<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look Sam Talesin was trying to claim that simply because you felt genetically predisposed towards doing something made it impossible to oppose morally. (at least I think thats what he was saying).
And the logical counter to that arguement is the one I used. I dont feel that it is fair to compare rapists to homosexuals, because homosexuals dont hurt anyone else, but my basic point remains proven. Just because you feel like doing something because of your genes DOESNT make it right. Using the "but we are genetically predisposed" arguement falls flat. Being predisposed simply doesnt justify your actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no. He was saying that genetic predisposition disproves that it's "unnatural". What I later said (have you read the entire thread? I hate repeating myself) was that given that homosexuality hurts nobody, it should not REQUIRE justification. The best argument for homosexuality being a sin is that it's "unnatural" - even if that were a valid moral argument (which IMHO it is not), the fact that homosexuality is naturally a quality of some people invalidates it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At no stage did the Bible claim that all epileptic fits are caused by demons. It simply described the symptoms of a certain person who was demon possesed and cured. And those symptoms were very much like epilepsy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imagine for a second that someone with epilepsy had come to Jesus in search of curing. Quite possible, since epilepsy was not very treatable during Biblical times. What would onlookers have thought was happening? That it was somebody possessed by a demon (again, historical records tell us that ALL cases of epilepsy were in fact diagnosed as either demonic possession or divine inspiration at that time), and that when Jesus cured it, he was exorcising the demon. My suspicion is that the onlookers expected shrieking demons, and the accounts later embellished so as to make the story more dramatic and highlight the real point, which had nothing to do with demons.
The point is, the Bible contains important moral truths, but as a general rule those truths are filtered through the unique experience and biases of its authors. In some cases, the authors' cultural biases or scientific ignorance might actually cause them to make erroneous statements and judgements. It's our duty as Christians to try to get at the truth of the matter rather than adhering to scripture completely blindly - isn't that part of what Jesus was all about?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What verse does it describe the sky as a firmament of water with stars set in it? Please Im not being sarcastic, I honestly dont know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:15. On the very first page of the freakin' book. The New International calls it an "expanse", the King James calls it a "firmament". The meaning is unmistakably clear in all translations.
(Side note, true story: I was once approached by some Jehovah's Witnesses at a bus stop, and got in a minor debate with them on whether every word in the Bible was literally true. As evidence, I mentioned the firmament, and although they both carried bibles with them, their reaction was just like yours - "What? Where's that?" I borrowed one of their bibles and showed it to them, on the very first page, and they were FLOORED. They hadn't ever read any part of the book beyond the parts with little blue sticky notes that they could quote out of context to support their proselytizing. Let this be a lesson - if you're going to try to convert someone, make sure you know more about your holy book than they do.)
Genesis 1:6-8 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water" So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called teh expanse "sky". And there was evening, and there was morning - the second day.
Ahhh okay I have heard that before, as I have also heard the counter. One theory is that their WAS large amounts of water in the atmosphere, and that it was held their - ie No raining. During the Great Flood was the first time that human has ever seen rain. The theory is that this rain was the falling of the water body from the atmosphere.
This water body also might account for Eden being a very lush garden. Having large amounts of H2O in the atmoshere would create a greenhouse effect that would effectively mean that all H2O plants needed was available from the air, and thus having no rain wasnt a problem.
EDIT As to your above stated, if something that hurts no-one doesnt need justification, then neither does lust. Lust hurts no one, yet the Bible condemns that as well. Killing is natural as well, yet thats wrong. There are a lot of things that are natural that are wrong. Simply saying that its natural therefore justified is false imho. This seems to come back to whether the Bible is the Word of God, something we seem to disagree on....
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
And the bible also condemns eating cheeseburgers and wearing polyester/cotton blends. I'd get to checking the tags on your shirts at the very least, if you want to get into heaven. After all, if that 'God is Great!' shirt is on anything beyond 100%, you're f**ked.
And.. wait. Old Testament... New Testament. Wouldn't the requirement of the New Testament imply that the Old Testament was flawed? That it had to be addendized? A Perfect God would simply create one book and be done with it. No contradictions overriding old passages in the newer text. No *need*, as the first one would have been perfect. Handed down by god, and had the transcribers' hands guided by him, it would be infallible Truth. But... we have another section, added later! Yes, now and only now, we'll say that 'more knowledge was passed down'. We'll say it in a good way so it'll sound like god wanted to add more, rather than outright saying he made a mistake (which he apparently can't... wait.. a perfect being unable to intentionally make a mistake? Sounds imperfect to me, erring on the side of perfection).
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 5 2003, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 5 2003, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As to your above stated, if something that hurts no-one doesnt need justification, then neither does lust. Lust hurts no one, yet the Bible condemns that as well. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Lust is harmful insofar as it is a precursor to adultery, which hurts relationships between people. (This is the context in which Jesus mentions it, unless you and I are thinking of different Bible passages.)
Talesin in this thread I feel that I have THOROUGHLY dealt with the issue of OT rules and Jewish custom
God did NOT make mistakes. He gave the OT to the JEWS - NOT the Christians. The Jews missed the message of the OT, which can be summarised in "Here are the rules, you cant possibly follow these rules, therefore we are going to have to find a way to get you fellas forgiven". It also contains mass prophecy of the Messiah. Messiah came, the Jews rejected him, so he went to the Gentiles. The New Testament is written for the Gentiles. The Gentiles are NOT Jews, and thus a lot of the customs God gave to the Jews in the OT dont apply. Here I'll repost what I said before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexual relationships do need to be adulterous unfortunately. Marriage is the only place that sex is acceptable according to the Bible. Marriage is then classified as the union of a man and woman. Therefore it is impossible to be married in the eyes of God (if you are a guy marrying a guy), and thus impossible not to have adulterous relations.
BTW adultery in the Bible isnt limited to simply sleeping with a married person, its sexual sin. (as I believe anyway)
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Sep 5 2003, 08:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Sep 5 2003, 08:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Lust is harmful insofar as it is a precursor to adultery, which hurts relationships between people. (This is the context in which Jesus mentions it, unless you and I are thinking of different Bible passages.)
Homosexual relationships need not be adulterous. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> actually, lust is a precursor to nothing technically, though in most cases is a precursor to fornication, not adultry. You can say "hey, consenting adults having sex, no biggie, no one's hurt" just the same as you're saying it for homosexual relationships.
As marine is trying to point out, the Old Testament is a precursor to the New Testament. It starts in Genesis and is law, and when it ends it leaves room because of prophecy. Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy, and is the fullfullment of OT law. He replaces the strict "do this and you're going to Hell, unless you sacrifice a lamb or bull to me" with salvation by Grace. He did this sot hat no man can brag, because sin plagues us all equally. He was the final sacrifice. Look to revelation, and it's an ending. There isn't any more room to add onto the new testament, because between the 2, the Bible has a beginning (Genesis) that explains the origin of the world, and an ending (Revelation) that explains the future ending of the world. God didn't need a New book because the old one is flawed, The NT is just the second half to the book. If it was stopped after the OT, it would be like leaving a play during the interlude, you never get to see the best part. The Old Testament was a Covenant between God and the Jews, where the New Testament is a new Covenant between God and *everyone*. This was extended to us because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, which I'm thankful for because 1) it fulfilled prophecy, and 2) it means I'm not doomed to hell because I'm not Jewish.
Now I know some people here really dont like the AIG's attack on evolution, and consider them to be warpers of truth - but when it comes to defending Bible accuracy its hard to find someone better than near militant Christians.
I get the impression from the repeated use of Leviticus customs used as an attack on the coherency of the Bible that not many people have actually heard the Bible defended.
So have a look there, I dont agree with all of it, but most of its good.
Woh, so many replies..... <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> ........ <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo--> .......Note, I will be using the word homo instead of homosexual a lot of times.
I read up to page 4 and stopped...So
<span style='color:red'>*Click.* The discussions forum is a mature debating arena. If you are going to post to a thread, you WILL review the entire thread. It's called common courtesy, and it DOES apply in a forum intended toward more intelligent discussion.. at least a minor modicum of respect for others' thoughts. Thank you, have a nice day.</span>
<!--QuoteBegin--[p4]Samwise+Sep 5 2003, 08:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([p4]Samwise @ Sep 5 2003, 08:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--fo sheezy my neezy+Sep 5 2003, 04:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (fo sheezy my neezy @ Sep 5 2003, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Christians believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As I said before... the Bible describes epileptic seizures as demonic possession. It describes the sky as being a firmament with water above it and stars set into it. To say that the Bible is the literal word of God is a grave insult against God, in my mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I tend to agree.
What about Noah's Ark ? Do people really believe master critter-wrangler Noah managed to get a male/female specimen of every single critter on Earth at the time, keeping them all alive etc. for a sustained period ? That's quite an impressive feat of engineering that is the envy of all modern zoos I'm sure.
And Jonah being gobbled by a whale and surviving for something like 3 days ? Hmm...
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html' target='_blank'>Interesting attempt at supporting truth of Jonah story</a>
Carbon dating won't date something accurately for more than a few ten thousands of years...so yes.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lust is harmful insofar as it is a precursor to adultery, which hurts relationships between people. (This is the context in which Jesus mentions it, unless you and I are thinking of different Bible passages.) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Matthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lust-fully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Carbon dating won't date something accurately for more than a few ten thousands of years...so yes.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Sep 6 2003, 01:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Sep 6 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Carbon dating won't date something accurately for more than a few ten thousands of years...so yes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why it isn't used for things more than 50000 years old. I think potassium argon is the method of decay based dating used for older fossiles
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 6 2003, 01:42 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 6 2003, 01:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--FilthyLarry+Sep 6 2003, 01:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Sep 6 2003, 01:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 6 2003, 01:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Carbon dating won't date something accurately for more than a few ten thousands of years...so yes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why it isn't used for things more than 50000 years old. I think potassium argon is the method of decay based dating used for older fossiles <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html' target='_blank'>Potassium-Argon Dating link</a>
And there are counters to the accuracy of potassium argon as well - but lets not go their, its a bit too far off topic.
As to Noah, you think he got all the animals together himself? Think again. I have serious doubts he collected them, I'm almost positive God did the collecting for him. And again for building a huge boat, I'm pretty sure anyone here could do that. If you had the help he did that is. Over 30 people working on it for nearly 100 years, with instructions, help and tips from an all powerful God?
I like my odds <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
This discussion has reached a moot point. We're seperated into two groups, one believing that the authors of the Bible were human and their product thus - independently from whether originating from God or not - faulty, and the other convinced that the Bibles authors were divinely inspired and thus capable of creating a 'perfect' work.
While the first can not convince the latter group as the second groups belief is based on faith rather than argumentation, the latter can't convince the first either, because, well, their belief is based on faith rather than argumentation: It's completely logical that no author of the Bible could make statements about the perfection of the full work as their seperate books predate the actual assembly by up to a hundred years. This means that one can not prove that the Bible is perfect or not based on the Bible itself, and we seem to disagree on any other attempt of prove because of reasoning stemming <i>from</i> our different interpretations of the Bible.
Fortunately nobody from the "pro-homosexuality" group bothered to use the arguments from the LGCM website. Thank you, horrible pink! That stuff would have been so much harder to counter than some blanket appeals to tolerance and biology.
Hey, but you just <i>linked</i> to it. If an URL counts as an argument, consider everything the LGCM said <a href='http://www.vatican.va/' target='_blank'>refuted!</a>! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One might argue that the strict biblical rejection of homosexual relationships stems mainly from the intention of the early Christian (and contemporary Judaistic) communities of differentiating themselves from the Roman-Greek society where homosexuality was common practice, that this condamnmend of homosexuality is thus nothing more than a relic of the first era of Christian policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument has little to do with tolerance or biology, has it? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nemesis is right, though. It was careless of me to overlook that. Sorry.
But perhaps this is the right quote to revive the discussion with a new aspect (unless I've overlooked more). I think the question <i>why</i> St. Paul considers homosexuality sinful has been somewhat obscured by tangential issues.
If we assume that he creates a simple teleological argument in Romans 1, doesn't history prove him right? The lewd Graeco-Roman morals struggled with the prudish Judeo-Christian ones for survival, and apparently the latter <i>were</i> the fittest: They're still around, but Graeco-Roman culture is extinct.
the greco-roman culture has died, but it's ideologies are still around (hence we're having this debate in the first place). And like nem said, after 13 pages of prudent discussion, we've reached the end of our argument. It's gotten a little off-topic, but oh well, I'm willing to let it rest (and find another thread to jump in on). It's been fun guys.
Sorry, Sheezy, but Twex made me lick blood once again <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we assume that he creates a simple teleological argument in Romans 1, doesn't history prove him right? The lewd Graeco-Roman morals struggled with the prudish Judeo-Christian ones for survival, and apparently the latter were the fittest: They're still around, but Graeco-Roman culture is extinct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Social Darwinism, aimed against no matter whom, is always faulty. It wasn't the Graeco-Roman culture that fell, it was the Roman empire, which had simply reached the logistic limits of its time. The whole Renaissance, which led to a cultural bloom the Dark Ages had at no point seen, proves the idea of the inferiority of the Graeco-Roman culture wrong. We might now get into a discussion about why the Judeo-Christian culture was capable of filling the gap opened by Romes fall, but I'd see the establishment within the Roman Empire before its fall, the relative adaptability of the still relatively 'young' faith and the general religious tolerance of the barbarian cultures now taking dominance as the main reasons for that, not the fact that Christianity prohibited homosexuality <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
I posted this in the other homosexuality thread, but I thought it might reach more of its target audience here.
Alan Turing, you may know of him from the "Turing test" which has become a standard test for AI, or from the "Turing award" which is given out annually for the best work in computer science.
He's a good example of what happens when you try to treat homosexuality as an illness. Anyone who thinks homosexuals should just hide it, or be abstinent, or wake up, or whatever you think they need to do rather than being themselves, read this. <a href='http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/turing.html' target='_blank'>http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/turing.html</a>
He's the reason you are reading this forum on a computer.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 6 2003, 11:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 6 2003, 11:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It wasn't the Graeco-Roman culture that fell, it was the Roman empire, which had simply reached the logistic limits of its time. The whole Renaissance, which led to a cultural bloom the Dark Ages had at no point seen, proves the idea of the inferiority of the Graeco-Roman culture wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There was a reason that the Roman empire surpassed its logistic limits and fell. A large portion of that being Graeco-Roman culture. The part of culture that survived and was celebrated in the Renaissance was but a small aspect of the Roman way of life.
This is the Roman Empire at the peak of its power. The areas size surpasses todays European Union. And the fastest means of transportation they had to keep this Empire together was the horse. <i>That's</i> the logistic hardship the Roman Empire faced. It wasn't capable of moving reinforcements fast enough, couldn't control remote regions well enough to put an end on corruption, and faced too many enemies it couldn't react fast enough against from too many directions at once. This has <i>little</i> to do with the Graeco-Roman culture.
We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals?
moultano: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Turing's a good example of what happens when you try to treat homosexuality as an illness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He's a good example of what happens when you try to fire homosexuals from their jobs, put them on trial, imprison them or feed them hormones. None of that was advocated by any Christian here. You can't compare Christian "We're all sinners" with McCarthy's "We're perfect and you aren't".
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Twex+Sep 6 2003, 02:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Twex @ Sep 6 2003, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Um, well the US is 85% christian according to the last figures I heard.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a>
This is the Roman Empire at the peak of its power. The areas size surpasses todays European Union. And the fastest means of transportation they had to keep this Empire together was the horse. <i>That's</i> the logistic hardship the Roman Empire faced. It wasn't capable of moving reinforcements fast enough, couldn't control remote regions well enough to put an end on corruption, and faced too many enemies it couldn't react fast enough against from too many directions at once. This has <i>little</i> to do with the Graeco-Roman culture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It also took the Roman Empire 400 years after its "height of power" to fall.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 6 2003, 02:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 6 2003, 02:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Um, well the US is 85% christian according to the last figures I heard.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Comments
And the logical counter to that arguement is the one I used. I dont feel that it is fair to compare rapists to homosexuals, because homosexuals dont hurt anyone else, but my basic point remains proven. Just because you feel like doing something because of your genes DOESNT make it right. Using the "but we are genetically predisposed" arguement falls flat. Being predisposed simply doesnt justify your actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, no. He was saying that genetic predisposition disproves that it's "unnatural". What I later said (have you read the entire thread? I hate repeating myself) was that given that homosexuality hurts nobody, it should not REQUIRE justification. The best argument for homosexuality being a sin is that it's "unnatural" - even if that were a valid moral argument (which IMHO it is not), the fact that homosexuality is naturally a quality of some people invalidates it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At no stage did the Bible claim that all epileptic fits are caused by demons. It simply described the symptoms of a certain person who was demon possesed and cured. And those symptoms were very much like epilepsy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Imagine for a second that someone with epilepsy had come to Jesus in search of curing. Quite possible, since epilepsy was not very treatable during Biblical times. What would onlookers have thought was happening? That it was somebody possessed by a demon (again, historical records tell us that ALL cases of epilepsy were in fact diagnosed as either demonic possession or divine inspiration at that time), and that when Jesus cured it, he was exorcising the demon. My suspicion is that the onlookers expected shrieking demons, and the accounts later embellished so as to make the story more dramatic and highlight the real point, which had nothing to do with demons.
The point is, the Bible contains important moral truths, but as a general rule those truths are filtered through the unique experience and biases of its authors. In some cases, the authors' cultural biases or scientific ignorance might actually cause them to make erroneous statements and judgements. It's our duty as Christians to try to get at the truth of the matter rather than adhering to scripture completely blindly - isn't that part of what Jesus was all about?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What verse does it describe the sky as a firmament of water with stars set in it? Please Im not being sarcastic, I honestly dont know.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:15. On the very first page of the freakin' book. The New International calls it an "expanse", the King James calls it a "firmament". The meaning is unmistakably clear in all translations.
(Side note, true story: I was once approached by some Jehovah's Witnesses at a bus stop, and got in a minor debate with them on whether every word in the Bible was literally true. As evidence, I mentioned the firmament, and although they both carried bibles with them, their reaction was just like yours - "What? Where's that?" I borrowed one of their bibles and showed it to them, on the very first page, and they were FLOORED. They hadn't ever read any part of the book beyond the parts with little blue sticky notes that they could quote out of context to support their proselytizing. Let this be a lesson - if you're going to try to convert someone, make sure you know more about your holy book than they do.)
Ahhh okay I have heard that before, as I have also heard the counter. One theory is that their WAS large amounts of water in the atmosphere, and that it was held their - ie No raining. During the Great Flood was the first time that human has ever seen rain. The theory is that this rain was the falling of the water body from the atmosphere.
This water body also might account for Eden being a very lush garden. Having large amounts of H2O in the atmoshere would create a greenhouse effect that would effectively mean that all H2O plants needed was available from the air, and thus having no rain wasnt a problem.
EDIT As to your above stated, if something that hurts no-one doesnt need justification, then neither does lust. Lust hurts no one, yet the Bible condemns that as well. Killing is natural as well, yet thats wrong. There are a lot of things that are natural that are wrong. Simply saying that its natural therefore justified is false imho. This seems to come back to whether the Bible is the Word of God, something we seem to disagree on....
And.. wait. Old Testament... New Testament. Wouldn't the requirement of the New Testament imply that the Old Testament was flawed? That it had to be addendized? A Perfect God would simply create one book and be done with it. No contradictions overriding old passages in the newer text. No *need*, as the first one would have been perfect. Handed down by god, and had the transcribers' hands guided by him, it would be infallible Truth. But... we have another section, added later! Yes, now and only now, we'll say that 'more knowledge was passed down'. We'll say it in a good way so it'll sound like god wanted to add more, rather than outright saying he made a mistake (which he apparently can't... wait.. a perfect being unable to intentionally make a mistake? Sounds imperfect to me, erring on the side of perfection).
Lust is harmful insofar as it is a precursor to adultery, which hurts relationships between people. (This is the context in which Jesus mentions it, unless you and I are thinking of different Bible passages.)
Homosexual relationships need not be adulterous.
God did NOT make mistakes. He gave the OT to the JEWS - NOT the Christians. The Jews missed the message of the OT, which can be summarised in "Here are the rules, you cant possibly follow these rules, therefore we are going to have to find a way to get you fellas forgiven". It also contains mass prophecy of the Messiah. Messiah came, the Jews rejected him, so he went to the Gentiles. The New Testament is written for the Gentiles. The Gentiles are NOT Jews, and thus a lot of the customs God gave to the Jews in the OT dont apply. Here I'll repost what I said before.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Look I think a few things really need clearing up about the Bible. First off, not all of it is given as rules specifically to the Christians. The OT is there not as a rule book but as a very important reference text. It shows the dealings between the God we believe in and his chosen people - the Israelites. So the commands to "not eat pork" are given SPECIFICALLY to the Israelites. The Caananites were not sinning by eating pork, nor when they had sex with ovulating women. The Jews were.
Second, the issue of sacraficing is very thoroughly dealt with. The Jews had to sacrafice to get rid of their sin. Something simply HAD to take the blame, so it was put on the animals. But that had to be rinsed and repeated, because you kept sinning, and the animals were a pretty dodgy sacrafice in Gods eyes, as they werent perfect.
The idea is that Jesus, being perfect, died on the cross as the last sacrafice, taking the blame for all future sins, and thus negating the need for continual sacrafice.
Some of the rules God gave the Israelites are hard and fast rules - this is right and this is wrong. Others are merely customs. How do you determine the two? Serious study of Hebrew and Greek texts.
One of the biggest problems early Christians had was distinguishing themselves from the Jews. They kept looking at the OT and saying, "but we have to do this and this and this because God tells us in the OT thats what we have to do".
The perfect answer to that is God and Paul. God put before Paul a whole stack of "unclean animals" - pork and the like. And he told him to eat them. Now Paul was previously a hardcore Jew, and said no, they are unclean. Gods answer? What I call clean, let no man call unclean. Basically saying, I made these rules, and I reserve the right to change them. I am telling you its okay, therefore it IS okay.
So the OT does NOT contradict the NT. The New Testament is supposed to be the "evolution" of the Old Testament. Some things were changed, some things stayed the same. The laws in the Old Testament were aimed at Jews, not gentiles, but apply to both. Jewish customs (that God gave them to distinguish them from other races) do NOT apply to Christians.
Not outdated Nem, superceded. A lot holds true in the OT, but if you want the Christian perspective on it, you have to interpret it through the NT. Almost all "Biblical inconsistencies" come down to Jewish customs.
EDIT Further clarification. God did not call the eating of pork evil, he simply told the Jews not to do it. God did, however, tell them that homosexuality was an abomination in his sight. That differentiates custom from rule. No pork is the custom, no homosexuality is the rule.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Homosexual relationships do need to be adulterous unfortunately. Marriage is the only place that sex is acceptable according to the Bible. Marriage is then classified as the union of a man and woman. Therefore it is impossible to be married in the eyes of God (if you are a guy marrying a guy), and thus impossible not to have adulterous relations.
BTW adultery in the Bible isnt limited to simply sleeping with a married person, its sexual sin. (as I believe anyway)
Homosexual relationships need not be adulterous. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, lust is a precursor to nothing technically, though in most cases is a precursor to fornication, not adultry. You can say "hey, consenting adults having sex, no biggie, no one's hurt" just the same as you're saying it for homosexual relationships.
As marine is trying to point out, the Old Testament is a precursor to the New Testament. It starts in Genesis and is law, and when it ends it leaves room because of prophecy. Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy, and is the fullfullment of OT law. He replaces the strict "do this and you're going to Hell, unless you sacrifice a lamb or bull to me" with salvation by Grace. He did this sot hat no man can brag, because sin plagues us all equally. He was the final sacrifice. Look to revelation, and it's an ending. There isn't any more room to add onto the new testament, because between the 2, the Bible has a beginning (Genesis) that explains the origin of the world, and an ending (Revelation) that explains the future ending of the world. God didn't need a New book because the old one is flawed, The NT is just the second half to the book. If it was stopped after the OT, it would be like leaving a play during the interlude, you never get to see the best part. The Old Testament was a Covenant between God and the Jews, where the New Testament is a new Covenant between God and *everyone*. This was extended to us because the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, which I'm thankful for because 1) it fulfilled prophecy, and 2) it means I'm not doomed to hell because I'm not Jewish.
<a href='http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#contradictions' target='_blank'>AIG webpage</a>
I get the impression from the repeated use of Leviticus customs used as an attack on the coherency of the Bible that not many people have actually heard the Bible defended.
So have a look there, I dont agree with all of it, but most of its good.
I read up to page 4 and stopped...So
<span style='color:red'>*Click.* The discussions forum is a mature debating arena. If you are going to post to a thread, you WILL review the entire thread. It's called common courtesy, and it DOES apply in a forum intended toward more intelligent discussion.. at least a minor modicum of respect for others' thoughts. Thank you, have a nice day.</span>
As I said before... the Bible describes epileptic seizures as demonic possession. It describes the sky as being a firmament with water above it and stars set into it. To say that the Bible is the literal word of God is a grave insult against God, in my mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I tend to agree.
What about Noah's Ark ? Do people really believe master critter-wrangler Noah managed to get a male/female specimen of every single critter on Earth at the time, keeping them all alive etc. for a sustained period ? That's quite an impressive feat of engineering that is the envy of all modern zoos I'm sure.
And Jonah being gobbled by a whale and surviving for something like 3 days ? Hmm...
<a href='http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/jonah.html' target='_blank'>Interesting attempt at supporting truth of Jonah story</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Lust is harmful insofar as it is a precursor to adultery, which hurts relationships between people. (This is the context in which Jesus mentions it, unless you and I are thinking of different Bible passages.)
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lust-fully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why it isn't used for things more than 50000 years old. I think potassium argon is the method of decay based dating used for older fossiles
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Indeed it would appear that way. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Kinda dissapointed to learn that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why it isn't used for things more than 50000 years old. I think potassium argon is the method of decay based dating used for older fossiles <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/09_Potassium_Argon_Dating.html' target='_blank'>Potassium-Argon Dating link</a>
As to Noah, you think he got all the animals together himself? Think again. I have serious doubts he collected them, I'm almost positive God did the collecting for him. And again for building a huge boat, I'm pretty sure anyone here could do that. If you had the help he did that is. Over 30 people working on it for nearly 100 years, with instructions, help and tips from an all powerful God?
I like my odds <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
While the first can not convince the latter group as the second groups belief is based on faith rather than argumentation, the latter can't convince the first either, because, well, their belief is based on faith rather than argumentation:
It's completely logical that no author of the Bible could make statements about the perfection of the full work as their seperate books predate the actual assembly by up to a hundred years. This means that one can not prove that the Bible is perfect or not based on the Bible itself, and we seem to disagree on any other attempt of prove because of reasoning stemming <i>from</i> our different interpretations of the Bible.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One might argue that the strict biblical rejection of homosexual relationships stems mainly from the intention of the early Christian (and contemporary Judaistic) communities of differentiating themselves from the Roman-Greek society where homosexuality was common practice, that this condamnmend of homosexuality is thus nothing more than a relic of the first era of Christian policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That argument has little to do with tolerance or biology, has it? <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
ah yes, but Nem remember. Nobody's Perfect...
But perhaps this is the right quote to revive the discussion with a new aspect (unless I've overlooked more). I think the question <i>why</i> St. Paul considers homosexuality sinful has been somewhat obscured by tangential issues.
If we assume that he creates a simple teleological argument in Romans 1, doesn't history prove him right? The lewd Graeco-Roman morals struggled with the prudish Judeo-Christian ones for survival, and apparently the latter <i>were</i> the fittest: They're still around, but Graeco-Roman culture is extinct.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If we assume that he creates a simple teleological argument in Romans 1, doesn't history prove him right? The lewd Graeco-Roman morals struggled with the prudish Judeo-Christian ones for survival, and apparently the latter were the fittest: They're still around, but Graeco-Roman culture is extinct. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Social Darwinism, aimed against no matter whom, is always faulty. It wasn't the Graeco-Roman culture that fell, it was the Roman empire, which had simply reached the logistic limits of its time. The whole Renaissance, which led to a cultural bloom the Dark Ages had at no point seen, proves the idea of the inferiority of the Graeco-Roman culture wrong.
We might now get into a discussion about why the Judeo-Christian culture was capable of filling the gap opened by Romes fall, but I'd see the establishment within the Roman Empire before its fall, the relative adaptability of the still relatively 'young' faith and the general religious tolerance of the barbarian cultures now taking dominance as the main reasons for that, not the fact that Christianity prohibited homosexuality <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Alan Turing, you may know of him from the "Turing test" which has become a standard test for AI, or from the "Turing award" which is given out annually for the best work in computer science.
He's a good example of what happens when you try to treat homosexuality as an illness. Anyone who thinks homosexuals should just hide it, or be abstinent, or wake up, or whatever you think they need to do rather than being themselves, read this.
<a href='http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/turing.html' target='_blank'>http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/turing.html</a>
He's the reason you are reading this forum on a computer.
There was a reason that the Roman empire surpassed its logistic limits and fell. A large portion of that being Graeco-Roman culture. The part of culture that survived and was celebrated in the Renaissance was but a small aspect of the Roman way of life.
Look at this map.
<img src='http://www.sct.gu.edu.au/~sctwiseh/Roman/RE0116x.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
This is the Roman Empire at the peak of its power. The areas size surpasses todays European Union. And the fastest means of transportation they had to keep this Empire together was the horse. <i>That's</i> the logistic hardship the Roman Empire faced. It wasn't capable of moving reinforcements fast enough, couldn't control remote regions well enough to put an end on corruption, and faced too many enemies it couldn't react fast enough against from too many directions at once.
This has <i>little</i> to do with the Graeco-Roman culture.
Let's approach from a different angle.
We assume, for a second, that you are correct and the Apostle rejected homosexuality only to differentiate Christians from the decadent culture surrounding them. Why, then, should this be a relic? Why shouldn't Christians 2000 years later, finding themselves again outnumbered in a culture where lewd displays of half-naked women, adultery, idolatry and public homosexuality are common, take St. Paul's piece of advice and condemn these practices to differentiate themselves from this general decline of morals?
moultano:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Turing's a good example of what happens when you try to treat homosexuality as an illness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's a good example of what happens when you try to fire homosexuals from their jobs, put them on trial, imprison them or feed them hormones. None of that was advocated by any Christian here. You can't compare Christian "We're all sinners" with McCarthy's "We're perfect and you aren't".
Um, well the US is 85% christian according to the last figures I heard.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a>
Look at this map.
<img src='http://www.sct.gu.edu.au/~sctwiseh/Roman/RE0116x.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
This is the Roman Empire at the peak of its power. The areas size surpasses todays European Union. And the fastest means of transportation they had to keep this Empire together was the horse. <i>That's</i> the logistic hardship the Roman Empire faced. It wasn't capable of moving reinforcements fast enough, couldn't control remote regions well enough to put an end on corruption, and faced too many enemies it couldn't react fast enough against from too many directions at once.
This has <i>little</i> to do with the Graeco-Roman culture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It also took the Roman Empire 400 years after its "height of power" to fall.
Um, well the US is 85% christian according to the last figures I heard.
Edit: make that 83%. <a href='http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html' target='_blank'>http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...oll_010718.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Please, don't get me started.