The Problem with "Fighting" Homosexuality

[sojourner]

There is no "one true church". Jesus called it the "one true faith". And it's not nonsense.

You're arguing semantics. It's nonsense.

I've never said "how right I am and how false everyone else is".

Backpedal much? You indicated that all churches are false. Since churches are the people who are involved with them, then, by extension, all people who are involved with false churches are false. You did say it, at least by inference.

I indicated that religions are false, as the scritures tell us, and that they, and their participants will be destroyed in the final battle.

See? You said it.

If you don't want to hear the rebuttal to your ridiculously misapprehended interpretation (and it is an interpretation -- and a rather poor one at that), then, as I suggested, there may be a DIR forum somewhere here that will be more to your liking.

 

[MikeSavage]

You're arguing semantics. It's nonsense.

Backpedal much? You indicated that all churches are false. Since churches are the people who are involved with them, then, by extension, all people who are involved with false churches are false. You did say it, at least by inference.

See? You said it.

If you don't want to hear the rebuttal to your ridiculously misapprehended interpretation (and it is an interpretation -- and a rather poor one at that), then, as I suggested, there may be a DIR forum somewhere here that will be more to your liking.

I am not arguing semantics, and there is no nonsense on my part, only yours. You continue to post tons of it.
The scriptures indicate that all religions are false.
My "interpretation"? I do not ever interpret scriptures, no matter what your false claims may be. Interpretation is guessing. I do not guess.
Leave it to one who interprets everything (guesses at everything) to rate another's perceived interpreting, albeit a false perception.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am not arguing semantics, and there is no nonsense on my part, only yours. You continue to post tons of it.
The scriptures indicate that all religions are false.
My "interpretation"? I do not ever interpret scriptures, no matter what your false claims may be. Interpretation is guessing. I do not guess.
Leave it to one who interprets everything (guesses at everything) to rate another's perceived interpreting, albeit a false perception.

And you are certain you speak the scriptural truth how...?

 

[MikeSavage]

And you are certain you speak the scriptural truth how...?

If you need to ask that, you couldn't possibly understand how.

 

[sojourner]

I am not arguing semantics

Sure you are. The difference between "the true faith" and "a true religion" is negligible. In fact, many times "faith" and "religion" are used interchangeably. Here's why:

All religions are faith-based, or they wouldn't be religions. "Faith" is the way in which reality is apprehended and expressed by a religion. And any "faith" that incorporates a system of belief, including holy writings, oral Tradition, mythic and theological constructs, methods of practicing ritual (such as baptism) and ways of understanding how those myths, theological thought and praxis inform our lives, is a religion.

The scriptures indicate that all religions are false.

"Indicate?" As in "infer?" Or do they come right out and literally and unequivocally say, "All religions are false?" Again (for the third time) Cite. The. Text. That way, we all know what's being argued.

My "interpretation"? I do not ever interpret scriptures, no matter what your false claims may be.

Everyone interprets whatever they read, or see, or hear. Interpretation is how we sort out what's important and glean meaning out of words, symbols, and other input. Interpretation becomes extremely important when the text is separated from us by language, culture, and time. Sorry; you do interpret. You just either don't want to admit that you've been caught with your eisegetical pants down, or haven't given sufficient thought to what it is you're actually doing.

Interpretation is guessing.

No. It's not. "Guessing" is guessing. "Interpreting" is gaining understanding.

I do not guess.

You've certainly guessed wrong about me and about everyone who is part of a religion.

Leave it to one who interprets everything (guesses at everything) to rate another's perceived interpreting, albeit a false perception.

Fine. I'm pleased to leave you to the task of repeatedly embarrassing yourself here.

 

[MikeSavage]

Sure you are. The difference between "the true faith" and "a true religion" is negligible. In fact, many times "faith" and "religion" are used interchangeably. Here's why:

All religions are faith-based, or they wouldn't be religions. "Faith" is the way in which reality is apprehended and expressed by a religion. And any "faith" that incorporates a system of belief, including holy writings, oral Tradition, mythic and theological constructs, methods of practicing ritual (such as baptism) and ways of understanding how those myths, theological thought and praxis inform our lives, is a religion.

"Indicate?" As in "infer?" Or do they come right out and literally and unequivocally say, "All religions are false?" Again (for the third time) Cite. The. Text. That way, we all know what's being argued.

Everyone interprets whatever they read, or see, or hear. Interpretation is how we sort out what's important and glean meaning out of words, symbols, and other input. Interpretation becomes extremely important when the text is separated from us by language, culture, and time. Sorry; you do interpret. You just either don't want to admit that you've been caught with your eisegetical pants down, or haven't given sufficient thought to what it is you're actually doing.

No. It's not. "Guessing" is guessing. "Interpreting" is gaining understanding.

You've certainly guessed wrong about me and about everyone who is part of a religion.

Fine. I'm pleased to leave you to the task of repeatedly embarrassing yourself here.

Now, using the reasoning of men, and the teachings of men, rather than the reasoning and teaching of God is pretty dumb.

 

[sojourner]

And you are certain you speak the scriptural truth how...?

Wait for it...

If you need to ask that, you couldn't possibly understand how.

...Aaaaaand the evasion. No proof ("not my job"). No evidence ("the 'True Faith' needs no evidence"). Just subterfuge.


Because Jesus was all about not dealing frankly with people.

 

[sojourner]

Now, using the reasoning of men, and the teachings of men, rather than the reasoning and teaching of God is pretty dumb.

The reasoning and teaching of God comes through people. Like Jesus, for instance. Or any of a great number of other scholars and teachers. Nothing is ever learned in a vacuum. Except "How To Suck."

 

[leibowde84]

There is no "one true church". Jesus called it the "one true faith". And it's not nonsense. I've never said "how right I am and how false everyone else is". You make things up, change things to support your useless argument, and invent things claiming I said them. I indicated that religions are false, as the scritures tell us, and that they, and their participants will be destroyed in the final battle. You disagree. Take it up with God, He said it.

Can you quote the passage that indicates that all Religions are false? Do you include sects of Christianity in that as well?

 

[sojourner]

Can you quote the passage that indicates that all Religions are false? Do you include sects of Christianity in that as well?

Apparently that sort of credibility exercise isn't important when one has The True Faith... I've not had any luck in that department in this thread -- and I've asked three times.

 

[Augustus]

Proscription of homosexuality seems to be much a product of its time.

Homosexuality (generally applied exclusively to men), in a time with many more women than men (due to wars etc) and a need for a high level of childbirth to work the land and to maintain the power of the group/tribe, was a potential threat to that. Having a homosexual child could be a grave threat to a family and also the continuation of its bloodline, as well as weakening the group.

Many people are happy to rationalise away dietary restrictions as being products of their time, why not homosexuality too?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If you need to ask that, you couldn't possibly understand how.

Why not show somebody how then?

 

[sojourner]

Many people are happy to rationalise away dietary restrictions as being products of their time, why not homosexuality too?

Because it's "icky."

 

[sojourner]

Why not show somebody how then?

Teaching doesn't appear to be part of the paradigm in place in this thread. But what a lovely, lovely idea!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am not arguing semantics, and there is no nonsense on my part, only yours. You continue to post tons of it.
The scriptures indicate that all religions are false.
My "interpretation"? I do not ever interpret scriptures, no matter what your false claims may be. Interpretation is guessing. I do not guess.
Leave it to one who interprets everything (guesses at everything) to rate another's perceived interpreting, albeit a false perception.

Everyone interprets scripture. I don't see any way around it.

 

[MikeSavage]

Wait for it...




...Aaaaaand the evasion. No proof ("not my job"). No evidence ("the 'True Faith' needs no evidence"). Just subterfuge.


Because Jesus was all about not dealing frankly with people.

On the contrary, Jesus dealt honestly and lovingly with people with honest hearts. When one doesn't posess that, comments such as yours spew forth.

 

[sojourner]

On the contrary, Jesus dealt honestly and lovingly with people with honest hearts. When one doesn't posess that, comments such as yours spew forth.

Then why are you evading the question?

 

[MikeSavage]

Then why are you evading the question?

I am evading no question.

 

[sojourner]

I am evading no question.

This is now the fourth time I've asked you to cite your sources where you believe the bible says that religions are false. you've evaded answering each time. Cite the text, please.

You also evaded a question where, I believe, Mystic asked how you know your reading is correct.

 

[MikeSavage]

This is now the fourth time I've asked you to cite your sources where you believe the bible says that religions are false. you've evaded answering each time. Cite the text, please.

You also evaded a question where, I believe, Mystic asked how you know your reading is correct.

No, you haven't "asked" me, you've insisted, demanded, and tried to offend me into citing the text that you are unwilling to find for yourself. That being the case, you will have to wonder. If you want to know, you must find it yourself.