Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Has EvCForum ever changed anyone's mind?
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 32 (54581)
09-09-2003 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Zealot
09-09-2003 12:51 PM


holmes writes:
Rrhain just this week has convinced me that all references to homosexuality in the Bible, are specified to acts with male prostitutes. I knew some were, but not that all were.
Zealot writes:
I'd love to hear Rrhain's argument for that. I dont think it holds any ground though.
I believe Rrhain was probably talking about the translation of one of Paul's letters (Romans I think). In fact, it can be translated to say male prostitiution instead of homosexuality in general, if I'm not mistaken.
As to the main topic, I have changed my mind about some things. When I first heard some of the creationist arguements ((e.g., polonium halos, decaying orbits) I thought they had some clout until I started reading the refutations. It became clear that some creationists were not after the truth but instead were using smoke and mirrors to confuse the truth. For me, science can only claim what the evidence supports. This is not what I see with creationism.
Before reading this site and others I thought there was honesty on both sides. Due to the dishonest acts of some, not all, creation scientists this belief is quickly dwindling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Zealot, posted 09-09-2003 12:51 PM Zealot has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 17 of 32 (54582)
09-09-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
08-14-2003 9:29 AM


I agree
It doesnt have to "change" anyone's 'mind" but unlike other sites such as NIAG which is actively trying to find arguments to say NO to Answers thru "genesis" or True Seekers that tries to keep tabs on c/e activity or even MSN where some of the more colorful proposals can be found this site provides a means to show that c/e actually IS a PRODUCT of disciplined THINKING and not a mere fringe sociology.
I would like to say that I think C/E is showing that contra Mayr 1966 c/e HAS ALREADY SHOWN that an organism has more than one geneotype. I have learned at least that this is what my contributions may ultimately amount to regardless of the large # of posters who still may find not assesed value in my posts. Part of the barrier to understanding this view (which would be due to cardinal vs ordinal enumerations) in some juggle of microgeographic variation and macromutation) IS Gould's assertion and subsequent PUNCEQ that "existential adapation" was hardended. I find the c/e hyperlinks proove the opposite that if it is fluid instead. It was mild at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 08-14-2003 9:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 32 (54751)
09-10-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by MrHambre
09-09-2003 1:12 PM


Zealot,
You continually display the open-mindedness and thirst for knowledge that we have come to expect from fundamentalists. In thread after thread you have put forth arguments ranging from the well-worn to the utterly bizarre in a transparent attempt to disprove a well-supported scientific theory you barely understand.
Feeling better ?
Now you want to hear Rrhain's theory concerning the Bible's references to homosexuality. However, you state that you doubt it's valid before you've even heard it!!!
Urm yeah. I've actually read the Bible and all references to homosexuality did not point to prostitution Would you like to hear my theory that in Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' he actually meant to say that Satan is the high lord OR have you read the book already and highly doubdt my theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by MrHambre, posted 09-09-2003 1:12 PM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2003 11:48 AM Zealot has replied
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-10-2003 12:20 PM Zealot has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 19 of 32 (54757)
09-10-2003 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Zealot
09-10-2003 11:03 AM


Short Memory
Z,
Remember this opening salvo?
quote:
Hi, I'm merely curious as to how one would actually disprove evolution ( as opposed to creationism ).
I think that establishes the extent of your knowledge of science, as well as your intent to discuss topics with an open mind.
Feel free to claim that organisms have not evolved the ability to fly, since you refuse to listen to any of numerous explanations for the evolution of flight. Feel free to compare homosexuals to child molesters, merely because you ascribe holy authority to bigoted scribes who lived thousands of years ago. Feel free to claim that Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes had something to do with evolution, for whatever conceivable reason you had for doing so here.
Science is all about what you think, Z, and smilies too.
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall
[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 09-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 11:03 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 12:21 PM MrHambre has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 20 of 32 (54763)
09-10-2003 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Zealot
09-10-2003 11:03 AM


zealot writes:
Urm yeah. I've actually read the Bible and all references to homosexuality did not point to prostitution
Look, I also read the Bible and believed that all the references to homosexuality were meant to be references to homosexuality.
But English and Latin were not the original languages of the Bible. In researching how those references to homosexuality were originally written in Hebrew and Greek (where our modern E&L versions were translated from) some discrepencies began to emerge.
It is without question that some of the passages actually used definite terms for male temple prostitutes. This was thought a necessary proscription because two major competitor religions at the time used male temple prostitutes.
Some other passages were not so clear (ie the various biblical scholars were divided on this topic). Rrhain sided quite vociferously with the scholars who say all other references used this same terminology.
In any case, the passages which might not have used specific terms for male prostitutes do seem to stem from that original proscription. That is even if you doubt the scholars whom Rrhain sides with, most scholars seem to be of the mind that the wider proscriptive against male-male sex acts, was only to ensure no backsliding occured (no secretive worship of those other gods).
I still don't see the Bible as pro male male sex, but clearly the English translations were biased translations with an anti-homosexual agenda that God, or the writers of the early versions of the Bible, had not meant.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 11:03 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 12:39 PM Silent H has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 32 (54764)
09-10-2003 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by MrHambre
09-10-2003 11:48 AM


Re: Short Memory
Remember this opening salvo?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I'm merely curious as to how one would actually disprove evolution ( as opposed to creationism ).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that establishes the extent of your knowledge of science, as well as your intent to discuss topics with an open mind.
The very next 2 lines of my post ...
"Simply put, I dont have the neccesary knowlege to disprove anything really as
1. I dont have a degree in Geology forinstance, or in microbiology etc.
2. I really dont have the time to get a degree just so I can have a discussion"
And there I was trying to hide his lack of knowlege on the ToE! Applologies that my degree was in Computer Science, not Genetics or Geology.
Feel free to claim that organisms have not evolved the ability to fly, since you refuse to listen to any of numerous explanations for the evolution of flight.
Your explanations (and others) re Avian Evolution IMO were not sufficient and by no means original. Considering last time I checked there were 2 theories on avian evolution (and a recent 3rd I might add), I would assume there to be scientific doubdt on the those theories.
Feel free to compare homosexuals to child molesters, merely because you ascribe holy authority to bigoted scribes who lived thousands of years ago.
Hehe, atleast quote me correctly and fully. Can you please find where I compared Homosexuals to child molestors. I'll save you the trouble by speculating its just another 'bigot' generalisation. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
Yes, it was an honest question.
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2003 11:48 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2003 12:31 PM Zealot has replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 22 of 32 (54768)
09-10-2003 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Zealot
09-10-2003 12:21 PM


Little reminder
Z-man,
Here you expound upon the tolerance and understanding that your Christian faith has given you:
quote:
Personally if 2 gay men want to call themselves married, feel free, I couldn't care less, however to do so with the notion that a Christian God approves of it is mockery of the Christian Faith.
You might as well be disgusted at how Christians show hatred towards child molesters or people committing beastiality.
I can't help but hear the voice of Christ in words so steeped in the spirit of love and forgiveness.
------------------
I would not let the chickens cross the antidote road because I was already hospitlized for trying to say this!-Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 12:21 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 1:23 PM MrHambre has not replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 32 (54769)
09-10-2003 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Silent H
09-10-2003 12:20 PM


Look, I also read the Bible and believed that all the references to homosexuality were meant to be references to homosexuality.
But English and Latin were not the original languages of the Bible. In researching how those references to homosexuality were originally written in Hebrew and Greek (where our modern E&L versions were translated from) some discrepencies began to emerge.
Hi Holmes, the NIV is a pretty decent translation of the original texts. No need to dispute that the English/Latin is vastly different from the original or indeed 'unreadable' or disputable.
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: Ibs
"The New International Version is a completely new translation of the Holy Bible made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. It had its beginning in 1965 when, after several years of exploratory study by committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Associations of Evangelicals, a group of scholars met at Palos Heights, Illinois, and concurred in the need for a new translation of the Bible in contemporary English"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Silent H, posted 09-10-2003 12:20 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-10-2003 6:09 PM Zealot has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 32 (54777)
09-10-2003 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by MrHambre
09-10-2003 12:31 PM


Re: Little reminder
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally if 2 gay men want to call themselves married, feel free, I couldn't care less, however to do so with the notion that a Christian God approves of it is mockery of the Christian Faith.
You might as well be disgusted at how Christians show hatred towards child molesters or people committing beastiality.
Thanks for atleast quoting me in full this time
Hmm yeah direct comparison there... Gay sex = child molestors = beastiality. PS.. for those that choose to quote me on this, I am being sarcastic!
The comparison was actually how people can show surprise at how Christians can hate the notion of God Blessing something he clearly told us was a sin. In the same light you could say that God sais 'Yes, committing adultery is ok, IF you really want to' is equally deplorable. Kinda like someone choosing to sleep with a different partner every night is his/her choice, but someone that tries to convince others that its God's will, is a completely different story.
I can't help but hear the voice of Christ in words so steeped in the spirit of love and forgiveness.
H-Man , you choose to criticise me for lack of knowledge of the ToE, but you dont know your Bible too well.
Christ was pretty feverent when it came to people disgracing his Father's house, and same can be said for anyone changing God's Word, however His forgiveness knew no bounds.
Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Being gay is one thing, accepting a gay man as a friend is perfectly fine, choosing to convince others that God Blesses a gay union is another entirely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by MrHambre, posted 09-10-2003 12:31 PM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Coragyps, posted 09-11-2003 4:50 PM Zealot has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 32 (54785)
09-10-2003 3:05 PM


Terminal topic drift?
The people might wish to consult the all-topic database I have made available. The link to it is in this topic:
http://EvC Forum: All Topic database available -->EvC Forum: All Topic database available
I know I haven't updated it in a couple of weeks, but it should still do the job pretty well.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-17-2003 11:34 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 26 of 32 (54804)
09-10-2003 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Zealot
09-10-2003 12:39 PM


zealot writes:
Hi Holmes, the NIV is a pretty decent translation of the original texts. No need to dispute that the English/Latin is vastly different from the original or indeed 'unreadable' or disputable.
I expect that you are being totally honest and straightforward with me, so please don't get mad at me when I call you a total sucker. At least you seem to have fallen for their pitch hook, line, and sinker.
If I walked up to you with a copy of the Bible and said hey these guys over here said they made the bestest translation ever, would you just automatically trust that?
My point was that English/Latin translations are made from earlier versions based on the homophobic biases of translators at the time. Nothing you or your link provided changed any of that.
First of all look who did the compiling. Oh yeah, multi-denominational, but all pretty conservative and not multi-cultural.
Then read the entire link you provided. They say right in there that they DO NOT preserve actual wording from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In addition to taking cultural meanings into account (which makes me sceptical of which cultures they are referring to) they state that preservation of longstanding ideas about biblical messages was important.
That means they weren't going in as biblical scholars to get at the real meaning, even if it shook up a few people's apple carts. They were going in to enhance the wording of Xtianity they currently practice, based on much earlier texts.
My advice to you is to go to google, or yahoo, or whatever and start poking around for some actual biblical scholar research. I agree that most of the Bible isn't vastly different, but there are clearly portions that have been altered from original meaning.
When scholars show the actual text, literal translations, and contextual meanings it is a lot more convincing than an evangelical saying "trust me."
If you are a "zealot" this ought to really concern you. Remember Jesus had to throw things around when people started messing up the practice and "word" of his religion. That example right there shows that people can even twist God's word to their own ends. Check out the originals and understand them, before accepting what some guy in a swanky suit and wears an impressive organizational name wants to sell you.
------------------
holmes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 12:39 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Zealot, posted 09-11-2003 7:26 AM Silent H has replied

Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 32 (54895)
09-11-2003 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
09-10-2003 6:09 PM


I expect that you are being totally honest and straightforward with me, so please don't get mad at me when I call you a total sucker. At least you seem to have fallen for their pitch hook, line, and sinker.
Hehe, no offense taken
If I walked up to you with a copy of the Bible and said hey these guys over here said they made the bestest translation ever, would you just automatically trust that?
Christians tend to be able to use various versions of the Bible if discrepancies occur. Niv I prefer purely because its ease of reading, but if needs be, I can always go back to King James.
My point was that English/Latin translations are made from earlier versions based on the homophobic biases of translators at the time. Nothing you or your link provided changed any of that.
Aagh, so indeed the Bible said nothing about homosexuality... its just the bias of these translators.. they just added whatever they wanted. Hmm, I can see that logic floating for anything you really disagree with in it in the Bible. Indeed, we can get rid of adultery as a sin too I'm sure.
If you are a "zealot" this ought to really concern you. Remember Jesus had to throw things around when people started messing up the practice and "word" of his religion. That example right there shows that people can even twist God's word to their own ends. Check out the originals and understand them, before accepting what some guy in a swanky suit and wears an impressive organizational name wants to sell you.
LOL. Thanks for your advice Holmes. I'll take it you are sincere, but I and most Christians dont precisely just buy into everything thrown our way And as you might recall Jesus didn't question the legitimacy of Moses's works, rather the 'pick and choose' attitude some followers had. IE: 'Yes , its a sin, but do not comdemn'
If you want to understand why amoungst some 'christians' there is a shift to accepting homosexuality as a perfect part of everyday life, you might want to have a look at the 'discovery' of the gay gene in 1993. How can God possible create a man to be gay, and then still condemn his 'natural' actions as sinfull ? Surely it MUST be accepted in the Bible or the translation must be wrong ?
So, then there is pressure on the popularity of Christianity to change to the new mould. Only thing is Holmes that the 'gay gene' doesn't really exist, but then it will take 10 years for us to find that out. So now should Christianity's views change again ?
Some advice. Dont base your Biblical views on what 'you' believe to be right and wrong and what suits you or happens to 'fit' in with the current scientific model. By all means question what you dont understand, but your belief that God allows us all to be mislead by bad translators is pretty far fetched.
If you want to discuss specific text, I am more than willing to start a new topic with you on the Bible forum.
cheers
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 09-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-10-2003 6:09 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2003 2:48 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 29 by Cthulhu, posted 09-11-2003 4:34 PM Zealot has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 28 of 32 (54962)
09-11-2003 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Zealot
09-11-2003 7:26 AM


zealot writes:
Hmm, I can see that logic floating for anything you really disagree with in it in the Bible. Indeed, we can get rid of adultery as a sin too I'm sure.
I want to remind you that I was originally on your side. I totally believed that the references were to homosexual acts.
Neither did I have a reason for caring one way or the other. I am not Xtian, and I was not about to become one even if they suddenly became champions of gay rights.
All I was interested in was what the wording was. From the English and Latin versions there is simply no question. But go to the Hebrew and Greek (I don't think there were any references to this in Aramaic) and there really are discrepancies. I was just as shocked to find this out as you probably will be if you ever do check it out.
I did not expect there to be such an important discrepency in translation. But there is.
By the way I also never bought into the gay gene. I think genetically everyone is trysexual (as in people will try anything). Somethings people will enjoy, somethings not. Maybe hormones and development play a part in one's major inclinations? I certainly think environment does. Then again I think the sexual preferences of one's parents, or whether homosexuality is banned by law, plays little to no part in the "environment" I am talking about.
zealot writes:
Some advice. Dont base your Biblical views on what 'you' believe to be right and wrong and what suits you or happens to 'fit' in with the current scientific model.
I absolutely agree with this and practice it regularly. Of course I'd rephrase it as my views of what the Bible teaches, not my Biblical views.
zealot writes:
By all means question what you dont understand, but your belief that God allows us all to be mislead by bad translators is pretty far fetched.
The second half of this sentence not only contradicts the first, it also goes back on your advice to me above.
Do you understand Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? Have you read the versions of the Bible in these languages so that you understand what they said? If not, then you do not understand the early versions and you should question later translations.
That's all I did, and like you will be, I was quite surprised. If anything I was secretly hoping it was correct (so I wouldn't look like an idiot going back to people I had said what you were just saying to me, and admitting I was wrong).
The idea that God would allow us to be mislead by translators is in the Bible itself. Jesus instructed that we could be mislead if we allowed ourselves to listen to church leaders instead of seeking out the truth. And always remember the admonishment to beware false prophets. It is not up to God to make sure the REAL word is conveniently placed on store shelves for you to purchase, it is up to you to do the research for yourself.
So don't be lazy and start poking around. Why not learn Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic so you can see the word of God in its most natural state and not be reliant on people who may be false prophets (or descendants of those that were mislead by one)?
I'm not going to argue with you about it, just encourage you to get back to the basics, even if it takes a little hard work. Isn't that what being a zealot entails.
If you do this and find that all the biblical scholars I have read are incorrect, please let me know. I am totally flexible on whatever the Bible has to say... it doesn't affect me personally at all. Just bring evidence to counter their's.
------------------
holmes
[This message has been edited by holmes, 09-11-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Zealot, posted 09-11-2003 7:26 AM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Zealot, posted 09-17-2003 10:20 AM Silent H has not replied

Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 29 of 32 (54974)
09-11-2003 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Zealot
09-11-2003 7:26 AM


Only thing is Holmes that the 'gay gene' doesn't really exist
You're heavily into denial, aren't you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Zealot, posted 09-11-2003 7:26 AM Zealot has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 30 of 32 (54976)
09-11-2003 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Zealot
09-10-2003 1:23 PM


Re: Little reminder
Christ was pretty feverent when it came to people disgracing his Father's house, and same can be said for anyone changing God's Word, however His forgiveness knew no bounds.
You better not risk wearing a polyester/cotton blend shirt down to Shrimpfest at Red Lobster, anyway. That might push the ol' forgiveness too far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Zealot, posted 09-10-2003 1:23 PM Zealot has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024