Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   homosexuality
John
Inactive Member


Message 168 of 239 (27041)
12-17-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
??? I beg to differ. It says that the Gentiles should not be troubled with the Law of Moses.
Then we can ditch the thing?
quote:
I don't kill my own food but it's my understanding that strangling is not used amongst the meat packing industry (too inefficient). If I were to know that that steak was strangled I wouldn't eat it.
I've known people to do this-- something about adrenaline and tender meat.
quote:
Sick.
Yeah, no kidding. These same people castrated pigs with their teeth. Seriously.
quote:
No. I don't believe the NT is the final revelation of God.
Oh, that's right. You wouldn't. I forgot about that.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:24 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:42 PM John has not replied
 Message 170 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 2:46 PM John has not replied
 Message 194 by nator, posted 12-18-2002 10:33 AM John has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 169 of 239 (27043)
12-17-2002 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by John
12-17-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Then we can ditch the thing?
If you wish. I admit that your knowledge of the Bible is almost certainly superior to mine because you've been studying it longer.
quote:
Yeah, no kidding. These same people castrated pigs with their teeth. Seriously.
Umm ok. That's definately not cool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM John has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 170 of 239 (27045)
12-17-2002 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by John
12-17-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by gene90:
??? I beg to differ. It says that the Gentiles should not be troubled with the Law of Moses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then we can ditch the thing?
Jesus Christ through his life death and resurection has fulfilled the law and freed us from it's bondage. I do not envy the isrealites who had to live by this law, it's the most demanding I've ever encountered. This said there is a reason this law was given, and some of the guidlines given by the law have excellent applications in our lives. It also lays out how we should worship. So while we are freed from the bondage and ritual of the law, I believe that we should still definately attempt to observe it. (minus the ritual of course)
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by John, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM John has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:50 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 171 of 239 (27046)
12-17-2002 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by funkmasterfreaky
12-17-2002 2:46 PM


quote:
This said there is a reason this law was given, and some of the guidlines given by the law have excellent applications in our lives.
See, we can say we don't have to follow the Law of Moses but then we have things like the Ten Commandments, which all Christian sects seem (Protestants especially) to follow and which seems to be a good guide in how Jews and Christians should act. So when we teach it to the kids we are kind of inconsistent. This is where I guess we "pick and choose".
(Not that I think we should plaster it up in gov't buildings though)
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 2:46 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 3:01 PM gene90 has not replied
 Message 173 by John, posted 12-17-2002 4:40 PM gene90 has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 239 (27050)
12-17-2002 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:50 PM


I don't see the inconsistency. We are freed from the law, but the law still contains much wisdom, so out of love for God we try and adhere to his law. However we have been freed from the ritualistic bondage of the law. Jesus Christ is the atonement for sins, no more need for baths, and sacrafice, or chewing on scrotums. Yay God!! lol. Alot of the law as stated in Leviticus is also to a specific culture, and we don't find a place to apply it to our lives. Anyways don't want to spin off topic if anyone wants to discuss the law, Forgiven and I have started a thread called the Law. No-one was interested at the time, but I believe the thread is still there in the Faith and Belief forum.
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:50 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by John, posted 12-17-2002 4:45 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 239 (27061)
12-17-2002 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
See, we can say we don't have to follow the Law of Moses but then we have things like the Ten Commandments, which all Christian sects seem (Protestants especially) to follow and which seems to be a good guide in how Jews and Christians should act. So when we teach it to the kids we are kind of inconsistent. This is where I guess we "pick and choose".
Precisely the kind of thing I was thinking about.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:50 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by forgiven, posted 12-17-2002 9:03 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 239 (27063)
12-17-2002 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by funkmasterfreaky
12-17-2002 3:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Alot of the law as stated in Leviticus is also to a specific culture, and we don't find a place to apply it to our lives.
Funk, the Levitical laws created the culture. Saying it doesn't apply is the same as saying you abandonned them.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 3:01 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-17-2002 6:35 PM John has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 239 (27064)
12-17-2002 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:33 PM


Gene,
If the Bible doesn't support the idea of a pope, then you ought to be able to walk up to a Catholic and talk it over. If they are a Christian and there is a definite prohibition in the Bible: "thou shalt not have popes" then somebody needs to make a decision. The Amish can do as they please, although some would say they are shirking Christ's great command: "Go make disciples of all nations..." But that is not for me or anyone else but the Amish to decide.
I assume you are referring to the BOM, etc. The point is the Bible has to stand on its own anyway, Gene, because it has been around for a lot longer that the BOM. The OT stands on its own, the OT+NT stands on its own, and by that same token, the OT+NT+BOM should stand on its own if the BOM is legitimate.
Besides that there are a number of scriptural references within the Bible that are clear that the Bible stands on its own and that none of it has ever been or will ever be irrelevant --> "all scripture is...useful for teaching and exhortation" "not on jot nor tittle will pass from the Law..." etc.
Where a person gets into trouble is by throwing things out. If the Bible doesn't fit with what you believe the answer is not to start throwing things out. Much better to learn to understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:33 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 5:21 PM zipzip has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 176 of 239 (27068)
12-17-2002 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by zipzip
12-17-2002 5:02 PM


Ok, I merely misunderstood you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by zipzip, posted 12-17-2002 5:02 PM zipzip has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 239 (27079)
12-17-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by John
12-17-2002 4:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Alot of the law as stated in Leviticus is also to a specific culture, and we don't find a place to apply it to our lives.
Funk, the Levitical laws created the culture. Saying it doesn't apply is the same as saying you abandonned them.

So until the law there was no culture existing in the world? There were no common ways of doing things? There were no similarities in behaviour because of economic conditions, physical location, or other social influences?
------------------
Saved by an incredible Grace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by John, posted 12-17-2002 4:45 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 239 (27081)
12-17-2002 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by gene90
12-17-2002 2:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
But that at least some of the Israelite practices that do work are somehow not 'proof'? So basically, if it works it is not proof, but if it doesn't work it would be proof if it did?
Gene, you know damn well what I am getting at. Why do you insist on playing this game? Common knowledge practices with a known physical cause are not evidence. Something that should not work but DOES would be convincing.
quote:
No, I do not.
You cannot tell the difference between covering a wound and voodoo magic? LOL.....
quote:
Especially considering a culture that was ingnorant of the Germ Theory of disease.
You don't need the germ theory of disease to figure out what works and what doesn't. Of course you get a lot of magic mixed into the medecine.
quote:
You said that if some of the Israelite practices work it would be proof. Well here, some of them work.
This is absurd. The Sumerian, Babylonians, Egyptians and pretty much every one else had/have medical technology that works. Is this proof of all the various mythologies that go along with it? Nope. They figured stuff out themselves through trial and error.
quote:
Rejecting one because it works along a mechanism that is known today is irrelevant
Only for you.
quote:
because just as you assume that the Israelites learned about covering wounds through observation, if sticking pins in a voodoo doll did cure disease and they had voodoo dolls then they (by your reasoning) could (and therefore, according to your reasoing, would) have learned this not through revelation but through observation.
Ah.... but if those Isrealite voodoo dolls only work for the faithful (or when used by isrealite priest, or some other criterion that would tie the doll to a PARTICULAR GOD) and those same dolls did not work when not used by the faithful, then you'd have something.
quote:
I contend that your position on this matter is unfalsifiable.
Yes, but it isn't.
quote:
Added by edit: By the way, it is not my position that Israelite knowledge of sores or anything else is positive proof of God because I contend that they could have learned that by observation.
The reason I picked the dove slaughtering is because it is magic, and there is no mechanism that would explain it. In fact, it has a whole lot going against it.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:12 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 7:16 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 179 of 239 (27089)
12-17-2002 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by John
12-17-2002 6:53 PM


quote:
The Sumerian, Babylonians, Egyptians and pretty much every one else had/have medical technology that works. Is this proof of all the various mythologies that go along with it?
No. I am not trying to use "medical" practices to prove anything. I'm trying to demonstrate that the claim that the ancient Jews' treatment of sores came about through observation is unfalsifiable.
I'm trying to show that your beliefs based upon the apparent failure of dove-slaughtering are unfalsifiable. Even if dove sacrifice did cure disease you would explain it away as observation, just as you explain away the treatment of soars.
quote:
Ah.... but if those Isrealite voodoo dolls only work for the faithful
Then you would claim that the Isrealites noticed that certain priests could cure diseases and so the practice came about through observation rather than revelation.
And by the way, if this only happens by the work of the faithful, doesn't that sound rather like contemporary claims of miracle healings? And if only the faithful perform this, do you think repeatable, scientific evidence would be easy to come by? That is assuming God will perform for the test. It may or may not be impossible for you to prove, but very difficult at the least.
quote:
and there is no mechanism that would explain it.
For the sake of this argument a mechanism is unnecessary, we are simply assuming that covering sores helps and, hypothetically, that the voodoo dolls and dove sacrifice work.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by John, posted 12-17-2002 6:53 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:29 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 180 of 239 (27090)
12-17-2002 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by gene90
12-17-2002 7:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I'm trying to show that your beliefs based upon the apparent failure of dove-slaughtering are unfalsifiable. Even if dove sacrifice did cure disease you would explain it away as observation, just as you explain away the treatment of soars.
Gene, it is very very irritating when you tell me what I'd do.
And, seriously, how seriously do you expect to be taken when you refer to verifiable medical practice as if it were some kind of wish-fulfillment and ad hoc rationalization?
quote:
Then you would look for some aspect of the faithful in whatever mechanism you propose.
Here we go again telling me what I'd do.
Yes. I would look for some form of explaination before concluding that something odd was up. However, I was assuming that this had been done and that nothing short of outright magic fit the bill, even in theory. Then we ask, is it any magic or just Isrealite magic? We let athiests try it. We let Buddhists try it. And so on. You could build a convincing case, if the magic works.
quote:
For the sake of this argument a mechanism is unnecessary, we are simply assuming that covering sores helps and, hypothetically, that the voodoo dolls and dove sacrifice work.
It still matters that there is a mechanism or not, because those explainations with a mechanism can be eliminated, as I explained above.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 7:16 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 7:42 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3909 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 181 of 239 (27096)
12-17-2002 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by John
12-17-2002 7:29 PM


quote:
And, seriously, how seriously do you expect to be taken when you refer to verifiable medical practice as if it were some kind of wish-fulfillment and ad hoc rationalization?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm only claiming that your claim that soar treatment by the ancient Isrealites must have been from observation rather than revelation is a non-falsifiable position. If you would admit that it could have been from revelation (as I admit it could have been from observation) then I will be happy to drop the point.
quote:
Gene, it is very very irritating when you tell me what I'd do.
I'm simply extending your reasoning on the origin of the knowledge of soars to dove sacrifice.
quote:
We let athiests try it. We let Buddhists try it. And so on. You could build a convincing case, if the magic works.
As I said, you may or may not be able to prove that the rituals were valid. But the most you could ever prove was that Isrealite priests and rituals, along with a dove sacrifice, cured a disease. But how did the Israelites discover they could cure disease in that manner? Through observation or revelation? Maybe they just noticed that their priests had an ability that they (nor science in this hypothetical example) could explain. Or maybe God told them.
My only point is that the claim that their rituals were derived from observation is unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by John, posted 12-17-2002 7:29 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by John, posted 12-17-2002 8:10 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 239 (27099)
12-17-2002 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by gene90
12-17-2002 7:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
If you would admit that it could have been from revelation (as I admit it could have been from observation) then I will be happy to drop the point.
Pretty much anything COULD have happened. I'm talking about trying to determine what actually did happen.
quote:
I'm simply extending your reasoning on the origin of the knowledge of soars to dove sacrifice.
It isn't about the origin, per se. It is about whether something that shouldn't work, actually does work.
quote:
But how did the Israelites discover they could cure disease in that manner? Through observation or revelation? Maybe they just noticed that their priests had an ability that they (nor science in this hypothetical example) could explain. Or maybe God told them.
I don't care how they came to the knowledge, if it points to something genuinely inexplicable to which no other religion can lay claim.
quote:
My only point is that the claim that their rituals were derived from observation is unfalsifiable.
And, like I said, I really don't care.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 7:42 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by gene90, posted 01-01-2003 6:59 PM John has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024