Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problem & Solution of Homosexuality Bible

LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:13:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

Saying Christ was God was blasphemy in so many ways. To the Jew, given God an image was not only making God into a finite creation but also making God common. Secondly, given God a name was making one superior to God. The naming of the animals, by Adam, indicated Adam was superior to them. Thirdly, to stand people face to face with God means humans can relate to God, putting humans on the same level with God. In the story of Moses' ascending the Mount, Moses is not allowed to see the face of God. In fact, in the Jewish bible, Moses is hid in the cleft of the mountain and covered with the hand of God. Later, God was hidden away in an inner room of the Jewish temple, behind a very thick and large veil. Christians can say all of that changed with the crucifixion of Christ but only for the Christian. The Jewish concept of God remains the same. Christians may claim to worship a god, yet not the Jewish god.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this man.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 9:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

None of God's people obey His commandments except His saints who God's unbelieving people kill for our testimonies of the Word of God.

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your gournd, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on accound of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land wich you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

All the flesh of God's people are being destroyed because of their disobedience to God's Voice and Commandments.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:10:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

Only us saints and prophets were created as God's Voice to speak for Him. Everyone else who believes they speak for Him are antichrists and false prophets. These are disobedient people of God's who steal the words written and spoken by us saints and prophets and use them for their own selfish purpose to control others and make a living off of them.
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:32:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

you'r right they think he claimed to be a God but jesus replied -
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, "I have said you are "gods""[d]? 35 If he called them "gods," to whom the word of God came"and Scripture cannot be set aside" 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, "I am God"s Son"?

Prophets are called "gods" its a metaphorical language... jesus is only "son of God" meaning sevrent of God thats all...
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.

The only reason people use the Christian bible when speaking about Jesus is because without it, we would never know he existed, if, indeed, he did. There's absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, and that includes the Christian bible; because, it's not a contemporary record. It's books were written many decades, after his death and compiled a few centuries later. Please, tell me something about the historical Jesus, without using the Christian bible.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.

The only reason people use the Christian bible when speaking about Jesus is because without it, we would never know he existed, if, indeed, he did. There's absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, and that includes the Christian bible; because, it's not a contemporary record. It's books were written many decades, after his death and compiled a few centuries later. Please, tell me something about the historical Jesus, without using the Christian bible.

I've never studied the matter in any detail, but I do know that the vast majority of trained historians, using the tools and methods of their careers, accept that Jesus was a real person. If you are going to trust physicists to know physics, biologists to know biology, etc., then why would you speak-out against the professional claims of historians, unless you were somehow personally invested in attacking the historicity of Jesus?
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.

The only reason people use the Christian bible when speaking about Jesus is because without it, we would never know he existed, if, indeed, he did. There's absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, and that includes the Christian bible; because, it's not a contemporary record. It's books were written many decades, after his death and compiled a few centuries later. Please, tell me something about the historical Jesus, without using the Christian bible.

I've never studied the matter in any detail, but I do know that the vast majority of trained historians, using the tools and methods of their careers, accept that Jesus was a real person. If you are going to trust physicists to know physics, biologists to know biology, etc., then why would you speak-out against the professional claims of historians, unless you were somehow personally invested in attacking the historicity of Jesus?

Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.

The only reason people use the Christian bible when speaking about Jesus is because without it, we would never know he existed, if, indeed, he did. There's absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, and that includes the Christian bible; because, it's not a contemporary record. It's books were written many decades, after his death and compiled a few centuries later. Please, tell me something about the historical Jesus, without using the Christian bible.

I've never studied the matter in any detail, but I do know that the vast majority of trained historians, using the tools and methods of their careers, accept that Jesus was a real person. If you are going to trust physicists to know physics, biologists to know biology, etc., then why would you speak-out against the professional claims of historians, unless you were somehow personally invested in attacking the historicity of Jesus?

I have no problem with your, or anyone ele's, belief in the historicity of Jesus. That is not, and neither has it been, that which this debate is about. However, I do have a serious problem with Christians' saying Christ is the god of Judaism. Christ most assuredly is the god of Christianity, but Christ is not and never has been the god of the Jew. Don't take my word for it; ask an Orthodox Jew. Or, do you not trust a Jew enough to know his, or her, own religion?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:34:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

lol - I'm no Bible scholar, for sure, but I don't see that Jesus was an "image of man" and I don't think they had sex with him. I know of no place in the Bible where it says that Jesus engaged in sinful acts.

No. Jesus was not in the image of a man; Jesus was a man, and that's the point:

"The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blashemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

This was not just any accusation from a small group of self-rightous Pharisees. This was a grave offense against one of the primary tenets of Judaism, and if you don't believe that try reading the Jewish bible.

I can understand this. But how does it have anything to do with the verses you quoted about homosexuality and idol worship? And as we both said - Jesus was a man, not a graven image. The Jews themselves had predicted the coming of such a man, but did not accept that Jesus was the one they had prophesied about. This means they had no problem in principle with the idea of a man being the son of God, only this
man.

No. It was not only this man; it was any man. To say anyone was equivalent to God was to fly in the face of Judaism. At the heart of Judaism is the core belief that God is holy. In other words, separate from everything, else. Nothing is like God, in personhood or in nature. Where God is holy, humans are common. Where God is eternal, humans are temporal. Where God is infinite, humans are finite. To the Jew, to say God has the common likeness of a mortal, finite being was, as is now, blasphemy.

I see what you are saying now. That's supposedly the excuse they used to crucify Jesus, that he was claiming to be God. The Jews had their own beliefs pertaining to a messiah: "Traditional Judaism maintains that the messianic idea has always been a part of Judaism. The mashiach is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah, because the Torah was written in terms that all people could understand, and the abstract concept of a distant, spiritual, future reward was beyond the comprehension of some people. However, the Torah contains several references to "the End of Days" (acharit ha-yamim), which is the time of the mashiach; thus, the concept of mashiach was known in the most ancient times." ~ jewfaq.org

The Jewish people never taught or believed the Messiah was God but a revolutionary that would deliver them from the yoke of Rome. When Christ failed to live up to their expectations, the tide of popular opinion turned against him and went from saying, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" to "Crucify him!".

No, they didn't teach that the Messiah would be God. But it's also controversial whether or not Jesus actually claimed to be the person of God. In John 17:3, while praying to God, Jesus made reference to him as "the only true God." When the Jews accused Jesus he replied with "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? " It's funny how people always point out how flawed the Bible is and how it's been modified so many times, but then they use it as if it were first-hand evidence when it suits their needs.

The only reason people use the Christian bible when speaking about Jesus is because without it, we would never know he existed, if, indeed, he did. There's absolutely no contemporary record of his existence, and that includes the Christian bible; because, it's not a contemporary record. It's books were written many decades, after his death and compiled a few centuries later. Please, tell me something about the historical Jesus, without using the Christian bible.

I've never studied the matter in any detail, but I do know that the vast majority of trained historians, using the tools and methods of their careers, accept that Jesus was a real person. If you are going to trust physicists to know physics, biologists to know biology, etc., then why would you speak-out against the professional claims of historians, unless you were somehow personally invested in attacking the historicity of Jesus?

Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.

You mean to tell me, you can prove something happened just because it's written in some ancient book, written decades after it is said to have happened and pieced together centuries later? Why do prosecutors need evidenc
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 1:12:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:


Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.

It's very interesting that you should choose this "crime scenario," for recently a book was written by a man named J. Warner Wallace, who is himself a cold-case detective. The name of the book is Cold Case Christianity, and in it Wallace lays out a case for how standard cold-case investigative techniques support the existence of Jesus. So here again it seems that you are disagreeing with an expert, and using a method in which he's been professionally trained to do so. Cold Case Christianity is devoted to looking at the evidence the way a criminal investigator would look at it. Each chapter examines a different topic, including inference, circumstantial evidence, testing witnesses, reading between the lines, separating artifact from evidence, testing conspiracy theories, evidential chain of custody, determining reasonable doubt, and determining the nature of truth. Maybe you would find it interesting to read a review of the book?

It seems to me that the main reason most people seem to become a little 'squirmy' when debating God or religion is that nearly everyone seems to be emotionally invested in it, whether they believe God exists or not. It is so rare to see discussions where the different parties are able to lay their own views aside in order to seriously consider what the other person has to say, and under those circumstances there is virtually no possibility of any learning or acceptance on any side. I personally tend to become interested in why someone believes what they do, even if I totally disagree with them. People can surprise you. Even the most 'common-sounding' individual can come-up with some impressive insights.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 3:06:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I briefly forgot why most users avoid this forum entirely.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 4:09:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:34:32 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

You mean to tell me, you can prove something happened just because it's written in some ancient book, written decades after it is said to have happened and pieced together centuries later? Why do prosecutors need evidence

Who said anything about proof??? As I pointed out before many people do not understand the Historical Method, and you are a prime example. So, I will explain a little further...

History is not a science, it is a humanity. Its not a science precisely because we cannot "prove" anything in a scientific sense, especially in relation to ancient history where our evidence across the board is substantially more limited than modern history. An event happened only once, a long time ago, and all we are left with is certain limited evidence. We cannot recreate, test, examine or experiment with the event... we can only examine the available evidence. Through this examination we create a historical hypothesis... or want is known as a position. That position is then argued and evidence supplied to support that position in some format (i.e. an article, essay, book, documentary etc..). That position is then submitted for peer review... that is other scholars of history read it and comment, wright rebuttals, agree or disagree with the position, argument and or evidence interpretation. Over time (in the case of serious study of the Historical Jesus has been about a century and half) scholarly consensus is then reached on a topic. The scholarly consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. However, there are three things that are important to realize.... 1. Scholarly opinion is not itself evidence. 2. Scholarly opinion is not itself proof. 3. Scholarly opinion can change as new evidence is available or that future historians in their own context view an event differently... in other words they interpret the evidence differently.

Lastly History and Theology are not necessarily related. I can say the Historical Jesus existed and yet that has no assertion that he was anything, did anything, or said anything. Furthermore I can say that Jesus did not exist and that does not effect the theology the bible presents.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:37:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 1:12:25 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:


Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.

It's very interesting that you should choose this "crime scenario," for recently a book was written by a man named J. Warner Wallace, who is himself a cold-case detective. The name of the book is Cold Case Christianity, and in it Wallace lays out a case for how standard cold-case investigative techniques support the existence of Jesus. So here again it seems that you are disagreeing with an expert, and using a method in which he's been professionally trained to do so. Cold Case Christianity is devoted to looking at the evidence the way a criminal investigator would look at it. Each chapter examines a different topic, including inference, circumstantial evidence, testing witnesses, reading between the lines, separating artifact from evidence, testing conspiracy theories, evidential chain of custody, determining reasonable doubt, and determining the nature of truth. Maybe you would find it interesting to read a review of the book?

It seems to me that the main reason most people seem to become a little 'squirmy' when debating God or religion is that nearly everyone seems to be emotionally invested in it, whether they believe God exists or not. It is so rare to see discussions where the different parties are able to lay their own views aside in order to seriously consider what the other person has to say, and under those circumstances there is virtually no possibility of any learning or acceptance on any side. I personally tend to become interested in why someone believes what they do, even if I totally disagree with them. People can surprise you. Even the most 'common-sounding' individual can come-up with some impressive insights.

That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to check it out. The only thing I would say about it is that it is a good example of Non-scholarly historical work. This author is not a scholar of history... meaning he does not hold a PhD in the discipline and is not professionally employed in the field (i.e. a professor etc). I doubt his work is submitted for peer review either as it was published by David C Cook, which is a non-profit Christian publishing company... not a publisher of scholarly works. That is not to say that he didn't write a very good book, and do good historical analysis and offer solid conclusions... its just he's not a professional in the field of history... which is fine, you just have to know what your reading.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 4:21:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:37:31 AM, eNo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:12:25 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:


Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.

It's very interesting that you should choose this "crime scenario," for recently a book was written by a man named J. Warner Wallace, who is himself a cold-case detective. The name of the book is Cold Case Christianity, and in it Wallace lays out a case for how standard cold-case investigative techniques support the existence of Jesus. So here again it seems that you are disagreeing with an expert, and using a method in which he's been professionally trained to do so. Cold Case Christianity is devoted to looking at the evidence the way a criminal investigator would look at it. Each chapter examines a different topic, including inference, circumstantial evidence, testing witnesses, reading between the lines, separating artifact from evidence, testing conspiracy theories, evidential chain of custody, determining reasonable doubt, and determining the nature of truth. Maybe you would find it interesting to read a review of the book?

It seems to me that the main reason most people seem to become a little 'squirmy' when debating God or religion is that nearly everyone seems to be emotionally invested in it, whether they believe God exists or not. It is so rare to see discussions where the different parties are able to lay their own views aside in order to seriously consider what the other person has to say, and under those circumstances there is virtually no possibility of any learning or acceptance on any side. I personally tend to become interested in why someone believes what they do, even if I totally disagree with them. People can surprise you. Even the most 'common-sounding' individual can come-up with some impressive insights.

That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to check it out. The only thing I would say about it is that it is a good example of Non-scholarly historical work. This author is not a scholar of history... meaning he does not hold a PhD in the discipline and is not professionally employed in the field (i.e. a professor etc). I doubt his work is submitted for peer review either as it was published by David C Cook, which is a non-profit Christian publishing company... not a publisher of scholarly works. That is not to say that he didn't write a very good book, and do good historical analysis and offer solid conclusions... its just he's not a professional in the field of history... which is fine, you just have to know what your reading.

This sounds a little ironic. The discussion started with "why shouldn't we accept the opinion of trained historians that Jesus did exist?" I was given an example of how empirical evidence works in criminal investigations and how that points away from the existence of Jesus, so I answer to that using the works of a criminal investigator. Then what happens? I'm told he doesn't count because he's not a trained historian. lol Talk about a circular argument! I'm not sure that you've followed it through from the beginning, so it could just be missed communication, but it still sounds a little funny.
eNo
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:42:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 4:21:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:37:31 AM, eNo wrote:
At 1/16/2014 1:12:25 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/14/2014 11:16:29 PM, eNo wrote:
At 1/14/2014 10:46:57 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/13/2014 10:36:44 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/13/2014 7:54:23 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 10:07:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 9:05:17 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:55:05 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 6:45:45 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:


Many people don't really understand the Historical Method and what conclusions can actually be made, and that solid conclusions can be arrived at even in the absence of certain evidence.

I use the example of a crime scene. A crime presents certain evidence to work with and thats it. Sometimes there is a murder weapon, sometimes not. Sometimes there is DNA, sometimes not. Sometime there are witnesses, sometimes not. Sometimes witnesses are accurate, unbiased, and dependable.... sometimes not. The investigators have to work with the evidence that is available and reconstruct the crime from there. Gather evidence, build a case and present it to a jury. You can't argue that there was no murder weapon therefore there was not a crime. Historical Methodology is the same thing, Historians can't invent certain evidence that some people may want to have, they have to work with the evidence available. In the case of Jesus the evidence we have is the Bible and few other sources.... thats it. It's not perfect, but that does not mean we can't come to any conclusions based on this evidence. And frankly we are lucky to have what we have. Letters and narrative stories are more than we have of most 1st Century persons. Historians must use this evidence and build a case (historical hypothesis)... then present this case to a jury (peer review)... and then a verdict reached. The overwhelming historical consensus is that the historical Jesus existed. Now, that is not a theological statement... that is another problem with arguments made by some people... they blend theological and historical positions as if they mean the same thing.

It's very interesting that you should choose this "crime scenario," for recently a book was written by a man named J. Warner Wallace, who is himself a cold-case detective. The name of the book is Cold Case Christianity, and in it Wallace lays out a case for how standard cold-case investigative techniques support the existence of Jesus. So here again it seems that you are disagreeing with an expert, and using a method in which he's been professionally trained to do so. Cold Case Christianity is devoted to looking at the evidence the way a criminal investigator would look at it. Each chapter examines a different topic, including inference, circumstantial evidence, testing witnesses, reading between the lines, separating artifact from evidence, testing conspiracy theories, evidential chain of custody, determining reasonable doubt, and determining the nature of truth. Maybe you would find it interesting to read a review of the book?

It seems to me that the main reason most people seem to become a little 'squirmy' when debating God or religion is that nearly everyone seems to be emotionally invested in it, whether they believe God exists or not. It is so rare to see discussions where the different parties are able to lay their own views aside in order to seriously consider what the other person has to say, and under those circumstances there is virtually no possibility of any learning or acceptance on any side. I personally tend to become interested in why someone believes what they do, even if I totally disagree with them. People can surprise you. Even the most 'common-sounding' individual can come-up with some impressive insights.

That sounds like an interesting book, I'll have to check it out. The only thing I would say about it is that it is a good example of Non-scholarly historical work. This author is not a scholar of history... meaning he does not hold a PhD in the discipline and is not professionally employed in the field (i.e. a professor etc). I doubt his work is submitted for peer review either as it was published by David C Cook, which is a non-profit Christian publishing company... not a publisher of scholarly works. That is not to say that he didn't write a very good book, and do good historical analysis and offer solid conclusions... its just he's not a professional in the field of history... which is fine, you just have to know what your reading.

This sounds a little ironic. The discussion started with "why shouldn't we accept the opinion of trained historians that Jesus did exist?" I was given an example of how empirical evidence works in criminal investigations and how that points away from the existence of Jesus, so I answer to that using the works of a criminal investigator. Then what happens? I'm told he doesn't count because he's not a trained historian. lol Talk about a circular argument! I'm not sure that you've followed it through from the beginning, so it could just be missed communication, but it still sounds a little funny.

"I was given an example of how empirical evidence works in criminal investigations and how that points away from the existence of Jesus"

Sorry, I assumed we were in agreement on this topic. The point of my original post is that Historical Methodology and Scholarly Consensus both "support" the historical Jesus existed. Not that they point "away" from his existence.

"so I answer to that using the works of a criminal investigator. Then what happens? I'm told he doesn't count because he's not a trained historian."

That was a good answer!! I am looking forward to reading this book, thanks for the recommendation!! My point about this author is that he is not an historical scholar. As a result he is not using the Historical Method to prove his position and probably not conducting his research according to the Historical Method. That is not to say that it is not a good book, makes solid conclusions and presents good arguments. However, he seems to be using the methods of a different discipline to conduct historical research. There is no problem with that, but one must know the bias of the author when reading a book. He most likely is not submitting this work for peer review, and his publisher is not a scholarly historical publisher. That doesn't mean his work doesn't count, but he is not a professional in the field.

I would, however, point out the fact that the author is a Pastor... writing about the historical Jesus... and his work is published by David C Cook, a non-profit Christian publisher... I would be highly suspect of an inherent bias. Obviously... were he a professor of biblical history.... writing about the historical Jesus... and published by a scholarly publisher... he would command more authority. My first question would be why is his work being published by a non-profit Christian publisher that also publishes "Sunday school curriculum, children's discipleship, books and Christian materials for the church and home."... and not a publisher more well known in the field of scholarly historical works? My gut would tell me that his work does not meet the criteria of these publishers. But again, various opinions are certainly welcome... but historical scholarship must be earned.
"Scholarly opinion, even well informed scholarly opinion, is not evidence."
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 6:55:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

I want you to remember that the person who wrote that was christian.So he definitely knew what he was talking about.The verse itself talks not only of Man, but also of animals,birds and reptiles.

Jesus was the son of God, as he was God incarnate.

Everything is possible for God.He can become a human being also, and suffer like us also.He can go to the toilet, sweat, bleed and suffer for our sake because he loves us that much.We can imitate him because we are created in the Image of God.

Nobody can curse God now because he shows that he loves us enough to die for us, and has suffered every form of punishment that we endure,just like us.To say that God cannot do this is to claim to know the mind of God.Who told you that God will not do these things?

Also, Catholic Christians do not worship Images or idols.We revere them and use them to help us concentrate on the concept of God.The is an ocean of difference between reverence and worship.

Just because Muslims like to decorate their walls with calligraphy, does it mean that they are worshiping the Qura'an itself?

Just like that using Images and statues is allowed for decoration.It becomes sin only when we begin to believe that the Idol itself is a God, and start feeding the idols food and bathing them like Hindus still do today.

Infact in Christian Theology, there are 3 different types of respect and reverence that are described.
Latria, means complete surrender to the will of a person, to be like a slave and a hired servant of the person.To do everything the person asks unquestioningly.This type of reverence and worship is reserved only for God.

Hyper-dulia is also tremendous respect, but as an elder, or as a guide of the way.The sort of respect that we can have for someone very close to the Master.This is reserved for the Virgin Mary .

Dulia is the respect and admiration we have for saints,pious individuals, and elders of our community.

I don't think Islam comes anywhere even close to the theological depth and rigorous analysis of Christian theologians like St.Thomas Aquinas.

In your verse,St paul is referring to the Greeks and romans, who saw what they were looking for in Jesus, but due to their pride, still preferred to worship Idols.

My opinion is that this need for unnatural sex arises only when people do not find happiness in doing the will of God and hence try to fulfill the emptiness they feel inside with sex.When normal natural sex eventually becomes boring they then switch on to unnatural modes.
Scientific research shows that this is possible.Hetero sexual Individuals who regularly watched porn and indulged in excessive sexual activity were reported to be more willing to try homosexuality activity.Almost all of them claimed that they were aroused while watching homosexual porn.

but,most of them reported that when this behavior was stopped, and when they reduced exposure to pornography, that they did not feel the same homosexual urges.
But there are others who are born with homosexual tendencies right from a very early age.They need special care and support to help them to stay in God's path.

Also,You do know that there are several Homosexuals in Muslim countries also right?Just because you kill them if they come out, you can't claim that they don't exist.

Homosexuals have always existed in every corner of the world.There are also several animals that are born this way.This proves nothing, as many Christians have remained celibate in-spite of worshiping Jesus as the living body of God.

I seriously don't see the point you are trying to make.Like most muslims, you don't read the whole Bible with the context of the entire book, take some random verse out of context, then claim that you are somehow right.

I understand you can't read the Bible properly as you fear of getting stoned to death by your brethren , lest you find out the truth and decide to convert.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:02:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 6:55:49 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
My opinion is that this need for unnatural sex

I thought the discussion concerned homosexuality! Where did this come from?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:02:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 6:55:49 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
My opinion is that this need for unnatural sex

I thought the discussion concerned homosexuality! Where did this come from?

Lazarus claims that homosexuals emerged in the west because they worship Jesus the human Being.

See our discussion in the topic 'About Heaven'
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:14:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:13:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:03:21 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
The problem is presented in the bible in Romas 1:22-26:

"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of rthe immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to tthe dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for ua lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, vwho is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, ymen committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So what we understand here is God punish people for making and worshiping a human being (Jesus Christ) instead of God so he turns them to homos... but almost all the christain world consider jesus as God what a paradox...... anyway correction?

Saying Christ was God was blasphemy in so many ways. To the Jew, given God an image was not only making God into a finite creation but also making God common. Secondly, given God a name was making one superior to God. The naming of the animals, by Adam, indicated Adam was superior to them. Thirdly, to stand people face to face with God means humans can relate to God, putting humans on the same level with God. In the story of Moses' ascending the Mount, Moses is not allowed to see the face of God. In fact, in the Jewish bible, Moses is hid in the cleft of the mountain and covered with the hand of God. Later, God was hidden away in an inner room of the Jewish temple, behind a very thick and large veil. Christians can say all of that changed with the crucifixion of Christ but only for the Christian. The Jewish concept of God remains the same. Christians may claim to worship a god, yet not the Jewish god.

Yet the Jews believe that Man was made in the Image of God, and that Adam could see God and speak with him directly before the fall.

Moses was not God.Jesus was. he was one with the father and the father was one with him, thus he could see him as he was him.

"In the beginning the word was with God and the Word was God.........the word was made flesh and dwelt among us."-John ch1 ver.1-15.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:18:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was referring to this
At 1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:

this need for unnatural sex
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:24:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:18:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
I was referring to this
At 1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:

this need for unnatural sex

I was trying to explain what i felt St.Paul could have meant. Anal and oral sex is unnatural, however you may look at it.

Even those who practise it agree that it is 'kinky'.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:30:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:24:40 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:18:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
I was referring to this
At 1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:

this need for unnatural sex

I was trying to explain what i felt St.Paul could have meant. Anal and oral sex is unnatural, however you may look at it.

Even those who practise it agree that it is 'kinky'.
There are far more christian heterosexuals who practice it than homosexuals so how can it be unnatural? What did jesus say about homosexuality? And who gave Saul any authority?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
CynicalDiogenes
Posts: 147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:34:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:30:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:24:40 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:18:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
I was referring to this
At 1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:

this need for unnatural sex

I was trying to explain what i felt St.Paul could have meant. Anal and oral sex is unnatural, however you may look at it.

Even those who practise it agree that it is 'kinky'.
There are far more christian heterosexuals who practice it than homosexuals so how can it be unnatural? What did jesus say about homosexuality? And who gave Saul any authority?

St.Paul(formerly Saul) was an apostle.

so what if Christian heterosexuals practice it?what is natural will remain natural, and what is unnatural will remain unnatural.Morals are not decided by majority vote.Right is right even when nobody does the right thing.Wrong is wrong even if everyone does what is wrong.
Seat of Wisdom, pray for us who turn to you!

Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.-St.Thomas Aquinas
All the darkness in the world cannot extinguish the light of a single candle.~ St.Francis of Assisi
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:44:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:34:37 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:30:28 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:24:40 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:
At 1/17/2014 7:18:30 AM, bulproof wrote:
I was referring to this
At 1/17/2014 7:06:15 AM, CynicalDiogenes wrote:

this need for unnatural sex

I was trying to explain what i felt St.Paul could have meant. Anal and oral sex is unnatural, however you may look at it.

Even those who practise it agree that it is 'kinky'.
There are far more christian heterosexuals who practice it than homosexuals so how can it be unnatural? What did jesus say about homosexuality? And who gave Saul any authority?

St.Paul(formerly Saul) was an apostle.

so what if Christian heterosexuals practice it?what is natural will remain natural, and what is unnatural will remain unnatural.Morals are not decided by majority vote.Right is right even when nobody does the right thing.Wrong is wrong even if everyone does what is wrong.
What are morals decided by? And what do morals have to do with homosexuality?

Saul was an Apostle? On of the twelve? That's news.

Or do you mean he claimed to be an apostle?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin