Some questions for the truly Biblical

[pianistimo]

i also think David was a 'man after God's own heart.'  i expressed a similar view several threads above - relating to the topic.  basically, back then, it was an insult to be feminized (for a macho guy).  they only did it to humiliate one another (cutting a man's robe, cutting his beard, whatever they did after capturing the men).  David apologized to Saul because he realized it wasn't his place, since God had put him into power.

anyway, if David had been homosexual, he would have openly admitted it and repented as 'lying with a man as with a woman' was an OT scripture i'm sure he was familiar with.  the psalms and other places show him only being repentant about his adultery with Bathsheba - and the fact that he repented allowed him grace in God's eyes.  repentance over any sin would be covered in God's blood - but we are told to 'sin no more.'  so, if David had done this it would have been mentioned not only as done, but repented of.

as of march 2006, according to this article's medical stats www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF02B1

the aids cases have been broken down into categories of how each person obtained it:
46%  are men w/ men
25%  injecting drugs
11%  hetero
6%  w/man and injecting drugs
1%  blood transfusion
1%  hemophelia/coagulation disorder

c. everett koop, though not condemning people, simply pointed out that the anal sphincter is not lubricated (as a woman's v.) and often causes bleeding.  the result is a combination of readily transmitted disease (blood borne) and a loosening of the muscles and inability to hold stuff in your pants.  neither sound very attractive. 

*more likely, Paul, with the 'thorn in his flesh' was afflicted with the previous knowledge that he had tortured and killed Christians before he came to know God.  he was, after conversion, more likely aescetic and although he did not practice homosexuality as a christian, he was not married, and perhaps this was a temptation when he was working with others.  he always is spoken of as having control and teaching timothy (as a young man) to have control of his thoughts and emotions.  what a person is taught outside of christianity is very different than what is taught inside.  it's a learning curve.

if you think about anal sex, it's definately not a place for anyone to put anything that doesn't want to get infection.  personally, i don't think it's good for a man or a woman.  it's a perversion of something that's already naturally made provision for without as much possibility of infection.  some might disagree, but at least you know what i mean.  i've not heard of aids being spread as much by monogamous relationships, but more by 'risky behavior' which is anal sex.  the threat of aids is still as much a threat today as it ever was.  it's just that young men are not taught by older men or society how much of a risk it is.  basically the younger men just accept what they are told, probably.  that's how people end up dying (for a few years of sexual excitement they could have had just sitting on the toilet enjoying their defication)?  suppose i shouldn't say that here - but it's just amazing what people will risk their lives for. 

it would be a tragedy to spread a disease for a while, not knowing you had it, either.  as i see it, for every sin there is a consequence.  it's a literal bible reading.  but, there is also forgiveness and amazing healing when people turn to God.  whatever God wills can  be done - so he can heal minds and bodies whenever He wishes.  He mentions that our bodies are living 'temples' to him.  often we don't give ourselves the self-worth that He gives us.  He wants us to be clean and holy and a 'vessel' for service.  so,t he first step is to cleanse your mind from impure thoughts.  otherwise, you'll be tempted over and over.  that is where the bible comes in.  if you replace your natural thoughts with God's then you'll see what purpose HE has for your body, your mind, and your soul.

ps  i didn't start the thread, and have no stake in it except the hope that many will save their own lives now and for God's purpose in their future.

[timothy42b]

anyway, if David had been homosexual, he would have openly admitted it and repented as 'lying with a man as with a woman' was an OT scripture i'm sure he was familiar with.  the psalms and other places show him only being repentant about his adultery with Bathsheba - and the fact that he repented allowed him grace in God's eyes.  repentance over any sin would be covered in God's blood - but we are told to 'sin no more.'  so, if David had done this it would have been mentioned not only as done, but repented of.

Snip a bunch of garbage about anal sex.  Is it possible that loving longterm monogamous relationships aren't all about sex?  Okay, never mind. 

You haven't responded to any of my points.  Did you not read?  or not comprehend? 

I have never suggested that David was a homosexual, in the modern sense of a person whose orientation is towards the same sex.  Instead, I have stated quite clearly that I don't think this concept exists anywhere in the bible.  If you think otherwise, please supply a citation.  I promise to read and consider it carefully.  Perhaps I'm wrong, it has happened before. 

I have suggested that David had a long term very very close relationship with another male, and that this probably though not 100% definitely involved sex, and that it seemed to be no big deal either to the culture or God.  You have responded that this couldn't have happened because it offends you, basically.  I notice you didn't rebut the "gadal."  (erection) 

Your comment that David would have been familiar with that Lev scripture makes no sense.  First, I'm not at all sure he was familiar, it was lost for some time until Josiah "found" it at just the right time to make the political changes he wanted.  But I'm hazy on that chronology and can't be sure of the dates.  However, that doesn't change the fact that that Lev prohibition referred only to temple prostitutes.  Clearly that is how David would have understood it, if he did know it.  (How much of the OT do you think the characters in it ever saw, anyway?  Most of it was written long after their time.  Most of it was oral only for a good thousand years before being written down.)  Why do you keep insisting Lev prohibits something everybody agrees it does not? 

Of the three long term same sex relationships in the Bible, David was married and coveted other men's wives, Ruth and Naomi had been married, Daniel and Ashkenazi I can't recall.  None are suggested to be exclusively homosexual, and as far as I can tell no mention of a homosexual orientation is found anywhere within OT or NT. 

[pianistimo]

i have never seen the useage of the word 'straight guys' in the OT.  nor, have i seen the focus of the law be only towards the combination of straight guys and temple prostututes. 

lev. 18:1 '...speak to the SONS of israel and say to them, 'I am the Lord your God.  you shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of canaan where i am bringing you; you shall not walk in their statutes.'  so God was making a law for the entire land of israel and peoples and not just the temple.  otherwise, why would Christ say our bodies are a temple for Him, today - and that 'one jot or one title shall in no wise pass fromt he law until all is fulfilled?'  i take that to mean Christ's sacrifice did away with ONLY animal sacrifice - and that if we want to be a part of SPIRITUAL israel, we will keep the commandments holy (and the statutes if we understand them and the blessings they hold).  basically, it's free knowledge.  if you take it - you cannot help but be blessed.

18:22 says 'you shall not lie with a male (not temple prostitute) as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.'  right after that He goes into prohibition of intercourse with animals.  then it says 'do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these things the nations which i am casting out before you have become defiled.  for the land has become defiled, therefore i have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.  but as for you, you are to keep my statutes and my judgements, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the NATIVE (israel) OR the ALIEN (someone from another country living there) who sojourns among you.'

i also think King David had a friendship with Jonathan.  it was probably a close friendship, as you say, but i believe 100% WITHOUT sex.  if you even do it once, it would be a sin, and he would have repented of it in the bible so that God's word would remain true.  otherwise, he would not have been a man 'after God's own heart' if he broke God's laws. 

David mentions the statutes and laws in psalms that he wrote - which many scriptures were probably passed on by his righteous father Jesse (who happened to be the son of Obed, who was the son of Ruth and Boaz).  also, samuel (the prophet was alive to tell people - and David was annointed by him and listened to his words).  psalms 103:18 says what david was aware of (the covenant that God had made with his people to be holy) 'to those who KEEP his covenant, and who remember his precepts TO DO THEM.'   psalm 105:45 'so that they might keep His statutes, and observe His laws, Praise the Lord.'

His great-grandmother Ruth was neither a lesbian (with Naomi) nor a gentile in the sense of not being grafted into israel and accepting their laws and ways.  She accompanied Naomi for the sole purpose of accepting her God and finding blessings along the way.  because her husband was related to Boaz, he was 'next in line' according to the law.  And, Boaz was a righteous man, and if he had not known of Ruth's profession of love to him, would have thought himself too old for her.  Ruth was not displaying lesbian type activity to live with Naomi (much older = and like her grandmother - as she was her MOTHER-IN-LAW).  if she was having sex with her mother-in-law, she would be sick indeed.  where do you come up with these ideas?

anyway, it's no big deal - because whatever people have a mind to do, they will find an excuse.  it's just not in the bible - no matter how hard you look.  and 'ashkenazy' with daniel?  can you give a scripture?

[prometheus]

You did say that Iraqis want the US out of their country.  You also did state the Iraqi democracy isn't in the interests of the US.

Exactly. I know what I said. The polls show that the Iraqi want their government to demand a time table for withdrawal. You added the word 'tomorrow'.

You still miss the fundamental fact about polls.

I know it is hard to know how accurate polls are and I already admitted that. But your point is that they are meaningless. I disagree there. Everyone is polling. Corporations are polling to find out how the market is. The MoD is polling because they want to know how much consensus they have with the Iraqi people from a strategic point of view, etc.

It is indeed necessary to compare polls to the 'truth.'

I said the opposite. And frankly this isn't possible.

When you poll, you take results for a small sample, and extrapolate the views of a larger population.  No pollster is gonna ask all 25million Iraqis, they only do a small group maybe on the order of 1,000.

Thats the problem of selecting a representative group. If you do that you don't have to poll 25(26) million Iraqis.

A large part of what statistics deals with is figuring out how close the results of the sample(which you know) are to the results for the whole population(which you don't.) 

This depends on how representative your group is. If you think it was you don't need to use statistical tools to adjust the results.

The poll doesn't directly tell us what the Iraqis think.

I already used the world indirectly.

Without knowing things like sample size, how the sample group was chosen, how the questions were framed, the data is untrustworthy. There's a whole branch of math/science devoted to statistics and it is extremely relevant to interpreting the results. 

If you do know the sample size and group the data will be just as inaccurate as when you do. But it is is funny that at first you claim such polls didn't exist. And now you know they do, actually they are an abundance, you claim polls should be ignored. Even when done by international leading polling institutions or by one of the most opposite-biased institutions there is.

You said earlier that US support for SA stemmed from a need for cheap oil and then stated how the US actions in Iraq affected America's supply of oil. Now you are saying that the US doesn't want cheap oil, but instead wants to enrich oil companies.  These are completely different subjects.

If you control the oil you can try to influence both.

So now you've gone from having a similar arguement to Marxists to having a Marxist arguement.

Marxist argument? Is this some kind of attempt at a straw man? First off, I didn't talk about social revolutions, centralisation or any marxist concept. I think this is more a neo-capitalism argument.

The US gov't is only a puppet of corporations!  Your arguement is as bad as the one that WWI occured so that arms manufacturers could make a dime.

Uuh, you claim that corporations have no influence over governments? That's absurd. First of, in every western country corporations are constantly lobbying. Now in the US they pay for the presidential election. So without corporate support you can't run for president. They aren't going to endorse everyone.
Plus, 'they' are the corporations. US presidents or serieus candidates always come from the upper class. Both the Bushes went to Yale, Kerry went to Yale, Clinton went to Yale, Ford went to Yale. And maybe even more important, the guys behind the president; Cheney, Lieberman, Shriver. Dean and Hart went to Yale. And Hilary also went to Yale. Their Yale friends are going to be leading the corporations. In fact, some lead corporations before they go into politics.
Now when I say these people are going to enrich themselves don't tell me that is a far fetched conspiracy theory, because it isn't.
So you would think these people would help out big business. And that is what you see. You see it in the tax cuts. You see it in opposing Kyoto, while the Bush voters actually thought Bush was pro-Kyoto because they couldn't imagine he wasn't; after all he is a nice guy, how can he support Big business at the cost of the people?


timothy42b, Pianistimo doesn't seem to read or understand points made. I don't really know where it goes wrong but that has also been my experience. After becomming frustrated I think I gave up.

Note that most homosexual men don't have anal sex.

For the greek and romans it was common for a male to have sex with their best male friend, as a sign of close friendship. Sex with females was largely for reproduction, not out of love. And apperently these were normal people, so probably we would consider them straight today.

[pianistimo]

timothy42b, Pianistimo doesn't seem to read or understand points made. I don't really know where it goes wrong but that has also been my experience. After becomming frustrated I think I gave up.

Note that most homosexual men don't have anal sex.

i understand and address the points that i do understand and avoid the ones i don't.  the arguments about what is going on in iraq is something i don't know as much about.  many things are privy to politicians only.  this thread is suposedly about biblical stuff - and i've been addressing things that i know of in the bible. 

since i'm not a homosexual - i wouldn't know if there are some that don't have sex.  if they don't have sex, why don't they call themselves homofriends?  just an idea.

[prometheus]

No I was referring to other discussions. Of course I don't expect you to say anything about Iraq.


I am not a homosexual either and that doesn't matter. I said that most homosexuals don't have anal sex. How many don't have sex I don't know. At least that is what a poll showed, so I think that was limited to the Netherlands, before Music_Man jumps in.

Lets say two straight males are very good friends. They don't want to have female partners. Maybe they aren't monogamous or they think they aren't. Lets say they became life partners. They live together and spend much of their time together. Lets say they want to marry. They can't. Frankly I don't think this situation would arise very often because the idea is that a sex partner should also be a life partner. So this makes no sense at all from our point of view.

if they don't have sex, why don't they call themselves homofriends

Does it matter how they call themselves? They will be bluntly named homosexual or gay by society and that is the end of the story.

Even I probably base my, relatively rigid, sexual morals on christian ideas that come from from a 3000 years old book. These morals are largely subjective. Maybe not to christians, but without faith they are.

[timothy42b]

I think I know in advance there will not be a satisfactory answer to this.

But, I guess out of a kind of masochism, I am compelled to ask anyway.  And really, it is quite important. It is the original topic of this thread.  

You insist that a particular verse in Leviticus is applicable today.  I (and most theologians) would disagree with your interpretation of it, but ignore that problem.  You feel very strongly about this.

Very near that verse, some of it in the same paragraph in fact, are a couple more prohibitions.  Preachers cannot shave their beards.  You cannot mix cotton and wool in your clothes.  I know you have no problem with these sins and many similar ones in Leviticus.  

How do you decide to pick and choose within one chapter in one book of the bible?  

You must have reasons.  Perhaps you could share them?

[pianistimo]

i suppose that you'd never have to sing ketzel's aria if your lifetime partner was a male.  'lovers everywhere, fatuously declare they've found perfection...every man is smitten when a purring  kitten strokes him with a mitten soft with grace...but the shocks appalling when he finds a mauling tiger in it's place - a maaauuuuling tiiger in it's place.'

ok.  that's all for today.

except for a response to timothy42B.  imo (opinion, note i am not a theologian), these are a part of a government that no longer exists as a complete unit.  it has been broken up and broken up - and what we have today are the remains that we try to piece together of what God meant when he said 'this, and that.'  so, we look at what Christ said and did for guidance as to applicability today.  if he said 'one jot or one title shall not pass from the law,' did he mean that we should go around picking up lint?  i don't think so.  he even criticized the pharisees for tithing mint and cumin and forgetting the weightier matters of the law (do unto your neighbor as yourself and to love God with all your heart,mind,a nd soul).  it seems that giving 'aids' to someone wouldn't be terribly loving, but that's my take and it's not everyone's - so yes, i take the bible literally on many things.  will we be judged according to other people's sins (the specks intheir eyes)?  no. we have to take the board out of our own eye.  i realize this and am trying to get the board out right now.  guess that it's kind of like scary movie 3 or 4 or whatever was on tv the other night.  at first i wasn't going to let my daughter watch it (my religious side coming out) - and then, i realized if we realized the hilarity of our own lives sometimes - we just have different problems in different places.  that's why Christ died.  i DO think he loves all people, but he hates sin.  so, we have to know what's 'reality' (sin). 

personally i find women who kiss each other way more offensive than guys holding hands.  it's just repulsive to me, either way - but that's a personal view and though i wouldn't do it myself - i would never harm or seek the harm of people who have different views.

[timothy42b]

anyway, it's no big deal - because whatever people have a mind to do, they will find an excuse.  it's just not in the bible - no matter how hard you look.  and 'ashkenazy' with daniel?  can you give a scripture?

Yeah, I can't spell at all somedays, I had to look it up.  Daniel 1:9, it's Daniel and Ashpenaz.  Ashpenaz was chief of courts for Nebucanezzard  (I know, I didn't even come close.  Sorry!)  Ashpenaz showed Daniel favor and a word sometimes translated tender mercies, sometimes physical love.  Both were eunuchs so it is somewhat unclear what was intended.  Neither had any other love interest. 

[pianistimo]

you probably laugh at my posts, and i yours.  'nebuchanezzard?'  and, yet, you're quite the scholar to find all these places that seem to imply men being friendly and close.  i don't think there's any sin in that.  people share a beer today. what's the difference?  i think it is having sex with them.  ps anyone without sin was asked to throw the first stone - and everyone disappeared - so guess that goes without saying that any one of the statutes or commandments cannot perfectly be kept.  but, i think we should try!  that's the difference between a person who professes to love God and one who is led by the Spirit.  the Spirit only speaks God's words and maintains a close relationship to God over any man.

[musik_man]

Prometheus in a friend's house

Setting: Friend is angry at Prometheus for some odd reason

Friend: I want you to get out of my house!
Prometheus: ok
*Prometheus stands there*
F: I said get out!
P: You didn't say get out now.  I thought you meant at some non-specified future date.
F: What?!

Sorry, but when you say that the Iraqis want the US out of Iraq, any reasonable person would read it as them wanting us out now.  If you meant differently, it was your fault for being unclear.  Besides the statement that a vast majority of Iraqis want the US out at some vague time in the future, true as it may be(and I'd agree that it's true), is meaningless in the context of the conversation.  You claimed that the US turned Iraq into an Al Quaeda recruiting ground and then support this by saying that most Iraqis want the US out.  Who blows themself up because they want the US out at sometime in the future?  Wouldn't they blow themselves up in the future?   The only way your statement makes any sense, is if you read it as Iraqis wanting the US out now, in which case it's false.


I do not say that polls are meaningless.  I'm stating that a poll isn't inherently meaningful.  You're vastly oversimpliying the problem when you assume that a good sample population will give 100% accurate results.  I can't believe that you're argueing against checking your sources.  Do you really blindly believe what anyone tells you?  What's wrong with evaluating someone's statements?

What's more, you haven't shown that a 'vast number' of polls prove me wrong.  You gave two polls, one of which proved me the right(only 35% of Iraqis want the US out in 6 months.)  The other didn't give out any data about its methodology, so I'm a bit skeptical of it.  You apparently think that I'm committing some grave sin here by not blindly accepting what you tell me.  I don't accept studies based off of whether they agree with me, I accept them if they are reliable. 

For goodness sakes, look at the two polls you linked to.  The results they give can't be reconciled.  The first is that less than 35% of Iraqis want America out now.  The second says 80%.  One or the other must be wrong, and you'll pardon me if I believe the one that a) fits with most other polls of the Iraqi people and b) made public its methodology.

You in fact are making Marxist arguements by arguing for economic dialectacism.  You're arguing that history is being moved by the wants and needs of corporations which is a Marxist arguement.  I never said that you are totally embracing all Marxist doctrine.

Neither Clinton, Reagan, nor Carter came from rich families.  The rich have no stranglehold on government.  As far as US corporate influence, completely overrated.    Think about it.  If corporations can control the government, why doesn't for example Wal-mart just fill the coffers of the Democratic party and thereby get them to back off.  They don't do this, because the Democrats still would demagogue against Wal-mart.  Corporations donate to those who agree with them.  They don't use their donations to convert anyone.  When this does happen(ala Abramoff) people get arrested.  Most politicians vote either based off of their conscience or based off what they think will get them reelected.  You really have no evidence that corporations have much control of the government other than some bad interpretations of history.

Timothy, your attempts to make any relationship in the Bible queer if you can is unbelievable.  It comes from the same line of arguementation that'd tell us that Lincoln, Chopin, Washington, Beethoven, etc were gay.  You didn't find evidence that any of these relationships were homosexual and then start advocating it.  You want to justify homosexuality so you'll grasp any argument, no matter how bad, that 'proves' these people gay.  Your whole interpretation of the Bible seems completely centered around proving that homosexuality is A OK with God, instead of centered around a humble attempt to find and follow God's will.

BTW Prometheus, as Ivan Fyodorvich said in The Brothers Karamazov "When God is dead, all is permitted."  In order for any objective morality to exist, one has to believe in a higher being.  No morality can be proved without faith.  Your morals are no less subjective than any Christians.  At least the Christian can believe that his morals are universal.  An Atheist(You are an Atheist, right?) cannot justify any of his moral beliefs in anything objective.

[prometheus]

Sorry, but when you say that the Iraqis want the US out of Iraq, any reasonable person would read it as them wanting us out now.

That's insane. We are talking about a large military force. They can't withdraw in one day. It will take at least 6 months with extensive preliminary planning. And on top of that, basic military principles tell you you will have to build down the occupation step by step. So the 6 months vs two years idea isn't that strange. As far was we know now the US/UK might stay in Iraq for quite a while, maybe 5 to 10 years. As they did in SA after the first golf war.

Plus, since you make such a point about it. I will 'correct' myself by taking back what I said. The Iraqi people don't want the US to 'get out' but they want a time table for withdrawal, which is the same to me but apperently not to you.

You claimed that the US turned Iraq into an Al Quaeda recruiting ground and then support this by saying that most Iraqis want the US out.  Who blows themself up because they want the US out at sometime in the future?  Wouldn't they blow themselves up in the future? Tongue  The only way your statement makes any sense, is if you read it as Iraqis wanting the US out now, in which case it's false.

Uuh, pardon me? First of, when a person wants the US to leave as fast as possible then that doesn't mean they will blow themselves up. It doesn't even mean they support of sympathise with those that do. This makes no sense at all. Plus, this stuff has been in intelligence documents.

Fine, just look at other polls and get the opinions of important/informed people in Iraq.

You in fact are making Marxist arguements by arguing for economic dialectacism.

I am not. I am saying that powers pursuit their wants and needs. Whenether it is a capitalist or communist power, there is no difference for me. The US doesn't act much different from the USSR.

Neither Clinton, Reagan, nor Carter came from rich families.  The rich have no stranglehold on government.

No, but they are now. They worked their way up, I am not saying the american dream isn't possible, though it is unrealistic. I am saying that a factory worker will never get elected in the US and an ex-factory worker that worked himself up to the elite can.

Stranglehold, thats again put way too strong. I didn't say that. Surely it wasn't as bad decades ago as it is now. You claimed that the government working for the interest of the corporations was a conspiracy theory. I claimed that this is nonsence because they are largely the same people. And then you claim that is false because the rich don't have a stranglehold. Uuh...

Think about it.  If corporations can control the government, why doesn't for example Wal-mart just fill the coffers of the Democratic party and thereby get them to back off.  They don't do this, because the Democrats still would demagogue against Wal-mart.  Corporations donate to those who agree with them.  They don't use their donations to convert anyone

Thats because they don't need to convert anyone. The democrats are already pro-business. The republicans are even more so, thus they also get more money from the corporate world. If you are going to run for president in the US you need to have their support. Otherwise you can't pay for the election campaign. If you can't run a campaign you can't get any votes.

I don't see how the Abramoff case disproves anything. First of the corporations donate money while the polticians support them freely. You know this. Second, the Abramoff case shows that even this kind of, what is legally corruption/bribing, happens.

You really have no evidence that corporations have much control of the government other than some bad interpretations of history.

Both parties are pro-business. Both get money from corporations. Both vote and pass laws that are profitable for corporations. The economy has been stagnating, in the US, but corporate profits are off the scale. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever before and off the scale when compared to other western countries. You probably don't call this 'much' control, I assume you sneaked in that word for a purpose. It doesn't really matter. It is significant control.

BTW Prometheus, as Ivan Fyodorvich said in The Brothers Karamazov "When God is dead, all is permitted."

This is absolute non-sense, at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of many philosophers who wrote on the subject. Dostoevsky isn't a philosopher and yes his book advocates, in some sense, christianity, but that is clearly beyond the point.

In order for any objective morality to exist, one has to believe in a higher being.

Morality doesn't have to be objective. Even in the new testament Christ explains the basis for his moral thinking is: "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you." This idea was already expressed by Confusius about 500 years earlier. And it doesn't require anything objective.

No morality can be proved without faith.  Your morals are no less subjective than any Christians.

I alreadt said this. I said that morals aren't universally objective and that mine are probably based on christianity eventhough I am an atheist. I wanted to add that when a moral though is universal for all humans it is as good as any objective morality. Plus with faith you can't prove anything either.

An Atheist cannot justify any of his moral beliefs in anything objective.

Not much more than christians as far as objectivity is conserned. But that doesn't mean you can't make a(n) (winning) argment for atheistic morals over christian ones. Actually, some of the most moral people were atheist and some of the more immoral ones where christians.

Maybe you stand on Pope Beneductus on this, who thinks The Brothers Karamazov is a literally masterpeace(probably because of the christian ideas) and who things there cannot be any morality without god and who claims religion has a monopoly on ethics.

[thalbergmad]

There are some very clever people on this forum.

Regretfully, I am not one of them.

I is gonna read the Bible so i can get involved in these debates.

respect to the scholars.

Methinks Prometheus is the cleverest.

Thalx

[pianowelsh]

my goondess lots been discussed in my absence.  My goodness is it true that some people really interpret the word favour to mean sex - I chuckled over that one! But thats by the by.
Firstly I want to get straight I know that not everyone who reads the bible is a believer and I know that not everyone who accepts the bible to be a good book is born again/saved.  I wouldnt expect Jews/muslims/hindus ect reading the bible to accept its authority. Tragically as you point out many who consider themselves 'christian' dont agree with the bible and it has to be said they do eventually get into a difficult place because so much of scripture is inter related and as i quoted before Timothy say all scripture is God breathed and profitable.  Translations are not really an issue.  A comparative study was undertaken by scholars and the differences in translation were not only few but also generally inconseqencial - the meaning of the passage remained clear in all authoritative translations. There is an issue with versions such as the Good News and the message bible and others which are more paraphrases and/or written is contemporary/simplified language. They are not wrong but they are generally not a good idea to use as a study text.  Like looking at a Liszt transcription of a schubert song the outline is there still and it might throw the eye onto a point which was not easy to understand previously but if you want to understand the schubert song you need to study the schubert song really. In short they are a good support and if you are reading in a foreign language as i know some do then its easier to understand but the detail isnt always there.
Its true  not everyone shares 'God's expressed' view of judgement (its not mine - please dont attrib the mind of God to me - I am not worthy to stand in judgement He is!), as it is recorded BIBLICALLY  but , Jesus taught that the path is narrow and few there be that find it (volume of support dosent change a thing).
I qualified my term 'born again christian' as i am aware that there are many folks who sit in church or read the bible or at least have one on the shelf who are not necessarily in a born again relationship with Jesus Christ and have a living relationship with God 'and this is eternal life that they may know ME'(Jesus).  I know because i was one before God saved me.
The 'No condemnation' isnt my claim scripture declares it 'there is therefore now No condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus'. There are many denominations but for a christian to say i'm a christian but i dont know/accept Christ is really not viable. Without the sacrifice of Christ there is No salvation.  He didnt die because He thought it was a good idea but because it was necessary for our relationship to be restored with God the father. Thats why relationship with Christ is a completely inescapable part of the Christian Faith.  A natural response of the forgiven and accepted Christian is living a lifestyle pleaseing to God and God gave the law so Christians very often do keep the law. the law isnt bad! But we arent saved by keeping the law and therefore it isnt hard work or fearfull to keep the law but natural as we are gradually conformed to the likeness of Christ.
Im sorry for not clarifying where i wrote 'us' in my previous post i meant 'the world' the law was given to the jewish people and with Christs comissioning to make disciples of every nation it is implicit that the one law (directive from God) is Gods standard '.' for everyone! Which is why God says that there is 'none who are righteous (by the law standard) No not one'.  God said the fulfilment of the commandments(law) is Love and its his love that is demonstrated by God in Christ lifting the weight of the law off our shoulders and placing it on Christ who is righteous. This leaves us unable to boast in our goodness/rightness and enables us to give thanks and worship to God which is what mankind was designed to do (Genesis). He (Jesus) is the one who was sent in Love from the one who is Love.  This is where bible scholasticism is good up to a point BUT you can liken it to a brilliant analyst with a prelude and fugue - they can know its working inside out  but they dont play a note and have decided actually i dont want to know how it sounds. They are missing so much! A slavish studying of the score and working at the mathematical intrecacies may do a wonder of good for your brain but without having learned to play the instrument its a dead celebral activity. Its like this in Faith. If you dont know God and trust in Jesus - that he has done enough to free you from sin and the wages of the law(death) then you will miss everything.  The beauty of the music. The intricate feel of the parts weaaving together in your fingers - they enjoyment of the hearers.  I speak metaphorically here but studying the word as a Christian is totally different from studying as an unbeliever although an unbeliever can learn much about God through his word. 
I dont want to get into a catholic debate but the bible dosent support confessing to men/priests in the new covenant. It is a direct relationship.  Jesus said himself that he is the only name by which there is forgiveness for sin. He being in essence Love is the only one who can discipline lovingly without anger or self-righteousness.
I realy dont want to go into homosexuality AGAIN! as it offends people deeply to hear what Gods word says about it. Suffice to say I do not believe there is evidence to support Jonathan/  David having a sexual relationship Or Daniel! It is true however that they did have a strong and reliable friendship which God brought about and in Daniels case He really did show greatfulness and thankfulness to A (im not going to try and spell it!) but that isnt being homosexual.  It used to be called friendship. Which is a quality that many people have lost in a 'ME centered lifestyle' that dosent care what the other person wants.  David in particular is known for the openness of his at times imperfect relationships with people and God but He is also known for transparency.  He knew that God sees the heart no matter how hard we try and hide things.  He knew how liberating it was to be forgiven by God even when he knew he should be condemned.  He wasnt afraid to dance naked on behalf of the nation before God because He knew he was intimately known by God and its Gods view on us NOT how man sees us that counts ultimately so Christians can rejoice and be thankful to God for his mercy to them and be thankful and merciful people in their relationships with others.  We are all naked spiritually before God He sees everything.

[ahinton]

I wouldnt expect Jews/muslims/hindus ect reading the bible to accept its authority.

But what do you mean by that? There is no shortage of such people who accept it for what it is, whatever your expectations may be.

Tragically as you point out many who consider themselves 'christian' dont agree with the bible.

That's far too bald a statement to equate to reality. How can anyone - Christian or otherwise - "agree" or "disagree" with the entire work? It may indeed be true that Christians and others appear to question and ponder over certain aspects of the Bible, but many of these do not necessarily do so for the specific purpose of "arguing" with this or that text but to consider the relevance of the whole to - and the interpretation of each text by - a present-day society in all its multi-faith, multi-ethnic, high-tech, global-village manifestations. You later state that translation is not an issue, but it is - not merely tin the sense of translation from one language to another but also in the extent to which the meanings ascribed to certain words within any one language metamorphose as time progresses - and remember that we're talking many centuries here, not just a generation or three. You cite Liszt's transcription of Schubert songs to support your theories here, yet for all that these are indeed splendid works, it is evident that Liszt deliberately approached these with respect and, it has to be said, some reserve, whereas Godowsky's equally masterly Schubert song transcriptions, although written with at least as much respect for the originals, are far more florid amd fluid in general terms and they elaborate and "depart from" Schubert's texts more than Liszt's do. So - here we have Schubert, Schubert/Liszt and Schubert/Godowsky; which of these is the "Biblical" truth? - the Schubert? (and why? - just because it came first?) - for, if so, then Liszt and Godowsky, as later interpreters / commentators, might by seen by a certain type of born-again musical fundamentalist to have perverted that truth by reinterpretation and commentary. You will need no confirmation from me that I believe no such thing, of course! Then consider, for example, Finnissy's Verdi or Strauss Waltz transcriptions - look how far these "depart" from the originals! And Finnissy happens to be a Christian! (although I don't think that this has always been the case). No - this example actually undermines, rather than supports. your argument here, it seems.

Its true  not everyone shares 'God's expressed' view of judgement (its not mine - please dont attrib the mind of God to me - I am not worthy to stand in judgement He is!), as it is recorded BIBLICALLY  but , Jesus taught that the path is narrow and few there be that find it (volume of support dosent change a thing).

As to God's view of judgement, I am not seeking to attribute anyone else's mind to you, but what may have originally been thought to be meant by this will inevitably have become obscured with the passage of time. Scholars will be able to help to some degree here, but let me come back at you with another musical analogy, following yours about the transcribers. Even today, our precise knowledge of how the works of J S Bach and his contemporaries may actually have sounded at the time of their premières is less than it would be had we been alive at that time to experience them; however, even this fact is arguably less significant than the one which the 20th century British composer Robert Simpson illustrated when he said that the works of Bach, however "authentically" they may be performed, can never sound today as they did when they were new, because we will all listen to them with ears accustomed to Beethoven, Stravinsky, Xenakis... The problem with your views not only on "God's judgement" but on so much else to do with the Bible and Christianity, it seems to me, is that they are simply too rigidly frozen in a certain past time - i.e. Biblical time - to the extent that they appear to seek to hold to some kind of finite and inalienable truth. I am not at all for suggesting that each generation of humans wholly overthrows everything for which the previous generation stood; far from it. That is not, in any case, how human history has progressed. What I do say, however, is that human progress has always ensured that almost everything changes, however subtly, almost all the time. Again, this statement is not made for the purpose of undermining your concept of immutable truths but to illustrate that such truths, like the rest of us, have to - and do - move with the times. As to what you describe here as a particular part of Jesus' "teaching" - which I would rather describe as one of his observations - might more realistically be taken, in more modern parlance, to be some kind of equivalent to the contention that "it's a hard life, trying to balance and deal with everything that life throws at one and, at the same time, to find one's own way and pursue it to the best of one's ability"; indeed, reflecting Shakespeare, Norman Douglas wrote of the latter part of this as "...to be true to that self when found; a worthy and ample occupation for a lifetime". And Norman Douglas was an atheist!

The 'No condemnation' isnt my claim scripture declares it 'there is therefore now No condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus'.

But what is "scripture"? It is - literally - a kind of written record, like a lot of others; that is not to undermine the particular Biblical scripture of which you write, but to point out that the immutable authority and rigidity that you appear to vest in it will neither be guaranteed as forever standing the test of time 100% nor attain any specific exclusivity of application and acceptance, for there are other "scriptures" too. OK, perhaps you meant that this particular aspect applies - and is intended to apply - to Christians only, in which case (albeit still subject to what we might conveniently term "the translations of time") that is a somewhat different matter.

There are many denominations but for a christian to say i'm a christian but i dont know/accept Christ is really not viable. Without the sacrifice of Christ there is No salvation.  He didnt die because He thought it was a good idea but because it was necessary for our relationship to be restored with God the father.

"Not really viable"? Not only that, it would be ridiculous! - or at least where the word "accept" is concerned. It would be tantamount to saying that "I am a Scotsman, but I do not accept that Scotland exists". As to that ultimate sacrifice, however - and also to your reference to "knowing" Christ - this won't really work. We (now I'm using that first person plural! - but, in so doing, I do at least clarify at the outset that, by do soing, I mean anyone and everyone in this instance) none of us "know" Christ, nor have we ever met anyone who did; we know only what we have read about Him and his life - and even that, even after many years of probing scholarship, is fairly scant about quite a large amount of the 30-odd years He is reckoned to have spent on this planet in the human form that we customarily accept as "life". We are thus left having to "accept" and interpret what we read, to remember that there remain parts and aspects of Christ's life that are as yet insufficiently documented for us to comment on, still less "accept", with any degree of certainty and to bear in mind that any thoughts or comments that we do have or make will inevitably be from a 21st-century perspective that is mindful of all that we know has happened since the days of Christ.

bible scholasticism is good up to a point BUT you can liken it to a brilliant analyst with a prelude and fugue - they can know its working inside out  but they dont play a note and have decided actually i dont want to know how it sounds. They are missing so much! A slavish studying of the score and working at the mathematical intrecacies may do a wonder of good for your brain but without having learned to play the instrument its a dead celebral activity.

I cannot agree with you more about the kind of stuffy musicologist figure you appear to have in mind here - what the poet Hugh MacDiarmid (I think) quoted Alexander Pope as writing "The bookful blockhead, ignorantly read / With loads of learned lumber in his head". Indeed, there are certain people who, having resorted to the profession of musicology because they believed they may possess insufficient talent and motivation to succeed as performers or composers, end up finding (or, more often than not, being too blinkered and narrow-minded even to be able to find!)  that their musical judgements have over the years become blunted by too much academic work mixed with too little raw practical contact with the music itself and its intellectual, psychological and emotional effects on listeners.

Its like this in Faith. If you dont know God and trust in Jesus - that he has done enough to free you from sin and the wages of the law(death) then you will miss everything.  The beauty of the music. The intricate feel of the parts weaaving together in your fingers - they enjoyment of the hearers.  I speak metaphorically here but studying the word as a Christian is totally different from studying as an unbeliever although an unbeliever can learn much about God through his word.

No - I cannot accept this bit. Whilst a Christian can of course have his/her mind affected by association with the teachings of Christ just as a listener can have his/her mind altered by listening to a piece of music, the belief aspect is a quite different matter, because of the question (which you raise here) of theism and atheism - i.e. of belief and unbelief. I think that I can put it no better than Kagel when he said that, whilst not all musicians believe in God, they all believe in J S Bach. Response to music therefore differs materially from what you are writing about here, to the extent that its acceptance and success is accordingly not amenable to, dependent upon or influenced by any kind of belief system.

I dont want to get into a catholic debate but the bible dosent support confessing to men/priests in the new covenant. It is a direct relationship.  Jesus said himself that he is the only name by which there is forgiveness for sin. He being in essence Love is the only one who can discipline lovingly without anger or self-righteousness.

I'm not inviting you to. My reference here was intended merely to be illustrative of a point about confession per se, not necessarily in front of a priest in a Roman Catholic Church. In other words, God may "forgive", but even some of those who believe that he does and has forgiven them can not necessarily bring themselves to feel that they can always as easily forgive themselves for things that they may have done or omitted to do; humans - both believers and non-believers - do, after all, have human consciences.

I will not comment on the remainder of what you wrote here, as (a) I did not get involved in, nor do I especially wish to be drawn into, the homosexuality debate in this thread and (b) because the rest of your final paragraph is really no more nor less than a statement of your personal faith, to which you are, of course, as entitled as is anyone else to his/her faith or lack thereof.

Best,

Alistair

[timothy42b]

Timothy, your attempts to make any relationship in the Bible queer if you can is unbelievable.  It comes from the same line of arguementation that'd tell us that Lincoln, Chopin, Washington, Beethoven, etc were gay.  You didn't find evidence that any of these relationships were homosexual and then start advocating it.  You want to justify homosexuality so you'll grasp any argument, no matter how bad, that 'proves' these people gay.  Your whole interpretation of the Bible seems completely centered around proving that homosexuality is A OK with God, instead of centered around a humble attempt to find and follow God's will.

You have completely missed what I said.  I do not think I expressed it badly.  I think for some reason you and others with a vested interest are ignoring it. 

I will try one more time to say it clearly. 

There are a few same-sex acts condemned in the bible, such as visiting the temple prostitutes as given in Lev 20, and a few references in NT as well.  There are also a number of opposite-sex prohibitions. 

Homosexuality as an orientation is not mentioned in the bible.  It appears to be completely unknown to the writers. 

Therefore one cannot use the bible as a source to claim homosexuality as such is evil.  At least, not with any degree of integrity.  Yet Christians and so-called Christians do so every day. 

There, was that so hard? 

[timothy42b]

My goodness is it true that some people really interpret the word favour to mean sex - I chuckled over that one!

Um.

(trying to be tactful)

Possibly it has not occurred to you that the Bible was not written in English.  Favor is not the original word. 

There are many examples where translators used a word that was less uncomfortable or more politically correct than a more strict translation would have used.  Some Biblical scholars claim this is one of them. 

Congratulations on exceeding pianistimos word count.  <g> 

[pianowelsh]

Yes timothy! and others scholars dont! Believe it or not I am not ignorant when it comes to the bibles sources and interpretations passages thereof.  I will merely say that I hold the word of God as a living and active book. It is as relevent today as the day it was written because people havent changed one bit and the universal problem of sin is still a problem and it binds billions of people. I say this on the authority of scripture which say the heavens and earth will pass away the word of God will still remain.  As regards people of all religions acceptiong the bible for what it is. I strongly disagree.  Because the Bible IS the express word of God. Divinely inspired and complete (as i have said Timothy makes this clear in his writing) Any devout believe or another faith or indeed an athiest who reads the word of God and lives their own way/system denies the actaulity of the word of God and therefore does not accept it for what it is. But i feel sure your idea of what the bible IS and isnt is not quite the same as mine and i dare to say it, not as scripturally tried and tested.

[timothy42b]

But i feel sure your idea of what the bible IS and isnt is not quite the same as mine and i dare to say it, not as scripturally tried and tested.

Yes, I'm sure my interpretation would be significantly different from yours.  Naturally we both believe we are more correct.  My positions are the result of a considerable amount of reading scholarly works by respected theologians and discussions with anybody interested;  they are always subject to revision but it usually takes logic or evidence to convince me.  Emotion and revelation are not sufficient.  I don't know what it takes for you, you may have just as valid reasons as I. 

There are many areas where we disagree, but homosexuality is a hot button issue for both of us.  For me this is because of what I see as great injustice.  For you I think it is just your personal repugnance for something you don't understand. 

The bottom line for me is the result, not the theory.  And the result is that no gay guy gets out of highschool without being beaten up by the jocks, in the name of Jesus.  Those are the results that your position produces.  Yes, I know you wouldn't be involved yourself, you're not that kind of person, but it inevitably follows from your style of Christian belief.  It is an unavoidable consequence.  That fact alone is enough to convince me you must be wrong, and to send me back to the scriptures to find out where you went wrong. 

And if I searched the scriptures and couldn't find another interpretation, I would conclude the scriptures are wrong on that subject.  The passage I think most exemplifies what is expected of us is the beautiful section of Matthew that says "in as much as you have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me." 

[prometheus]

I always got the impression that when God condemns homosexuality he was actually talking about humans having sex with the Nephilim, fallen angel-human hybrids and a weapon of Lucifer to corrupt and destroy Gods creation and reason for the flood. At least, according to the mytholgy.

The others are comments by the people of the Taliban-like society in the old testament, not to be taken too seriously to say the least.

[pianowelsh]

Tim, My interpretation literally just comes from quoting what scripture says. It dosent need to be any more complicated than that. The Bible itself holds up its own authority.  Im sorry to hear of the experience (you?) suffered.  I can only say that the 'christians' you encountered were very likely fake OR at least very immature because although Christianity does say Homosexuality is sin It is totally unChristlike behaviour that you witnessed.  Christ is patient/longsuffering, kind, seeking our best a good and perfect heavenly father and this balances his need for righteousness and justice.  We in ourselves cannot match up to his standards of righteousness and He would have been fully justified in beating eachone of us to death for our sin but instead He sent Jesus as a sacrifice for our sin so that we dont have to carry it we just have to believe Christs sacrifice was enough and trust in him recieving Gods promise of forgiveness and eternal life with him Acts 16:31.

[timothy42b]

pianowelsh,

It is not my own experience as I was fortunate enough not to have been born gay, a happy circumstance over which I had no control. 

But I have witnessed the effects, sometimes violent, of this kind of discrimination and so have you. 

Those bullies believe they are doing what their church wants.  And since the church NEVER takes a position in opposition, they and I can only conclude they are right.

It is quite similar to the bombings and shootings at abortion clinics.  Every time this happens the local right-to-life groups are quick to say they don't support this kind of action.  Guess what, they don't condemn it either.  I can only conclude they don't oppose it too far. 

[pianowelsh]

I think i see what your getting at. But i dont think it is a natural consequence of my beliefs atall.  When Jesus teaches about discipline (this is on issues where there is no contention about what is right) he tells us speak the truth in love, rebuke gently, and its all for the good of the one who you are rebuking because of the danger/damage they do to themselves as they sin. Nowhere does it say beat people up and mock them - I have to say that is a totally unchristlike attitude and therefore they cannot if they act like that be really said to be representative of Christ. Thats not to necessarily say they are not Christian (Christians get it wrong in attitude to sometimes ) But they are not acting like Christ.  the Bible dosent condone bombing people that dont agree with you and in NO way does it ever advocate bullying of anykind it certainly dosent advocate taking someones life (shooting them).  i think you'll find the reason the right to life groups and others in a whole range of situtaions  dont always condem such action is because often the 'nutters' that do these acts are actually campaigning on a biblical standpoint. But there is a whole big difference between being right on an issue and taking proper and appropriate action on it.  Now i dont have  a sister so i'll use this illustration.  my sister steals my favourite cd and not only that she destroys it in a fit of malcice  and rage. Now im angry ok! do i decide ok accroding to the bible she sinned on at least 2 counts i know! i should beat her up or even better i could take 2 of her cds and smash them!  Well Now that would be a response and according to the law i could justify myself by saying what she did to me was wrong BUT If i did that i would be acting in anger and would myself be provoked to sinning and the relationship between me and my sister would be really badly messed up.  This is the way many of these activists function. But the way Christ says to opperate is to forgive oneanother, pray for those who spitefully use you, Love oneanother, its really hard to be mad at someone who refuses to get angry at you and loves you anyway!  When as sometimes happens we do blow it there is a teaching which says dont let the sun go down on your wrath/anger and so we confess it to oneanother and get it squared before God before the day goes out so there isnt any animosity or reason to hate oneanother.  1 John is really clear about Christian relationships and how we are to Love oneanother because God loves us and if we dont love one another there is something really wrong in us (which would be an indicator we need to talki to God about it).
I know i used 'we' and 'us' BUT the points im making are trying to clarify a born again believers experience they are in no way meant to apply to everyone but i hope this expalins somethings for you tim.  Im sorry i didnt quite read your last post right i was very tired and had flu but im alive again now!

[musik_man]

That's insane. We are talking about a large military force. They can't withdraw in one day. It will take at least 6 months with extensive preliminary planning. And on top of that, basic military principles tell you you will have to build down the occupation step by step. So the 6 months vs two years idea isn't that strange. As far was we know now the US/UK might stay in Iraq for quite a while, maybe 5 to 10 years. As they did in SA after the first golf war.

You're definitely right that the US can't get out of Iraq immediately.  If I remember correctly, it took 1 month for the US to move all its forces into place for the war.  Unfortunately, I have no idea exactly how long the withdrawal will take in comparison as this gets into a lot of issues involving logistics that I'm ignorant of (ironically though, I tried to get an AFROTC scholarship for college but was rejected b/c of my vision.  If I had gone on to the Air Force, I would have wanted to work in logistics.)

Plus, since you make such a point about it. I will 'correct' myself by taking back what I said. The Iraqi people don't want the US to 'get out' but they want a time table for withdrawal, which is the same to me but apperently not to you.

Well, after thinking through the issue, I realized that the poll question could be interpreted either your way or my way.  I took it to mean that that's when Iraqis wanted the US to start withdrawing troops.  You seem to think that that is when Iraqis want the withdrawal completed.  This is the pol'ls fault for having that ambiguity in the question.  For the debate on this to continue we'd have to know how the Iraqis who took the poll thought the question meant.  I don't think that either of us(or anyone for that matter) would know how to find that out, so we'll have to end this particular line of discussion.  I would point out, though, that this is a good example of what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the difficulties in interpreting things like polls.

Uuh, pardon me? First of, when a person wants the US to leave as fast as possible then that doesn't mean they will blow themselves up. It doesn't even mean they support of sympathise with those that do. This makes no sense at all. Plus, this stuff has been in intelligence documents.

I was a bit unclear here.  I wasn't suggesting that there is a 1:1 ratio between wanting the US out now and blowing yourself up.  There is a correlation between the two though(someone who wants the US out now is much more likely to fight the US then someone who doesn't.)     I doubt that any correlation exists between wanting the occupation to continue for now but wanting a timetable for US withdrawal and supporting attacks against the US.

I am not. I am saying that powers pursuit their wants and needs. Whenether it is a capitalist or communist power, there is no difference for me. The US doesn't act much different from the USSR.

You did seem to suggest that the US wants and needs are the same as corporations wants and needs.  I don't think this is true.

No, but they are now. They worked their way up, I am not saying the american dream isn't possible, though it is unrealistic. I am saying that a factory worker will never get elected in the US and an ex-factory worker that worked himself up to the elite can.

Is there anything wrong with this?  A factory worker is someone with relatively little skills and education.  Would you want someone like that in charge of a nation?

Stranglehold, thats again put way too strong. I didn't say that. Surely it wasn't as bad decades ago as it is now. You claimed that the government working for the interest of the corporations was a conspiracy theory. I claimed that this is nonsence because they are largely the same people. And then you claim that is false because the rich don't have a stranglehold. Uuh...

It's no conspiracy to believe that certain groups will try to influence government.  Some of the Federalist papers(published articles of the Founding Fathers in support of the Constitution, since I don't know how familiar non-Americans are with them) deal with how to construct government to limit the powers of 'factions.'  Corporations would certainly be a 'faction.'  It is not crazy to argue that corporations could have significant influence on a government, but it is wrong in the case of the US.

Thats because they don't need to convert anyone. The democrats are already pro-business. The republicans are even more so, thus they also get more money from the corporate world. If you are going to run for president in the US you need to have their support. Otherwise you can't pay for the election campaign. If you can't run a campaign you can't get any votes.

The question isn't if Democrats are pro-business.  The question should be, do these leanings represent the beliefs of the politicians or the voters or do the politicians only act this way because they are scared/bought off by business.  I see little evidence that the latter scenario is true.  I hold pretty pro-business views and am not on the dole of any corporation. (ATTN: any multinational that would like me on their dole, I'm for sale )

One doesn't need corporate support to run an election.  Ironically, the Republican party, which is much more pro-business, took more small contributions (ie hard money instead of soft money) than the Democrats before McCain-Feingold.  This would seem to contradict the idea that a pro-business attitude stems from a desire for campaign contributions.

Also I'd like to add that the importance of money in campaigns is only going to decline as the internet grows.  Getting your viewpoint out on the internet is virtually free compared to running print-ads or TV spots.  If any undue corporate influence existed, it would fall in the next couple decades.

Both parties are pro-business. Both get money from corporations. Both vote and pass laws that are profitable for corporations. The economy has been stagnating, in the US, but corporate profits are off the scale. The gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever before and off the scale when compared to other western countries. You probably don't call this 'much' control, I assume you sneaked in that word for a purpose. It doesn't really matter. It is significant control.

The US economy has not been stagnating.  The US has a much lower unemployment rate(4.7% I believe) than Europe and much higher GDP growth.  The gap between rich and poor has been growing but it doesn't matter.  If a person who pulled in 20k a decade ago now earns 30k, why should he care that a rich guy who went from 100k to 500k is now much further ahead than him?  He's still better off than he used to be.  When you overtax the rich man, you hurt the economy.  In that case a poor man might go from 20k to 25k while the rich man goes from 100k to 101k.  Now the gap is shrinking, but both are worse off.

This is absolute non-sense, at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of many philosophers who wrote on the subject. Dostoevsky isn't a philosopher and yes his book advocates, in some sense, christianity, but that is clearly beyond the point.

Morality doesn't have to be objective. Even in the new testament Christ explains the basis for his moral thinking is: "Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you." This idea was already expressed by Confusius about 500 years earlier. And it doesn't require anything objective.
I alreadt said this. I said that morals aren't universally objective and that mine are probably based on christianity eventhough I am an atheist. I wanted to add that when a moral though is universal for all humans it is as good as any objective morality. Plus with faith you can't prove anything either.

Technically, he says 'Love the Lord God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as youself.  These are the greatest commandments.'  I wouldn't interpret this as implying any sort of moral relativism.  As I mentioned earlier, Christ said he came 'not to abolish the law, but to fufill it.'  He elsewhere says roughly 'Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully commits adultery.  Anyone who is angry at a brother is a murderer.'   This is in response to Pharisees, many of whom thought themselves free of sin because they outwardly obeyed God's law.  Christ advocates God's morality which is very strict and very objective and impossible for anyone to follow perfectly.  It's this fact that made it necessary for Christ to die on the cross for our sins.  Christ never taught any relativism.

Faith is unable to prove any moral to another, but it is able to prove it to me.  Faith justifies my moral beliefs and gives them a ground deeper than just my whim and fancy.  My morality comes from God himself(well at least that's what I believe )  An Atheist morality has no such grounding.  There is no way that you can justify that your set of moral principles are better than anyone elses no matter how repugnant theirs might be.  I can't accept that. 

Not much more than christians as far as objectivity is conserned. But that doesn't mean you can't make a(n) (winning) argment for atheistic morals over christian ones. Actually, some of the most moral people were atheist and some of the more immoral ones where christians.

The thing is, there are no atheist morals.  Atheism is really a lack of belief.  Most of the philosophers focused greatly on creating a moral framework without God, but as I stated earlier, you can't make any universal morality without him.  The sort of moral relativism that Atheism implies is truly terrible if you take it to its logical extreme, which is precisely what Ivan did.  Most Atheists don't of course do this, which I think stems from the fact that God's law is printed on our hearts and even one who rejects God isn't going to reject all morality.

I agree with you that many atheists are more moral than some Christians and conversly many Christians are more moral than some Atheists.  But really this doesn't contradict my beliefs.  The basic Christian belief is that one can't justify oneself in front of God.  As Isaiah said 'Our good deeds are filthy rags in the Eyes of the Lord.'  We don't work our way into heaven.  It is a gift from God.  A gift that no one deserved.  No one deserves it 'less' or 'more' than anyone else. 

This of course doesn't release Christians from morality.  I'll paraphrase Paul here who says roughly 'Should we then continue to sin? No, you were a slave to sin, but have been freed through death in Christ.'(Note that paraphrase may have combined a couple verses  )  Someone who truly wants God to cleanse one's sins should want to try to live a more moral life.  If you believe that sin is hurting you, you shouldn't want to continue to live in it.  The fact that so may do continue down that path is very sad.

Maybe you stand on Pope Beneductus on this, who thinks The Brothers Karamazov is a literally masterpeace(probably because of the christian ideas) and who things there cannot be any morality without god and who claims religion has a monopoly on ethics.

Well, it's Dostoevsky's best book, and he is one of my favorite authors.

P.S.  When I first scrolled up the page I saw Alistair's reply and at first thought it was yours.  The thought of replying to that much text scared the sh*t out of me. [edit]-This post is almost as long as his!  Good luck with it

P.P.S.  You do a great job debating especially since English isn't your first language.  I'd die about 2 paragraphs into a debate in German .

[prometheus]

Ok, I will read your post later but I just wanted to point out that the UIA, 48% of the votes in januari and 41% in december and the 'cleric party' has promised during the januari elections that they would demand, or at least make a stong case, for a concrete timetable for withdrawal. This never happened, for reasons one could speculate about. This is one of the reasons for the loss of votes as al-Sistani stopped backing the UIA.

al-Sistani is probably the most important person in shia Iraq, and maybe all of Iraq. He is an Iranian and he is pro-democracy probably because he realises that democracy will get him to his goals.

Personally I am not even sure if an US withdrawal would be a good idea. The point is that it is what the people want. And the point behind that being that democracy in Iraq would  conflict with western interests.

[Torp]

I’ll apologize in advance for the length of this post.  However, I think the discussion about AIDS as it relates to homosexuality needs a little light shed upon it.  I hope that some of what I have included here will at least help people to expand their views about the HIV epidemic…I don’t hold any hope that the homophobes of the world will expand their views about same-sex relationships.

(Excerpts From www.avert.org )
In 2005, an estimated 700,000 children aged 14 or younger became infected with HIV. Over 90% of newly infected children are babies born to HIV-positive women; who acquire the virus at birth or through their mother's breast milk. Almost nine-tenths of such transmissions occur in sub-Saharan Africa. Africa's lead in mother-to-child transmission of HIV is firmer than ever despite the evidence that HIV ultimately impairs women's fertility.

The overwhelming majority of people with HIV, some 95% of the global total, live in the developing world. The proportion is set to grow even further as infection rates continue to rise in countries where poverty, poor health care systems and limited resources for prevention and care fuel the spread of the virus.

The area in Africa south of the Sahara desert, known as sub-Saharan Africa, is by far the worst-affected in the world by the AIDS epidemic. The region has just over 10% of the world's population, but is home to over 60% of all people living with HIV.

Unlike women in other regions in the world, African women are considerably more likely - at least 1.2 times - to be infected with HIV than men. There are a number of reasons why female prevalence is higher than male in this region, including the greater efficiency of male-to-female HIV transmission through sex and the younger age at initial infection for women.

(From the World Health Organization website www.who.int )
The World AIDS Campaign for 2004 is on “Women, Girls and HIV/AIDS”. This theme reflects how women are biologically, socially and economically more vulnerable to HIV infection, especially in regions hardest hit by the epidemic.

Globally, women are increasingly affected by HIV, and now make up almost half of the 37.2 million adults living with HIV/AIDS. The UNAIDS/WHO AIDS epidemic update 2004 states that the number of women living with HIV increased in every region of the world over the past two years. The sharpest increase of 56% occurred in East Asia, followed by a 46% increase in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In sub-Saharan Africa, the worst-affected region, close to 60% of adults living with HIV are women. Women in this region are up to 1.3 times more likely to be infected with HIV than men. This risk is greatest for young women aged 15–24 years, who are three to four times more likely to be infected with HIV than young men of the same age.

(Excerpts from https://www.who.int/hiv/epi-update2005_en.pdf )
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) has killed more than 25 million people since it was first recognized in 1981, making it one of the most destructive epidemics in recorded history. Despite recent, improved access to antiretroviral treatment and care in many regions of the world, the AIDS epidemic claimed 3.1 million [2.8–3.6 million] lives in 2005; more than half a million (570,000) were children.

The total number of people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) reached its highest level: an estimated 40.3 million [36.7–45.3 million] people are now living with HIV. Close to 5 million people were newly infected with the virus in 2005.

The increase in the proportion of women being affected by the epidemic continues. In 2005, 17.5 million [16.2–19.3 million] women were living with HIV—one million more than in 2003. Thirteen and a half million [12.5–15.1 million] of those women live in sub-Saharan Africa. The widening impact on women is apparent also in South and South-East Asia (where almost two million women now have HIV) and in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

It has long been recognized that gaining the upper hand against AIDS epidemics around the world will require rapid and sustained expansion in HIV prevention. In fact, the goal must be to ensure that countries everywhere come as close as possible to achieving universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and impact mitigation.

Achieving universal access will require co-ordination of different approaches. Prevention, treatment, care and impact mitigation goals will have to be pursued simultaneously, not sequentially or in isolation from each other. Countries will need to focus on programme implementation, including strengthening of human and institutional resources, and initiate strategies that allow for the greatest possible level of integration of services.

All of this must be done with great urgency. But it forms part of a larger, more long-term challenge. Bringing AIDS under control will require tackling with greater resolve the underlying factors that fuel these epidemics—including societal inequalities and injustices. It will require overcoming the still serious barriers to access that take the form of stigma, discrimination, gender inequality and other human rights violations. It will also require overcoming the new injustices created by AIDS, such as the orphaning of generations of children and the stripping of human and institutional capacities. These are extraordinary challenges that demand extraordinary responses.

HIV stigma stems from fear as well as associations of AIDS with sex, disease and death, and with behaviours that may be illegal, forbidden or taboo, such as pre- and extramarital sex, sex work, sex between men, and injecting drug use. Stigma also stems from lack of awareness and knowledge about HIV. Such stigma can fuel the urge to make scapegoats of, and blame and punish, certain people or groups. Stigma taps into existing prejudices and patterns of exclusion and further marginalizes people who might already be more vulnerable to HIV infection. Fear of stigma can also dissuade people living with HIV from playing a vital front role in HIV prevention efforts.

Some of my thoughts regarding the above:
The statement about the ‘greater efficiency of male-to-female HIV transmission’ quells the common misconception that HIV is transmitted more readily through male-to-male anal intercourse.  While it is true that form of transmission is the cause of the largest numbers of HIV cases in the U.S., the U.S. has less than 3% of the total HIV cases in the world.  In addition, if you were to look at another sub-set of the population, in this case China, you would see the following statistics related to HIV transmission (taken from the pdf listed above):

44% - From injecting drug use
24% - Blood transfusions
20% - Heterosexual transmission
11% - Male-to-male transmission
1% - Other

If we extrapolate “this” data to the entire world we would come up with an entirely different set of conclusions than looking at the U.S. data.  In Russia, as another example, 80% of the registered HIV infections have been in drug injectors. My point here is that on a world-wide level, male-to-male transmission of HIV is not really seen as “the problem;” it is simply “one” of the transmission methods.  From my perspective, I feel we need to look at this disease and its transmission on a world-wide, as opposed to regional, level in order to truly understand it.

It is interesting that the World Health Organization would state that, “women are biologically, socially and economically more vulnerable to HIV infection.”  It is also interesting to note that on a global level women make up almost half the adults living with AIDS.  Additionally, the mother-to-child transmission of the virus via birth or through the mother’s milk certainly shows this disease to be something more to be reckoned with than simply a gay male or drug user disease, though those are forms of transmission whose significance varies by population.

The underlying causes of the continuing spread of this disease often have nothing to do with sexuality, however, and everything to do with social inequality and injustice.  Perpetuating the age-old, homophobic stereotypes is a furtherance of this injustice.  Perpetuating the naïve attitude that some loving god is perpetrating this on these people because of their sins is likewise a continuance of this injustice and, from my perspective, morally unconscionable.  “One of the striking facets of the epidemic in the United States is the concentration of HIV infections among African Americans. Despite constituting only 12.5% of the country’s population, African Americans accounted for 48% of new HIV cases in 2003.” (From the pdf referenced above)  I wonder, is it a “sin” in god’s eyes to be an African American?  Why would god be targeting this population otherwise?

People who are homosexual don’t “deserve” this disease, any more than a 14 year-old girl in sub-Saharan Africa “deserves” it, and any more than African Americans “deserve” it.  The sooner we learn to embrace the disease for what it is, a world-wide epidemic that affects various populations in different ways, the sooner we can help address the problems in those populations.  Our goal should be to help stem the tide of the spread of this disease, not to sit on our high-and-mighty thrones and pass judgment about the behaviors that may have led to its transmission.  When, in many cases, we are completely incapable of empathizing with the causes of those behaviors in the first place.

I would recommend reading, in its entirety, the pdf file linked above.  It is only about 100 pages long and discusses fairly concisely the AIDS epidemic on a world-wide basis, as well as providing detailed breakdowns on regional levels.  This can be a very eye-opening, albeit sobering, document.

YMMV

Jef

[pianowelsh]

Who on earth would suggest that homosexuals deserve AIDs or that God has decreed african americans sinfull and is determined to wipe them out?! this seems a bizare tangent.  God in his word never gives any such indications that this is in anyway his character let alone his heart for these people groups.  Its totally unprofitable in a thread which is supposed to be biblical to throw up comments which are totally unfounded biblically.. If you have verses cool go ahead lets examine them.  I have to say your right though the statistics of AIDs sufferers are appauling and it is tragic that drug users and other seceptible people groups arent being helped enough and are consequently developing aids but I have to say i think its more bad government that has allowed this to be a problem rather than any failure of God.  Biblically governments are established to govern over creation and to care for those within their sphere of authority. We can see however a pattern starting in Genesis which will continue and even worsen right through to revelations culmination where the hearts of men are darkened and self seeking and therefore suceptible to bad government and rebellion.  God doesnt let bad rulers off scot free there is a very distinct responsibility that they carry whether they acknowledge it or not.  We need to look at passages like Daniel too where God declares He does have the power to raise up and bring down leaders as demonstrated with Nebuchanezzar etc.

[timothy42b]

Who on earth would suggest that homosexuals deserve AIDs or that God has decreed african americans sinfull and is determined to wipe them out?! this seems a bizare tangent.  God in his word never gives any such indications that this is in anyway his character let alone his heart for these people groups.  Its totally unprofitable in a thread which is supposed to be biblical to throw up comments which are totally unfounded biblically..

Sorry, pianowelsh, but you are being disingenous.

You can sit in any number of Christian churches on Sunday morning and hear EXACTLY that, supported by chapter and verse.  And those congregations feel just as strongly that they are doing the Lord's will, as you or I might feel there are other interpretations for those scriptures. 

[Torp]

Who on earth would suggest that homosexuals deserve AIDs or that God has decreed african americans sinfull and is determined to wipe them out?! this seems a bizare tangent. 

I don't see it as a "bizarre tangent."  Let me refer to you several of the following quotes:

if i speak what the bible says, it would say that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God (unless they change).

if you didn't recognize it when the twin towers fell down, or when katrina hit (and devastated so many people - some of whom may have been readying for a Mardis Gras parade prior).

but in revelations does mention homosexuality as 'evil' and that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

if you give someone aids that's not loving them.

other things besides homosexuality are mentioned in I peter 4:3 'sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousels (swingers), drinking parties, and abominable idolatries.'  this is 'old english' but covers basically what happens at nightclubs.  people go in looking for trouble.

i've not heard of aids being spread as much by monogamous relationships, but more by 'risky behavior' which is anal sex.

as i see it, for every sin there is a consequence.  it's a literal bible reading.

pianistimo also goes on to quote statistics that imply that AIDS is primarily a homosexual disease.  All indications I have ever received from the biblical side of any argument is that "sins" are punishable by death, either at the moment of the sin, or through being denied everlasting life.  Statements like, "people go in looking for trouble," have a certain inference associated with them, i.e. "they deserve what they get."  This, combined with the statement about the towers and Katrina, which has been used in other threads as well to support a theory that god is punishing those people for their sinful behavior, have led me to believe that pianistimo's general point of view would be this:  Homosexuals are sinners in god's eyes and they deserve what they get.  This has been my interpretation.  Since you can't seem to see "who on earth" would suggest homosexuals deserve aids then you must have obviously come to a different conclusion.

Since my cynical tone of voice doesn't come through as well in writing perhaps you missed the sarcasm when I was refering to African Americans.  If you look at the statistics in the US, African Americans are hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic.  Following the logic above, i.e. "you get what you deserve" it follows that that group must somehow be out of favor with god...since he's ultimately responsible anyway.  This is not my belief.  It is simply a logical conclusion based on the assumptions and the data.  It was used as a way to show that the overall assumptions of pianistimo, in my opinion, were fundamentally flawed to begin with.

Its totally unprofitable in a thread which is supposed to be biblical to throw up comments which are totally unfounded biblically.. If you have verses cool go ahead lets examine them. 

I won't go into the quotes, I think you should.  After all, these quotes from you seem to imply that you have plenty of quotes from the bible that are anti-homosexuality:

There are many reasons why a preacher may speak from the Levitical law. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for life and sound doctrine (2Tim).

The bible does condem homosexuality in both OT and NT.

I realy dont want to go into homosexuality AGAIN! as it offends people deeply to hear what Gods word says about it.

According to your own words the bible condemns homosexuality in both testaments.  Of course, if I remember correctly, you were also one of the ones who said the OT doesn't apply to christians; so I'm not sure what value quoting it had for your arguments.  Additionally, if I remember correctly, the promulgated theory on the biblical side for the sins of Sodom is the sin of homosexuality.  In that story, god didn't do something like AIDS, he committed complete genocide, down to the last baby.

I have to say your right though the statistics of AIDs sufferers are appauling and it is tragic that drug users and other seceptible people groups arent being helped enough and are consequently developing aids but I have to say i think its more bad government that has allowed this to be a problem rather than any failure of God.

I couldn't agree more.  I don't see a hand of any god in this at all.  Except on the side of condemning homosexual behavior.

[timothy42b]

Here we have an interesting catch 22, I think.

Quote from: pianowelsh
There are many reasons why a preacher may speak from the Levitical law. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for life and sound doctrine (2Tim).

When that line in 2Tim was written, the NT did not exist.  Therefore it must have been written about the OT. 

But pianistimo has suggested, and there is some logic to support it, that the OT really doesn't apply to modern Christians. 

So it would be meaningless.

But worse, if it does not apply to the NT, then we cannot assume that the statement itself is guaranteed to be true. 

[pianowelsh]

The word used is encompassing of both the writen and the spoken word of God which of course includes the spoken /preached word of the apostles.  Actually much of the NT did exist when 2 Tim was written and it all fits OT phrophecy and line of writing so in that sense at least it is infallible. Even the revelation at the end - is so obviously connected up with parallel passages in daniel and other OT books. God is consistent throught His word Or as i should say God is consisently portrayed in every part of his word Gen-Rev.  I can only feel sorry that Torp may find me disengenous but I can only comment form my extensive church going experience and I have never heard such attitudes of condemnation as you seem to allude to - scripture simply dosent support such a condescending attitude.  I apologise for failing to see your link of AIDs homosexuality and scripture. But as you can see the first thought in my mind when you addressed AIDs was not homosexuality and hence it seemed to be running away from a biblical exegesis which i took to be the needlepoint of this thread.  I must correct you on one point however. I do strongly hold to the OT in no way do i think that it is irrelevent to the modern Christian it, as the rest of scripture, is vital to life and doctrine.  simple point If there were no law - what would be the point of Grace??! Scrpipture needs to be studied in balance. You cant be an old testament or a new testament person you hvae to see how they interrelate.  They are not divorced form oneanother as some would have us believe there is merely a gap of 400 years between the two parts in which God tested the faith of those who remained faithfull in prepartation for his coming in Jesus Christ. Even the 400 years of silence as its called had a purpose and a clear role in the unity of scripture by teaching us to wait expectantly for God to forfill his promises as He does throughout scripture and is continuing to do so.  Christians continue to wait in this modern day for his coming again (maybe soon) and live curcumspectly knowing that no man knows the hours or the day when He will come back - hence 'today is the day of salvation'.  Christians trust in the God of the bible - only in both OT and NT can we get a sufficiently consistent picture of what God is like (of course even that is limited) it is important to remember this when discussing biblical theology that there is a consistency of God's character revealled in the totality of scripture.  Hope this post has cleared up some points?! its probably raised more (as ever) but thats ok.  Blessings. pianowelsh