-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I appreciate you at least taking a good look at it before coming to a decision. I think phinehas' basic argument is on that there is no reason to believe that they had any sort of sexual relationship, because there is nothing that points towards it. There is also a lack of correlating evidence elsewhere in scripture that could preclude that a relationship of their depth involved sexual intimacy. David had several wives throughout his life, and to assume he was anything other than heterosexual without any real evidence is a falsehood. Do I know for certain that david never had a gay relationship? Nope, I wasn't there. But from what I've read about him in the bible, I can safely conclude that he did not, based on the information I was given.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Yeah, this is me getting narky. To whoever reported my previous, abridged list of Biblical contradictions, here is my complete list, compiled by me. All quotes sourced from the NIV via Biblegateway.com List maintained as word document on offline PC. No infringement of copyright though, because the Bible is public domain, if you hadn't heard.
ETA The entire doc doesn't fit in a post box, so have the first 70.
ETA The entire doc doesn't fit in a post box, so have the first 70.
Upvote
0
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
don't you think your compilation of biblical disbelief deserves its own thread, since it has absolutely nothing to do with this one, other than that it may be the basis of why you disagree with the mainstream?
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Like I said in my introduction, this is me getting narky.
Of course it deserves its own thread, however, since other people hgave claimed there AREN'T any Biblical contradictions in THIS thread, I am attempting to correct them, at the same time as protesting against the people who think reporting such a list as a suspected CF infraction, somehow negates the list or makes it go away.
Of course it deserves its own thread, however, since other people hgave claimed there AREN'T any Biblical contradictions in THIS thread, I am attempting to correct them, at the same time as protesting against the people who think reporting such a list as a suspected CF infraction, somehow negates the list or makes it go away.
Upvote
0
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
p.s. just briefly looking over that list, one example such as this
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in
the same
John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
shows your lack of biblical understanding. If you would seriously like to do a bible study I'd be more than willing to do one with you.
43. No work to be done on the Sabbath under penalty of death
Ex 31:15/ Num 15:32,36
Jesus Christ broke the Sabbath and justified his disciples in
the same
John 5:16/ Matt 12:1-3,5
shows your lack of biblical understanding. If you would seriously like to do a bible study I'd be more than willing to do one with you.
Upvote
0
David Brider
Well-Known Member
- Aug 18, 2004
- 6,513
- 700
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Greens
Most people I know would use the term homosexuality to refer to the orientation.
David.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
Mate... I understand how Christ came to change the law, and all that sort of stuff, I understanmd how these verses cn be considered valid in context and so on... the point of the list, however, is to show that if you insist that the Bible is:
Inerrant,
Unchangeable
Universally relevant
and to be taken literally
You can't do it.
Sure, you can come up with an explanation for any of these, about what they REALLY mean... however, my entire point is to highlight the hypocracy of people who say
"Leviticus and Romans say what they say, and it is wrong to try to interpret their menaings differently in anyway" but who then will go on to explain away any other Biblical contradictions. You can't have it both ways.
Upvote
0
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Christ did not come to change the law, if you still want to study sometime let me know.
Upvote
0
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
They must be taken in context, right? Some of your comparisons are taking the context away and just making unfounded contradictions. Like God said the sky is blue and then later on He said the sky is red.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Dear OllieFranz,
Of course I believe that, why dont you?
But
I fully agree with exactly what Jet_A_Jockey has said
there is no reason to believe that they had any sort of sexual relationship, because there is nothing that points towards it. There is also a lack of correlating evidence elsewhere in scripture that could preclude that a relationship of their depth involved sexual intimacy. David had several wives throughout his life, and to assume he was anything other than heterosexual without any real evidence is a falsehood. Do I know for certain that david never had a gay relationship? Nope, I wasn't there. But from what I've read about him in the bible, I can safely conclude that he did not, based on the information I was given.
So we are left with nothing to examine that countenances same-sex sex.
Once again that is not the purpose of this thread, that is merely showing you the evidence that same-sex sex is a sin. Considering all I would have to say that you dont believe it. If a man lying with another man instead of a woman is detestable, and men committing indecent lustful acts with other men instead of women is error, and men wanting sex with men is wicked, I would say you simply dont believe the Biblical evidence.
Of course I believe that, why dont you?
But
No you are refusing as yours is an assumption, mine is based on the evidence that nothing is mention and such as things was recognised by the OT law and Jewish society as detestable to God. I have the evidence, you dont, all you have is an assumption I believe is shown to be faulty and you are merely asking me to ignore the evidence and accept your assumption. That would be to also ignore Gods revelation to us.
I fully agree with exactly what Jet_A_Jockey has said
there is no reason to believe that they had any sort of sexual relationship, because there is nothing that points towards it. There is also a lack of correlating evidence elsewhere in scripture that could preclude that a relationship of their depth involved sexual intimacy. David had several wives throughout his life, and to assume he was anything other than heterosexual without any real evidence is a falsehood. Do I know for certain that david never had a gay relationship? Nope, I wasn't there. But from what I've read about him in the bible, I can safely conclude that he did not, based on the information I was given.
Let me stop you there. My view is based on the evidence I have presented so it isnt prejudged, your assumption is baseless so if anyone has pre-judged it is you.
Ok thanks. So at least you cant offer this story as an example of homosexual practice because you cant be sure either way.
So we are left with nothing to examine that countenances same-sex sex.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Dear EnemyPartyII
The long list of Bible contradictions you have cited as complied by you is certainly a testament to you unbelief. Firstly, let me say I and others here recognise some apparent contradictions in the Bible, and are prepared to discuss them, we dont however compile lists of them to prove our disbelief to others.
Now, just the very first two I scanned I find completely invalid.
3. God dwells in light Tim 6:16, God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2.
If God spoke light into darkness (Genesis 1) why do you think God cant dwell in either? I have to inform you that dark and light are also used in the spiritual sense.
108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
Your assessment doesnt make sense. Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God whilst Jesus in His earthly ministry, when glorifed resurrected and ascended He is fully God. John 10:30 says Jesus and the Father are in one essence, Phil 2 says He was in very nature God, but made himself nothing as man. This should also explain John 14:28 where the Father is greater until Jesus is glorified and Matthew 24:36. There is no contradiction to me here.
Furthermore John 10:30 of one essence with the Father, is part of the Nicene Creed, yet you seem to be seeing it as a contradiction?
The long list of Bible contradictions you have cited as complied by you is certainly a testament to you unbelief. Firstly, let me say I and others here recognise some apparent contradictions in the Bible, and are prepared to discuss them, we dont however compile lists of them to prove our disbelief to others.
Now, just the very first two I scanned I find completely invalid.
3. God dwells in light Tim 6:16, God dwells in darkness 1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2.
If God spoke light into darkness (Genesis 1) why do you think God cant dwell in either? I have to inform you that dark and light are also used in the spiritual sense.
108. Christ is equal with God
John 10:30/ Phil 2:5
Christ is not equal with God
John 14:28/ Matt 24:36
Your assessment doesnt make sense. Jesus Christ was fully man and fully God whilst Jesus in His earthly ministry, when glorifed resurrected and ascended He is fully God. John 10:30 says Jesus and the Father are in one essence, Phil 2 says He was in very nature God, but made himself nothing as man. This should also explain John 14:28 where the Father is greater until Jesus is glorified and Matthew 24:36. There is no contradiction to me here.
Furthermore John 10:30 of one essence with the Father, is part of the Nicene Creed, yet you seem to be seeing it as a contradiction?
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of context, I believe I've taken that into consideration when identifying contradictions.
Upvote
0
EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
This is my point... they all have perfectly valid EXPLANATIONS... but the fact that they REQUIRE explanations means that they can't all be taken LITERALLY at the same time... and further, that since you are prepared to use explanations about the verses you find inconvenient when taken literally, you should stop condemning other people for doing exactly the same thing, just with verses you like
Upvote
0
k2svpete
Senior Member
hahaha, yes we had covered that we were not beholden to the law in that those under grace are no longer subject to it. That doesn't absolve us from turning from sin though, that's the point I'm making.
We are charged to love God with all our being and one another as ourselves. Deliberately continuing in anything that is not consistent with God's holiness is when problems arise.
Upvote
0
- Mar 9, 2006
- 11,279
- 1,082
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
How so? I noticed several of your contradictions that are easily understood as just contextual. Some of your points are valid, but since you have all the other ones muttled in there with them, the ones that are not substantiated at all, it just muddies the whole thing up. I suggest if you are attempting to make points with a list like this, to summarize it to a short list of the most contradictory statements, rather than some ridiculously long list that many will not even go over.
Upvote
0
k2svpete
Senior Member
Taking verses out of context and using in isolation is the source of so much error in Christendom.
In order to understand the bible, passages must be read in context and furthermore an understanding of the concepts, history etc. already established is required to to understand the context!
It'd be like reading one part of a chapter of a book and writing a synopsis based on that excerpt. Chances are it's be very wrong.
EP2, if you really would like to go through those I'd be happy to go through them. If its of any help I'm in Melbourne.
In order to understand the bible, passages must be read in context and furthermore an understanding of the concepts, history etc. already established is required to to understand the context!
It'd be like reading one part of a chapter of a book and writing a synopsis based on that excerpt. Chances are it's be very wrong.
EP2, if you really would like to go through those I'd be happy to go through them. If its of any help I'm in Melbourne.
Upvote
0
P
Phinehas2
Guest
Dear EnemyPartyII,
Maybe it would help if I say yes we have taken the Biblical passages we give as evidence for same-sex error, to mean what they say. You have taken them not to mean what they say. It is that which I call a pretext for disbelief.
then they aren’t contradictions. Yet you have complied them as supposed contradictions. We reject your approach as based on a false assumption.
But who is suggesting that all Bible verse are taken to literally mean what they literally say all the time? All we have been saying to you is one must take what the Bible literally says in order to subsequently interpret what it means, but what you and others have been doing is refusing to take the passages on account of them being an interpretation.
Maybe it would help if I say yes we have taken the Biblical passages we give as evidence for same-sex error, to mean what they say. You have taken them not to mean what they say. It is that which I call a pretext for disbelief.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
