The Controversial Discussions Thread (Was "The Prejudice Discussion Thread" (Was "The Human Sexuality Discussion Thread" (Was "The Homosexuality Discussion Thread"))) — Page 24

I don't understand why God would either expect something or not expect something regardless of a person or group's situation. If a person got lost in the arctic with some buddies and they all died, if he had no other food, he could either choose to eat them or die. In normal circumstances, cannibalism is not generally acceptable. The God you're describing would expect the man to choose starvation and death before eating his friends. The God I worship would expect the man to do his best to survive and this might include eating their dead bodies to stay alive and gain a better chance of surviving in the end.

Now you are comparing homosexuality with cannibalism.

Is there no depth you cannot dig this hole to?

Either the Old Testament is written by men and a fallible bronze aged, desert dwellers reflection on what seemed to make sense to them at the time or it's the timeless word of an insane murderous deity to whom we are but toys to squash for his pleasure.

The latter is not a deity I can bring myself to admire.

It is a Golem, a Devil if you will.

Why anyone would draw spiritual inspiration from such a character is as much a mystery to me as Nazism.

If it's a fallible human account it should not be evoked in any discourse other than comparative mythology (this is what those people thought then).The same is true of the latter books of the New Testament, written as they were by men raised in the tradition of the earlier text (or by God's own hand).

Does the Christ that goes out of his way to point out that the Sabbath is made for man even mention Homosexuality? Yet conflicted early Christians, cunning enough to detect how male fear of genital mutilation might cause problems for their new spiritual direction still clung to the Talmudic prejudices against homosexuality and women.

They are poor primary sources (if indeed they can be described even remotely as such) for any form of opinion let alone political discussion (like the shrimp).

Bingowings said:

Now you are comparing homosexuality with cannibalism.

In the example I gave, there would be nothing wrong with cannibalism at all except in the case of the existence of a God such as the one you described in the post prior to mine.

Is there no depth you cannot dig this hole to?

The example I gave would, if it were at all related to how I view homosexuality, give a more positive view than my previously stated one, not a more negative one.

Either the Old Testament is written by men and a fallible bronze aged, desert dwellers reflection on what seemed to make sense to them at the time or it's the timeless word of an insane murderous deity to whom we are but toys to squash for his pleasure.

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other, Bingo, because it's neither.

The latter is not a deity I can bring myself to admire.

It is a Golem, a Devil if you will.

Why anyone would draw spiritual inspiration from such a character is as much a mystery to me as Nazism.

I agree with that entirely.

If it's a fallible human account it should not be evoked in discourse other than comparative mythology.This same is true of the latter books of the New Testament, written as they were by men raised in the tradition of the earlier text (or by God's own hand).

If it were a fallible human account I would agree with this also.

Either way they are poor primary sources (if indeed they can be described even remotely as such) for any form of opinion let alone political discussion (like the shrimp).

 Agreed, but since neither way is true, your post is irrelevant to my points.

So did He require men to be stoned to death or not?

Yes, but only members of that theocracy. I think that the stoning might have been to make up for the sin so that the person wouldn't end up in hell, but of course that's just an opinion.

RicOlie_2 said:

Yes, but only members of that theocracy. I think that the stoning might have been to make up for the sin so that the person wouldn't end up in hell, but of course that's just an opinion.

Yes is still yes.

Still yes, but if it was an alternate punishment to hell, it was a loving alternative. Maybe it doesn't seem that way, but I'd take finite punishment over infinite punishment any day.

So...hang on... you are saying that this a medicinal painful execution...applied to a 'sickness of error' as a means to avoid an eternity in a realm (which doesn't actually exist in Jewish mythology) but was created by the same diety?

The Jews of Levitican times believed all people (good or bad with a few exemptions like Enoch) ended up in Sheol. Which wasn't a place of punishment until it was translated into Greek and became associated with Hades or translated into medieval Nordic/Germanic languages and became associated with Hel.

The stoning for them was a form of living burial (the dead were buried under a pile of stones) not a cure or a mercy, just a disposal.

Catholics of a few centuries back thought burning people accused of witchcraft after confessing (usually after torture) spared them from Hellfire. Your view is more akin to that evil nonsense than the evil earlier nonsense.

Either way the God you are describing is one hell of a mixed up character.

He makes man with free will, orders him not to do something, then punishes the species with painful death followed by eternal torment if you don't say sorry and agree it was a fair punishment.

To paraphrase Flash Gordon, this God is a psycho or maybe it's just his followers?

The Old Testament promotes child slavery. Presumably you don't think this is a godly thing anymore but when we look back at bad things like slavery we don't say it was good then but now it's bad.

We say it was bad then but most people didn't know better.

You seem to be saying stoning people to death was good then but now loving people and hoping they will stop being gay with each other is a better way.

Bingowings said:

So...hang on... you are saying that this a medicinal painful execution...applied to a sickness as a means to avoid an eternity in a realm (which doesn't actually exist in Jewish mythology) but was created by the same diety?

Sort of, but it depends on whether or not I understand what you're asking.

The Jews of Levitican times believed all people (good or bad with a few exemptions like Enoch) ended up in Sheol. Which wasn't a place of punishment until it was translated into Greek and became associated with Hades or translated into medieval Nordic/Germanic languages and became associated with Hel.

No, the Jews didn't/don't believe in hell, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The stoning for them was a form of living burial (the dead were buried under a pile of stones) not a cure or a mercy, just a disposal.

Catholics of a few centuries back thought burning people accused of witchcraft after confessing (usually after torture) spared them from Hellfire. Your view is more akin to that evil nonsense than the evil earlier nonsense.

Executions have no purpose anymore since Jesus' crucifixion and the introduction of Reconciliation/Confession.

Either way the God you are describing is one hell of a mixed up character.

He makes man with free will, orders him not to do something, then punishes the species with painful death followed by eternal torment if you don't say sorry and agree it was a fair punishment.

Maybe, but more likely those people would go to purgatory. AFAIK, it is not Church doctrine that hell is a place of eternal torment, though that is the traditional view. Hell is an absence of God, which could add up to torture, but since no one has ever experienced God's absence if God is real, we can't say how bad that is.

To paraphrase Flash Gordon, this God is a psycho or maybe it's just his followers?

 Sure seems that way at first glance. I don't think the Bible portrays him as such though, and it is important to read the Biblical stories in context, not from a modern view of the world.

That wasn't in a theocracy, and it wasn't fine for Hitler to make a decision like that. It is contrary to the Christological law which superceded the Mosaic law.

The point you seem desperate to avoid is that you are saying God was an advocate of a bloody stony execution (so it was above okay it was a holy duty to perform the act). Man laying with man as woman bad, man throwing stones at man until dead HOLY.

We can give this God fellow the thumbs up for changing his mind on this but should we take him as an authority after such a hiccup?

Should we keep quoting the bit where his laws say its really bad for two consenting adult men to rub each other in the genital area now that the stoning to death bit has been excised by the redeemer being nailed to a cross by the gentiles?

If the Bible is the inspired word of God it wouldn't need to be seen through the lens of the past.

It should be timeless.

It should always make plain sense or adapt to the times through re-reading it through the times.

No matter how you re-read it, demanding the foreskins of a thousand gentiles is pretty heavy stuff for the God incarnate in the mild mannered Carpenter from Nazareth.

Or Daleks.

^LOL, that's the first thing I heard when I turned on the radio yesterday evening. :)

All the discussions about God in this thread are just serving to reinforce my view that if Christianity is to survive and prosper, it has to ditch inerrancy.

      Transvestite lapdancers have suffered discrimination and intolerance for too long. OTOH, enlightened appellate court justices have proven their infinite moral superiority and right to rule by decreeing homosexual "marriage" HARD down the throats of the evil backwards peasants. >:-) 

      If we are ever to achieve true equality and justice, it's clear what must be done:

      We must elevate the dignity and status of tranny lapdancers by appointing them to be justices on appellate courts and seating them next to those justices who have given us "equality" in marriage. Justice and tranny would each be given half a vote. Of course, every measure must be taken to ensure that the trannies are percieved as equal members. Instead of black robes they would wear string bikinis and hot pink lipstick under their moustaches. every ten minutes of a session there would be two minutes of shimmy dancing on the lap of the enlightened justice while that justice gives a speech about the glories of all-inclusiveness and why the court has suffered NO loss of necessary dignity or prestige.

      If we all unite to raise our consciences and carry through this social reform, we will put a soon end to this intolerable unfairness.

Bingowings said:

I not even sure if thejediknighthusezni is a genuine forum user or not.

He is so extreme it's tempting to see him as a Swiftian Pastiche of a forum user.

^fixed.

Ryan McAvoy said:

thejediknighthusezni said:

      Transvestite lapdancers have suffered discrimination and intolerance for too long. OTOH, enlightened appellate court justices have proven their infinite moral superiority and right to rule by decreeing homosexual "marriage" HARD down the throats of the evil backwards peasants. >:-) 

      If we are ever to achieve true equality and justice, it's clear what must be done:

      We must elevate the dignity and status of tranny lapdancers by appointing them to be justices on appellate courts and seating them next to those justices who have given us "equality" in marriage. Justice and tranny would each be given half a vote. Of course, every measure must be taken to ensure that the trannies are percieved as equal members. Instead of black robes they would wear string bikinis and hot pink lipstick under their moustaches. every ten minutes of a session there would be two minutes of shimmy dancing on the lap of the enlightened justice while that justice gives a speech about the glories of all-inclusiveness and why the court has suffered NO loss of necessary dignity or prestige.

      If we all unite to raise our consciences and carry through this social reform, we will put a soon end to this intolerable unfairness.

TV's Frink said:

 Go away.

 seriously,  can someone just ban this troll(thejediknightusezni) already?

Don't write that about Frink! If he gets banned, how will he ever reach 30,000 posts? He isn't always a troll and I agree with him that thejediwithawaytoolongusername should go away!

;)

*sigh*

Hey, you're not allowed to edit your post without pointing it out, otherwise you make me look silly!