Redefining God's Word

[Phinehas2]

Dear Ohioprof,

I wasn't actually quoting you on your scriptures. I was responding to what you said at the end.

You quoted my whole post and it was my whole post that I was putting forward as evidence in the discussion with Mr Pirate. It was you not addressing it that I was complaining about.

I didn't read, and I don't read, your quotations from the Bible. I just skip over them.

well then you shouldnt have got involved in the discussion becaue my post was in reply to Mr Pirate saying I had not provided what I had provided, now you ignore it too.

 

[Ohioprof]

Dear Ohioprof,
You quoted my whole post and it was my whole post that I was putting forward as evidence in the discussion with Mr Pirate. It was you not addressing it that I was complaining about.
well then you shouldnt have got involved in the discussion becaue my post was in reply to Mr Pirate saying I had not provided what I had provided, now you ignore it too.

I was not arguing with Mr. Pirate. I reprinted your whole post only because that I what I do with every post to which I am responding. I simply his "quick quote," and the whole post reappears. I was not responding to your Bible quotes, nor did I read them. I was responding to a point that you made in your post.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Some other Christians, like me, do not believe the Bible is the word of God at all.

This is a redundant statement. How does one become a Christian and not know the Bible?

 

[Phinehas2]

Hi Jet_a_jockey

How does one become a Christian and not know the Bible?

This is the problem with the forum rules. If someone claims they are a No47 bus anyone can say they arent. In fact people can dispute what another claim in everything except their claim to being a Christian. So what are the icons for? Does my Anglican icon mean I am an Anglican or am I really a Muslim?
Its absolutely absurd. But I would point out that the only issue seems to be around people calling themsleves Christian, it is as thoough those who know they dont fit the definition of Christianity have requested this rule so their ideas of Christianity can get accepted because they know their beliefs will be exposed as not Christian.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Good point. Honestly I think it just defeats the purpose of having a Christian theology section. If the people involved in a debate are not using the same baseline for the discussion, then its a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

Heres an example:

user1: I believe that God blesses people who wear straw hats while breakdancing.

user2: How do you come to that conclusion?

user1: because it doesn't hurt anyone, and this type of dance is His favorite.

user2: where in the bible does it say that?

user1: Oh, I don't believe in the bible. I am Christian though, but I don't believe in the message of the gospel, or most of anything else, including the commandments (except that Love one).

user2: ?????????


So, its obviously impossible to debate a point with someone that has such a different core belief than yourself. The only thing it ends up doing it seems is it shifts the conversation over to the core beliefs. Debates of those type should be held in a totally different subforum of course.

The hard part is that as a Christian I am compelled to take a stand for Christ, as false doctrines can be compared to wolves among the sheep.

 

[Ohioprof]

This is a redundant statement. How does one become a Christian and not know the Bible?

I know the Bible pretty well, though I am not a Bible scholar. I simply reject the assertion that it is the word of God.

 

[Ohioprof]

Good point. Honestly I think it just defeats the purpose of having a Christian theology section. If the people involved in a debate are not using the same baseline for the discussion, then its a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

Heres an example:

user1: I believe that God blesses people who wear straw hats while breakdancing.

user2: How do you come to that conclusion?

user1: because it doesn't hurt anyone, and this type of dance is His favorite.

user2: where in the bible does it say that?

user1: Oh, I don't believe in the bible. I am Christian though, but I don't believe in the message of the gospel, or most of anything else, including the commandments (except that Love one).

user2: ?????????


So, its obviously impossible to debate a point with someone that has such a different core belief than yourself. The only thing it ends up doing it seems is it shifts the conversation over to the core beliefs. Debates of those type should be held in a totally different subforum of course.

The hard part is that as a Christian I am compelled to take a stand for Christ, as false doctrines can be compared to wolves among the sheep.

I take a stand for Jesus also. I just don't believe the same things about Jesus that you do. Christians have disagreed about issues like this since Christianity began.

Are you suggesting the forums throw out the "heretics?"

 

[Ohioprof]

Hi Jet_a_jockey

This is the problem with the forum rules. If someone claims they are a No47 bus anyone can say they arent. In fact people can dispute what another claim in everything except their claim to being a Christian. So what are the icons for? Does my Anglican icon mean I am an Anglican or am I really a Muslim?
Its absolutely absurd. But I would point out that the only issue seems to be around people calling themsleves Christian, it is as thoough those who know they dont fit the definition of Christianity have requested this rule so their ideas of Christianity can get accepted because they know their beliefs will be exposed as not Christian.

And YOU are the decider, to borrow a term from W, about what is Christian and what isn't? YOU get to decide who should be thrown out of the forum for holding different beliefs from yours? You with your dictionary in one hand and your Bible in the other?

 

[Ohioprof]

This is a redundant statement. How does one become a Christian and not know the Bible?

I don't think you mean to say "redundant" here. I think you mean to say that I am being contradictory. In your view, as I understand it, an anti-Biblical Christian is an oxymoron. However, it's not an oxymoron, a contradiction, to me. Some people also think gay Christian is an oxymoron, and I don't agree with that either.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I take a stand for Jesus also. I just don't believe the same things about Jesus that you do. Christians have disagreed about issues like this since Christianity began.

Are you suggesting the forums throw out the "heretics?"

I never suggested that at all. Just that the debate forum should have some guidelines if its to be considered a Christian Theology subforum. How could anyone possibly debate what God says without the bible as a reference?.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I don't think you mean to say "redundant" here. I think you mean to say that I am being contradictory. In your view, as I understand it, an anti-Biblical Christian is an oxymoron. However, it's not an oxymoron, a contradiction, to me. Some people also think gay Christian is an oxymoron, and I don't agree with that either.

you are correct , thanks for pointing that out. and yes anti-biblical Christian is an oxymoron, as without the bible we would perhaps know of God but know nothing about Him. Without the bible we would not know the teachings of Jesus, and most importantly His sacrifice to mankind.

That is, unless you can find them in some other book.

 

[Ohioprof]

Good point. Honestly I think it just defeats the purpose of having a Christian theology section. If the people involved in a debate are not using the same baseline for the discussion, then its a complete waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

Heres an example:

user1: I believe that God blesses people who wear straw hats while breakdancing.

user2: How do you come to that conclusion?

user1: because it doesn't hurt anyone, and this type of dance is His favorite.

user2: where in the bible does it say that?

user1: Oh, I don't believe in the bible. I am Christian though, but I don't believe in the message of the gospel, or most of anything else, including the commandments (except that Love one).

user2: ?????????


So, its obviously impossible to debate a point with someone that has such a different core belief than yourself. The only thing it ends up doing it seems is it shifts the conversation over to the core beliefs. Debates of those type should be held in a totally different subforum of course.

The hard part is that as a Christian I am compelled to take a stand for Christ, as false doctrines can be compared to wolves among the sheep.

Perhaps what you call "false doctrines" are simply different views. Perhaps we are not wolves at all, but simply different kinds of sheep.

I think you are mistaking diversity of viewpoints and opinions for something bad. I think that the expression of different viewpoints is good. It helps us to stretch our thinking and to grow. It shatters rigid orthodoxy. It undermines conformity of thinking. It promotes freedom of thought and free expression of different ideas. I think that's good.

Wouldn't you rather hear the whole wide range of Christian viewpoints in a debate forum instead of just hearing people echo what you already believe?

Of course you can always choose not to debate me if you think that my assumptions are so different from yours that they make debate impossible.

 

[Ohioprof]

you are correct , thanks for pointing that out. and yes anti-biblical Christian is an oxymoron, as without the bible we would perhaps know of God but know nothing about Him. Without the bible we would not know the teachings of Jesus, and most importantly His sacrifice to mankind.

That is, unless you can find them in some other book.

You don't need a book to know God, my friend. God's creation is all around us. Don't get me wrong, I love books. But I love many books, not just one, and I do not believe that one book contains the "truth" or God's word. They are just the words of human beings, collected and compiled by human beings. I do not believe the words in the Bible were inspired by God.

 

[Ohioprof]

I never suggested that at all. Just that the debate forum should have some guidelines if its to be considered a Christian Theology subforum. How could anyone possibly debate what God says without the bible as a reference?.

The forum does not require that we debate "what God says." That's your interpretation of what people ought to be debating, but it's not necessarily what people are debating, nor is it what we have to debate.

I am in this particular set of forums to debate how Christians should and should not behave toward gay people.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

you've made that frightfully clear, no need to reiterate your position on it.

And yes you can know of God through experiences in life, but is that truly enough? But back to my main point, how exactly do you defend your stance that homosexuality is not a sin, if you have no type of documentation other than your gut feeling?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

The forum does not require that we debate "what God says." That's your interpretation of what people ought to be debating, but it's not necessarily what people are debating, nor is it what we have to debate.

well thats your interpretation of my statement of my interpretation of what people ought to be debating. Theres nothing wrong with me saying that I think for a more progressive debate there should be some guidelines to it.

I am in this particular set of forums to debate how Christians should and should not behave toward gay people.

And how does that apply exactly to your statement that homosexuality is not a sin?

 

[Ohioprof]

you've made that frightfully clear, no need to reiterate your position on it.

And yes you can know of God through experiences in life, but is that truly enough? But back to my main point, how exactly do you defend your stance that homosexuality is not a sin, if you have no type of documentation other than your gut feeling?

You are saying that we need documentation to prove that something is NOT a sin? Why should we assume that loving same-sex relationships are a sin? It's on the shoulders of the people who think that something is a sin to demonstrate why it is. The only argument that anti-gay Christians appear to have is their interpretation of a few passages in the Bible. Otherwise, there is nothing in nature to suggest that being gay is a sin or that loving a same-sex partner is a sin or that marrying a same-sex partner is a sin.

Look at the rest of what we commonly label sins. Murder, theft, adultery. All of these do harm to others or to ourselves. Loving a same-sex partner does no harm to anyone. It enhances life for gay people and brings gay people closer to God by enabling us to love a spouse.
If same-sex marriage were legalized everywhere, and if people simply accepted gay people as we are, there would be no harm done to anyone, and there would be a lot of happiness for the people who could marry and for their families.

 

[Ohioprof]

well thats your interpretation of my statement of my interpretation of what people ought to be debating. Theres nothing wrong with me saying that I think for a more progressive debate there should be some guidelines to it.


And how does that apply exactly to your statement that homosexuality is not a sin?

There are guidelines for debate, such as not flaming other people. This forum is also specifically for Christians, but the forum rules no longer say that you have to believe in the Nicene Creed to be considered a Christian in the forums. The forums have guidelines, but they do not dictate a creed to which people must subscribe in order to debate here.

As I said earlier, if you find debating me impossible or frustrating because we don't begin with the same assumptions, you can always ignore my posts and debate other people. My being here is not preventing you from doing that.

On why it's important to say that homosexuality is not a sin: there are people, unfortunately, who think that because they believe homosexuality is a sin, they are justified in pointing fingers at gay people, in throwing stones at gay people, in physically attacking gay people, in persecuting gay people. They do this in the name of Jesus. Most of the people in these forums would not, I hope, resort to physical attacks or persecution of gay people. But I do see plenty of people in here pointing fingers and throwing verbal stones at gay people, and I am speaking out as a gay person against this. I think that people need to hear the voices of gay people, so they realize that they are pointing fingers at actual living, feeling people. For us, this is not just theoretical or philosophical. The fact that some Christians insist that our love relationships are "sinful" results in people doing direct harm to us. It also results in discriminatory laws being passed to prevent us from living openly, with full rights and protections for our families.

I know that the intention of most of the people posting here is not to harm gay people. But claiming that our love is "sinful" often results in harm to us, sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

You are saying that we need documentation to prove that something is NOT a sin? Why should we assume that loving same-sex relationships are a sin? It's on the shoulders of the people who think that something is a sin to demonstrate why it is. The only argument that anti-gay Christians appear to have is their interpretation of a few passages in the Bible. Otherwise, there is nothing in nature to suggest that being gay is a sin or that loving a same-sex partner is a sin or that marrying a same-sex partner is a sin.

It's a common acceptance by the great majority of the church that it is indeed sinful, regardless of whether its right or not. From my own understanding of the biblical passages in regard to homosexual actions, they are always grouped with negativity. And not once did I find something along the lines of 'Tell the men to come out so we can know them, and possibly have a committed loving same sex relationship in the future.'
But since the disagreement with current doctrine of the majority is coming from liberals or whoever, the burden of proof is on them to prove it incorrect.

There's nothing in nature that suggests that anything is a sin. Sin is determined by God, not nature, unless you worship nature as a god I guess.

Look at the rest of what we commonly label sins. Murder, theft, adultery. All of these do harm to others or to ourselves. Loving a same-sex partner does no harm to anyone. It enhances life for gay people and brings gay people closer to God by enabling us to love a spouse.

Once again, we have differences in our purpose. I believe that God put us here to please Him, therefore my own wants and wishes should come second. This is not to imply that they always do, because I fall into sin just like anyone else.

If same-sex marriage were legalized everywhere, and if people simply accepted gay people as we are, there would be no harm done to anyone, and there would be a lot of happiness for the people who could marry and for their families.

I have no qualms with gay marriage, and think it would be kinda cool for my single guy friends to marry each other for the awesome tax breaks that marriage entitles.

 

[Ohioprof]

It's a common acceptance by the great majority of the church that it is indeed sinful, regardless of whether its right or not. From my own understanding of the biblical passages in regard to homosexual actions, they are always grouped with negativity. And not once did I find something along the lines of 'Tell the men to come out so we can know them, and possibly have a committed loving same sex relationship in the future.'
But since the disagreement with current doctrine of the majority is coming from liberals or whoever, the burden of proof is on them to prove it incorrect.

There's nothing in nature that suggests that anything is a sin. Sin is determined by God, not nature, unless you worship nature as a god I guess.

Once again, we have differences in our purpose. I believe that God put us here to please Him, therefore my own wants and wishes should come second. This is not to imply that they always do, because I fall into sin just like anyone else.
I have no qualms with gay marriage, and think it would be kinda cool for my single guy friends to marry each other for the awesome tax breaks that marriage entitles.

You have an interesting position on same-sex marriage. But getting married does not really give you tax breaks that I can see. Having a child does, but you don't have to marry to have a child. I have a child, and I am not married. If you read through the instructions for Form 1040, you'll see that married people pay about the same tax as single people.

The biggest tax break that I received was the adoption tax credit, which was over $10,000. That was a credit, not a deduction. Of course, the adoption cost me far more than that.

Anyway, I should get back on our topic.