn't rise from the grave that would be the end of theirs. They don;t have faith wither, they are looking for a ticket to Heaven and a chance to avoid death. It's childish but normal. And I want most Americans to be Christians. It's much easier to control them when they are.
Click to expand...

:lamo

You don't study much history, do you? :)
 
cpwill said:
And Catholics (whom I think have the best handle on this) say that it's both, and that they have no idea how that works.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's because it doesn't?
 
TiredOfLife said:
Tell us, can god make a stone too heavy for god to lift?
Click to expand...

God not being part and parcel of physical limitations (as they are non-infinite definitional lines), can you make a blue so cold that it would taste like steak?
 
TiredOfLife said:
It's based on history actually, as well as other things.
Click to expand...
:) Evidently not. Historically religious revival movements precede dramatic political changes :)
 
cpwill said:
If God is responsible for everything, sure - but He isn't. He gave us choice (like unto the image of God), and so now we are responsible for things that we make, do, and choose.
Click to expand...

You're still not getting it, it seems. He made it possible for us to sin, he also made it so that we have an urge to sin. So, it doesn't really matter that he supposedly gave us a choice later.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: both are present. To an extent we are playing checkers against a God who is playing Chess.
Click to expand...
The game you play is the one in your head. The game. and the pieces, are nothing more than human imagination. It's a desperate need to make sense of a universe that doesn't, at least it doesn't if you believe, falsely, that you somehow matter in it, Nature shows us the way but most just can't accept it so they have religion, a god who makes things right, gives their lives meaning, transcends death. Nature doesn't give a damn what lives here or whether anything does for that matter. That is not a truth that many can accept. Once you do life here makes much more sense.
 
cpwill said:
:) Evidently not. Historically religious revival movements precede dramatic political changes :)
Click to expand...

Dramatic? Here? Where we are still desperately trying to make a 220 year old document apply to a modern age? What you believe to be dramatic isn't. You have to look at the men behind the curtain, not what the curtain says.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Bill a pedophile? It's true that we don't actually know but the lack of evidence points against it. Jesus gay? We have no idea just like we have no idea if he was married or what he did before he claimed to be the Messiah/ A farmer is the best guess currently but it's a guess. Joesph was a stone mason more than likely, there's not a lot of wood around there.

As for your reasons, it's clear you simply like to argue and you will oppose anyone who believes that Christianity is bunk. You have no real faith just like the ones who say if Jesus didn't rise from the grave that would be the end of theirs. They don;t have faith wither, they are looking for a ticket to Heaven and a chance to avoid death. It's childish but normal. And I want most Americans to be Christians. It's much easier to control them when they are.
Click to expand...

We know he wasn't married, since that's what the earliest sources tell us. He was a "Tekton" which can mean manual laborer (like a day laborere), or a carpenter, there not being a ton of trees around (which there very well would have been if imported from lebanon, doesn't say anything against Jesus or has father being a carpenter in the traditional sense, since carpenters don't ONLY make houses, but he could have very well been a general craftsman, a farmer definately not, since he is called "tekton" in more than one place.

The evidence against Jesus being gat is that it's NEVER brought up, had he actually been gay do you not think the people, who tried every avenue of attack on him, would have just never mentioned that? Or all the writings on him would have never mentioned it? That's rediculous.

As for your attemped at psyco-analyzing me, I can only say "whatever," but so far all you've done on this thread is embarrass yourself with terrible arguments.
 
TiredOfLife said:
Dramatic? Here? Where we are still desperately trying to make a 220 year old document apply to a modern age? What you believe to be dramatic isn't
Click to expand...

That's interesting. You believe that - for example - the Revolution itself was not a "dramatic" event in U.S. history? Nor the Civil War?

You have to look at the men behind the curtain, not what the curtain says.
Click to expand...

:roll:

The game you play is the one in your head. The game. and the pieces, are nothing more than human imagination. It's a desperate need to make sense of a universe that doesn't, at least it doesn't if you believe, falsely, that you somehow matter in it, Nature shows us the way but most just can't accept it so they have religion, a god who makes things right, gives their lives meaning, transcends death. Nature doesn't give a damn what lives here or whether anything does for that matter. That is not a truth that many can accept. Once you do life here makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

.... I see an interesting (if flawed) series of.... faith-based statements. The claim that all religious people are insane is a particularly entertaining dependence on the same kind of conspiratorial logic referenced above - an ironic tendency towards the same schizophrenia you would apparently accuse others of.
 
afr0byte said:
You're still not getting it, it seems. He made it possible for us to sin, he also made it so that we have an urge to sin. So, it doesn't really matter that he supposedly gave us a choice later.
Click to expand...

On the contrary - your choice is as inherent to you as your selfish tendencies. You wouldn't be you without your choice, you would be a little robot that looks and sounds like you. God woos, He does not rape.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary - your choice is as inherent to you as your selfish tendencies. You wouldn't be you without your choice, you would be a little robot that looks and sounds like you. God woos, He does not rape.
Click to expand...

Did you just decide to ignore what I said? It seems that way. Why would God give us the choice to sin, if he didn't think it likely (or at least possible) that we'd sin? With regards to homosexuality...why even make that possible? It doesn't make any sense, especially since it's hurting no one for a person to be gay (or have gay sex).
 
afr0byte said:
Did you just decide to ignore what I said? It seems that way. Why would God give us the choice to sin, if he didn't think it likely (or at least possible) that we'd sin? With regards to homosexuality...why even make that possible? It doesn't make any sense, especially since it's hurting no one for a person to be gay (or have gay sex).
Click to expand...

Why would any parent allow his or her child to play outside if he didn't think it was possible for the kid to get hit by a car or something .....
 
TiredOfLife said:
The game you play is the one in your head. The game. and the pieces, are nothing more than human imagination. It's a desperate need to make sense of a universe that doesn't, at least it doesn't if you believe, falsely, that you somehow matter in it, Nature shows us the way but most just can't accept it so they have religion, a god who makes things right, gives their lives meaning, transcends death. Nature doesn't give a damn what lives here or whether anything does for that matter. That is not a truth that many can accept. Once you do life here makes much more sense.
Click to expand...

You're talking about Nature as if it's a personal God ... Nature doesn't show us **** ... nature just is what it is, it doesn't give us ANY WAY.
 
afr0byte said:
Did you just decide to ignore what I said? It seems that way. Why would God give us the choice to sin, if he didn't think it likely (or at least possible) that we'd sin? With regards to homosexuality...why even make that possible? It doesn't make any sense, especially since it's hurting no one for a person to be gay (or have gay sex).
Click to expand...

I agree it makes no sense. It's incoherent and presents an incoherent God.

Indeed, the whole "free will" debate doesn't appear in the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian Scriptures. It's an artifact of the doctrine of original sin, which is theological notion from the third century, and has nothing to do with these texts.

The gospel is a narrative, not a theological text. It's about God's love for us as played out in his willingness to allow his own son to be killed in order for God to demonstrate the depth of that love, and the promise that it can, if we want, transform us into loving persons, the new creation Jesus and Paul talks about. You take it at that level or you reject it at that level. The gospel either speaks to you or it doesn't.

Introducing arcane doctrines about free will and original sin and the Trinity has nothing to do with authentic Christianity. That was a bad development of doctrinal Christianity that has scarred and reduced it since Nicene.
 
head of joaquin said:
I agree it makes no sense. It's incoherent and presents an incoherent God.

Indeed, the whole "free will" debate doesn't appear in the Hebrew Scriptures or the Christian Scriptures. It's an artifact of the doctrine of original sin, which is theological notion from the third century, and has nothing to do with these texts.

The gospel is a narrative, not a theological text. It's about God's love for us as played out in his willingness to allow his own son to be killed in order for God to demonstrate the depth of that love, and the promise that it can, if we want, transform us into loving persons, the new creation Jesus and Paul talks about. You take it at that level or you reject it at that level. The gospel either speaks to you or it doesn't.

Introducing arcane doctrines about free will and original sin and the Trinity has nothing to do with authentic Christianity. That was a bad development of doctrinal Christianity that has scarred and reduced it since Nicene.
Click to expand...

The free will debate doesn't appear in the Scriptures ... its assumed that free will exists, which is why God asks people to follow his will, he recants discipline with repentance, he says "I have put life and death in front of you, so that you may choose life." He says "If only you would follow my way" and so on.

There IS such a thing a choice, and free will, and there is such a thing as Sin and redemtion in the scriptures.

And God allowing choice for sin doesn't make him incoherent AT ALL, unless you think it's incoherant for a loving parent to allow hiw child freedom.
 
RGacky3 said:
The free will debate doesn't appear in the Scriptures ... its assumed that free will exists, which is why God asks people to follow his will, he recants discipline with repentance, he says "I have put life and death in front of you, so that you may choose life." He says "If only you would follow my way" and so on.

There IS such a thing a choice, and free will, and there is such a thing as Sin and redemtion in the scriptures.

And God allowing choice for sin doesn't make him incoherent AT ALL, unless you think it's incoherant for a loving parent to allow hiw child freedom.
Click to expand...

The free will debate is a paltry way of addressing the experience of God and redemption. It diminished the existential nature of conversion, as if faith were something like ordering lunch. If anything, Paul's regrettable comments about predestination argue against free will as a philosophical construct. But that gospel isn't limited to philosophical idea since it's a narrative. It's a mistake for a Christian to even enter that debate. The gospel calls upon us to decide what kind of persons we wish to be (loving or selfish). We can't "become" loving persons by merely deciding. Indeed our decision to be loving persons only feeds our ego if it's just us who bring it about. It's something we can brag about. The gospel gets us out of this trap of narcissism because it's God's love that transforms us; and faith is simply the faith that God's love can transform us. That's the new creation.

Fitting this event of self-determination and faith into the straightjacket of free will is a mistake. It is not a philosophical issue: it's an existential one. It is what we experience not what can be fit into the categories of free and determined.
 
head of joaquin said:
The free will debate is a paltry way of addressing the experience of God and redemption. It diminished the existential nature of conversion, as if faith were something like ordering lunch. If anything, Paul's regrettable comments about predestination argue against free will as a philosophical construct. But that gospel isn't limited to philosophical idea since it's a narrative. It's a mistake for a Christian to even enter that debate. The gospel calls upon us to decide what kind of persons we wish to be (loving or selfish). We can't "become" loving persons by merely deciding. Indeed our decision to be loving persons only feeds our ego if it's just us who bring it about. It's something we can brag about. The gospel gets us out of this trap of narcissism because it's God's love that transforms us; and faith is simply the faith that God's love can transform us. That's the new creation.

Fitting this event of self-determination and faith into the straightjacket of free will is a mistake. It is not a philosophical issue: it's an existential one. It is what we experience not what can be fit into the categories of free and determined.
Click to expand...

I don't think a Christian should butt out of that debate at all, its a theological question and looking for an answer is totally appropriate.

Pauls comments on predestination can be taken many ways, but the Calvinist way imo is a stringent literalist way that makes the passages incompatible with others, I think an open theist interpretation is easily compatible with even those passages (I can talk about specific passages if you want).

THe other stuff your saying is a common Calvinist argument, the christian character comes from Gods love, and the spirit conforms us, but we decide to accept it. It doesn't lead to egoism, nor does it imply that we can brag about it, any more than one can brag about allowing a surgon to do surgery on us and save our life.

The gospel is most definately an existencial issue, but that doesn't mean that any other theological question other than personal existential questions are not valid or important, more than existential, the scriptures are escatalogical and kingdom based also.
 
RGacky3 said:
I don't think a Christian should butt out of that debate at all, its a theological question and looking for an answer is totally appropriate.

Pauls comments on predestination can be taken many ways, but the Calvinist way imo is a stringent literalist way that makes the passages incompatible with others, I think an open theist interpretation is easily compatible with even those passages (I can talk about specific passages if you want).

THe other stuff your saying is a common Calvinist argument, the christian character comes from Gods love, and the spirit conforms us, but we decide to accept it. It doesn't lead to egoism, nor does it imply that we can brag about it, any more than one can brag about allowing a surgon to do surgery on us and save our life.

The gospel is most definately an existencial issue, but that doesn't mean that any other theological question other than personal existential questions are not valid or important, more than existential, the scriptures are escatalogical and kingdom based also.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not a Calvinist, by any measure. Calvinism is simply the flip side of the free will "debate", which is dubious as a philosophical argument, but even worst with respect to faith. The event of accepting God's love as transformational is simply beyond the limited discourse of freedom and determinism. Indeed, I think I could make a convincing argument that the existential question (what sort of person am I and what should I become?) is the basis for working out the categories of freedom and determination. But then I don't have to: Heidegger already did.
 
head of joaquin said:
No, I'm not a Calvinist, by any measure. Calvinism is simply the flip side of the free will "debate", which is dubious as a philosophical argument, but even worst with respect to faith. The event of accepting God's love as transformational is simply beyond the limited discourse of freedom and determinism. Indeed, I think I could make a convincing argument that the existential question (what sort of person am I and what should I become?) is the basis for working out the categories of freedom and determination. But then I don't have to: Heidegger already did.
Click to expand...

Could you expand on that? I'm not that familiar with Heidegger ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom