This incident between Peter and Jesus spoken of in my last post happened after Jesus had known Peter for a good while.
Jesus came to the sea of Galilee "three times" to get Peter to be a "fisher of men" instead of a fisher of fish...
There are three separate instances where Jesus goes to the shores of Galilee and tries to convince Peter to return to the ministry.
Theists have mashed them all into one incident! When they become one incident, then they contradict one another. When they are perceived as three separate incidents they suddenly reveal how and why Jesus on the last visit to the sea asked Peter three times if he loved him.
Peter would go out and be a fisher of men and then his work would seem to fizzle out and he would not know what to do so he would return to the sea and go back to fishing and waiting.
Each time that Jesus comes to the sea of Galilee a different thing occurs.
One time they are "mending their nets", another time they are "cleaning their nets". Another time they need help to haul in the fish where in another place the net breaks. One time there is a storm. These are all pieces of three different incidences. The contradiction within the accounts indicate this.
Matthew would not dare contradict John or vise versa.
Where "things similar to theists are identical" even if they contradict, this is not proper critical study. Because theists go on the premise that the Bible is a flawed document (so were it's authors) and it needs to just be slammed together.
If one were to take the idea that things similar are not identical then if two incidents do not "completely" (down to every detail) harmonize then they are totally different incidents.
If each story only adds a new fresh dimension and does not contradict then they are considered the same incident and that is called simply "scripture build-up".
So much of this problem in theology is that the rule that they applied, that "things similar are identical". This has not interpreted the word but it has broken it.
The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
Frank Apisa wrote:The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
What would you suggest they use as a basis instead?
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
What would you suggest they use as a basis instead?
The fukin' brains they have...whether given them by a god or by nature...that's what!
But if you still want to use Goldilocks, Snow White, or the Bible...
...use it.
I am merely pointing out it is the problem...not that I think you ought to be prevented from engaging in such folly.
Frank, that's right. All the absolutist moral codes of the world's societies have been (as far as I know) grounded in some kind of "fairlytale" mythology. I do think, and I'm sure you agree, that moralities can be devised on the basis of more rational orientations. It's just that they will not be absolutist; they'll be acknowledged as relative to the time and culture of the moral actors who acknowledge that their morality is THEIR natural creation and not that of some supernatural beings or processes.
Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
What would you suggest they use as a basis instead?
The fukin' brains they have...whether given them by a god or by nature...that's what!
But if you still want to use Goldilocks, Snow White, or the Bible...
...use it.
I am merely pointing out it is the problem...not that I think you ought to be prevented from engaging in such folly.
Frank brains or sincerity is not a guarantee for truth.
This is where you are "guessing" again...
You appear to want to live "WITHOUT" a basis other than yourself. This is short sighted.
JLNobody wrote:Frank, that's right. All the absolutist moral codes of the world's societies have been (as far as I know) grounded in some kind of "fairlytale" mythology. I do think, and I'm sure you agree, that moralities can be devised on the basis of more rational orientations. It's just that they will not be absolutist; they'll be acknowledged as relative to the time and culture of the moral actors who acknowledge that their morality is THEIR natural creation and not that of some supernatural beings or processes.
Exactly!
But for good folks like Rex...this seems impossible to fathom.
Don't know why...but I suspect it is that irrational fear I talk about often.
RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
What would you suggest they use as a basis instead?
The fukin' brains they have...whether given them by a god or by nature...that's what!
But if you still want to use Goldilocks, Snow White, or the Bible...
...use it.
I am merely pointing out it is the problem...not that I think you ought to be prevented from engaging in such folly.
Frank brains or sincerity is not a guarantee for truth.
In some matters, Rex...NOTHING IS A GUARANTEE FOR TRUTH!
Quote:This is where you are "guessing" again...
About what? Is this just a bumper sticker you are proposing?
Quote:You appear to want to live "WITHOUT" a basis other than yourself.
Ultimately...WE ALL WANT TO DO THAT.
You do that!
You want to have as the basis only YOURSELF...and your guesses that the Bible contains fundamental truths that you must obey.
You just cannot see that.
Quote: This is short sighted.
You are one of the most myopic individuals alive, Rex. You really should not be using this particular expression, because anyone reading it is going to convulse into laughter at the irony of it.
Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:RexRed wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:The "problem" is that grown people...men and women...continue to use what any reasonable guess would conclude were fairytales...as the basis for their morality.
That is the problem.
What would you suggest they use as a basis instead?
The fukin' brains they have...whether given them by a god or by nature...that's what!
But if you still want to use Goldilocks, Snow White, or the Bible...
...use it.
I am merely pointing out it is the problem...not that I think you ought to be prevented from engaging in such folly.
Frank brains or sincerity is not a guarantee for truth.
In some matters, Rex...NOTHING IS A GUARANTEE FOR TRUTH!
Quote:This is where you are "guessing" again...
About what? Is this just a bumper sticker you are proposing?
Quote:You appear to want to live "WITHOUT" a basis other than yourself.
Ultimately...WE ALL WANT TO DO THAT.
You do that!
You want to have as the basis only YOURSELF...and your guesses that the Bible contains fundamental truths that you must obey.
You just cannot see that.
Quote: This is short sighted.
You are one of the most myopic individuals alive, Rex. You really should not be using this particular expression, because anyone reading it is going to convulse into laughter at the irony of it.
Frank you wander aimlessly and truth has no meaning to you. You cannot discern because you are all base. It takes a basis to discern truth. You wouldn't know a basis Frank if it landed on your head.
So you insult others with a base but have none of your own? How shallow of you. You do not once consider that you owe your life to your creator? YOU are selfish Frank and you spit in the face of your creator so you can live out your base which is just another form of fantasy.
You cut out a fellowship with God so you can be god yourself. You are pure ego... That should be rather revealing Frank. You are not humble to the fact that, YOU COULD BE WRONG.
Well Frank, I don't have any desire to worship at your own shrine to yourself.
You are not the creator... How is that for truth?
RexRed wrote:
Frank you wander aimlessly and truth has no meaning to you. You cannot discern because you are all base. It takes a basis to discern truth. You wouldn't know a basis Frank if it landed on your head.
The truth about gods and such is that I do not know if they exist...or do not exist.
Obviously you do not know either...but you cannot deal with the truth...so you pretend to know...and lecture others on the "truth."
You are pathetic.
Quote:So you insult others with a base but have none of your own? How shallow of you. You do not once consider that you owe your life to your creator?
How in the hell do you know there is a "creator" to whom I owe anything?
Why are you trying to pass your superstitions off as "truth?"
Quote:
YOU are selfish Frank and you spit in the face of your creator so you can live out your base which is just another form of fantasy.
You are the one living in fantasy, Rex. Kissing the ass of Santa Claus...or this god of yours.
Quote:
You cut out a fellowship with God so you can be god yourself. You are pure ego... That should be rather revealing Frank. You are not humble to the fact that, YOU COULD BE WRONG.
So..me saying "I do not know" COULD BE WRONG...but you saying "There is a God...the Bible tells us about this God...and the God loves homosexuals"...CAN'T BE WRONG???
What is wrong with you? How did your head get this mixed up?
Quote:Well Frank, I don't have any desire to worship at your own shrine to yourself.
I cannot think of anyone I'd less want worshipping me than you. (Except maybe Dumbya!)
Quote:You are not the creator... How is that for truth?
I do not know. I am not sure.
Another meaningless post, illustrating that you need to go to college and take a class in dumbell English.
Lightwizard wrote:Another meaningless post, illustrating that you need to go to college and take a class in dumbell English.
Who are you talking to LW?
Frank only appears to know one language, the language of his own ego.
Frank,
If relinquishing one's own pride to a being higher than one's self is indeed the purpose of life, you appear to have failed horribly.
De 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which
keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
2Pe 1:20 - Show Context
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Comment:
If I have privately interpreted the scriptures then I do apologize. I never said that God loves homosexuals. God does not judge someone if they are gay or not, but God really only cares if they love him.
But show me where I am wrong through the scriptures and not by just saying so.
I love you Frank (with the love of God) and I think God deserves a better shake than you are giving him too.
But I also believe people use the Bible too, as a cloak, to justify prejudice. This is dangerous (I get your point). But they would use something else if the Bible did not exist. The Bible is the only book that also reveals unity and liberty. There is no reason to reject such truth because fanatics are able to subvert it.
Why should homosexuality need to be tolerated? To tolerate something is to except it even though you think it is wrong... Why is it wrong? Who decides what is husband and what is wife and what is male and female?
RexRed wrote:Lightwizard wrote:Another meaningless post, illustrating that you need to go to college and take a class in dumbell English.
Who are you talking to LW?
Frank only appears to know one language, the language of his own ego.
Frank,
If relinquishing one's own pride to a being higher than one's self is indeed the purpose of life, you appear to have failed horribly.
What makes you suppose something so stupid would be "the purpose of life?" Only someone terrified of a demon god would think something that bizarre.
Quote:If I have privately interpreted the scriptures then I do apologize. I never said that God loves homosexuals. God does not judge someone if they are gay or not, but God really only cares if they love him.
No...but the Bible says that its god despises homosexual activity...and instructs its followers to kill them.
You are in denial about this.
Quote:
But show me where I am wrong through the scriptures and not by just saying so.
I've done it many times, Rex...but you go into your denial act....and pretend the words mean other than what they say. Here it is again:
Quote:"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13
According to YOUR Bible...this is YOUR god speaking to Moses...and asking Moses to pass the information on.
Quote:I love you Frank (with the love of God) and I think God deserves a better shake than you are giving him too.
I love you too, Rex...the love of one human being for another without the need of any gods.
And, since there may actually be a GOD...I think that GOD deserves a better shake than YOU are giving IT, Rex.
Thinking any GOD that exists is anything like that monster from the Bible is giving any GOD that might exist a very, very bad shake.
Quote:
But I also believe people use the Bible too, as a cloak, to justify prejudice. This is dangerous (I get your point). But they would use something else if the Bible did not exist. The Bible is the only book that also reveals unity and liberty. There is no reason to reject such truth because fanatics are able to subvert it.
I think YOU subvert the Bible, Rex. YOU try to make it say things it does not say...and try to make is NOT say things it does.
You do that because you realize the god described in it is a murderous, evil, barbarian.
Quote:
Why should homosexuality need to be tolerated? To tolerate something is to except it even though you think it is wrong... Why is it wrong? Who decides what is husband and what is wife and what is male and female?
THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A HOMOSEXUAL, REX.
I think the prejudice against homosexuals is an abomination against common sense...and against love and consideration for one's fellow human being.
I despise the kinds of pressures brought to bear on homosexuals.
WAKE THE FUK UP, REX.
The people you want to be part of...the lunatic right fringe of our society...the American conservatives...
...think you are an abomination.
The god you worship and defend in this forum...
...thinks your conduct is an abomination.
WAKE THE FUK UP!
Give it up.
Stop steadying the hand being used to cut your throat.
Come over to the side of sanity.
'Another meaningless post, illustrating that you need to go to college and take a class in dumbell English.'
Three guesses and the first two don't count. You communication skills are that of a fourteen-year-old.
Yeah, right, you have no ego. What bullshyte.
Oops, I managed to impose another of my posts between Rex and your replies to him.
I knew you weren't talking to me...and I suspect Rex knew it also.
He was having a bit of fun with you.
J. L. Nobody says that there was nothing wrong with my post.
Rex Red posts material which cannot be empirically proven to be true.
Others just babble and babble.
I post a list--An actual list of people--they are very prominent people---just the existence of this list PROVES that the world would have been much much worst off without Homosexuals. There are those in our country who would force homosexuals into the closet. We would be a great deal poorer.
I ask those who are doubters to examine the list below. It is a list with some of the best minds of our time.
NOONE CAN DOUBT THAT!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the neanderthal and fundamentalist nonsense in our land, the contributions of Homosexuals to the world has never been appreciated. Below is a list of those famous people who were homosexual. HOWEVER, IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN PERSECUTED IN THE PAST, I AM SURE THAT WE WOULD FIND THAT AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF GENIUS WAS HOMOSEXUAL...HOMOSEXUAL AND GENIUS ARE ALMOST SYNONYMS.
NOTE:
rotten > Library > Sex > Homosexuality > Famous Homosexuals
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Famous Homosexuals
Pedro Aldomovar, filmmaker
Alexander the Great, conqueror
Hans Christian Andersen, writer
Marshall Applewhite, cult guru
Joan Armatrading, singer
Sir Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts
Joan Baez, singer
Jurgen Bartsch, German serial killer
Sandra Bernhard, actor
Mr. Blackwell, **** fashion critic
Dirk Bogarde, actor
William G Bonin, serial killer
Chastity Bono, daughter of Sonny Bono and Cher
David Bowie, musician [bisexual]
Marlon Brando, actor [heteroflexible]
Susie Bright, sexpert
John Brunner, science fiction author
William S. Burroughs, writer
Julius Caesar, caesar
Truman Capote, writer
Marilyn Chambers, actor
Traci Chapman, singer
Mary Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney
Margaret Cho, comic [heteroflexible]
Montgomery Clift, actor
Kurt Cobain, singer [bisexual]
James Coco, actor
Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy's henchman, Mob attorney
Colette, writer [bisexual]
Hart Crane, poet [bisexual]
Aleister Crowley, wicked wicked man
Captain Crunch, hacker
Andrew Cunanan, serial killer
Jeffrey Dahmer, serial killer
James Dean, actor [bisexual]
Ellen DeGeneres, actor
Emily Dickinson, poet
Divine, actor
Matt Drudge, columnist
John du Pont, heir and ornithologist, alleged homosexual
Andrea Dworkin, feminist idiot
Brian Epstein, managed The Beatles
Sergei Esenin, poet [bisexual]
Melissa Etheridge, singer
Rupert Everett, actor
Harvey Fierstein, actor
Malcolm Forbes, businessman [bisexual]
Pim Fortuyn, assassinated Dutch candidate
Jodi Foster, actor
Barney Frank, congressman from Massachusetts
John Wayne Gacy, serial killer
David Geffen, Geffen Records [bisexual?]
Jean Genet, felonious playwright
Boy George, singer
Sir John Gielgud, actor
Allen Ginsberg, poet
Cary Grant, actor [bisexual]
Merv Griffin, television mogul
Hadrian, Roman Emperor
Rob Halford, singer, Judas Priest
Keith Haring, artist
Nina Hartley, actor [bisexual]
Todd Haynes, filmmaker
Anne Heche, actor [bisexual]
Doug Henning, magician [if not gay, downgrade to fabulous]
Pee-wee Herman, actor
David Hockney, artist
John Holmes, porn actor [bisexual]
J. Edgar Hoover, longtime head of the FBI.
Rock Hudson, actor
Javed Iqbal, hunter of street urchins
Elton John, musician
Jasper Johns, artist
Jim Jones, cult guru [bisexual]
Billie Jean King, tennis player
k.d. lang, singer
Charles Laughton, actor
Ralph Lauren, fashion designer
Ursula LeGuin, author
Leonardo da Vinci, genius
Liberace, pianist
Greg Louganis, Olympic diver
Paul Lynde, Hollywood Square
Charles Manson, bisexual, sodomized a boy by force
Robert Mapplethorpe, photographer
W. Somerset Maugham, writer [bisexual]
Armistead Maupin, writer
Joseph McCarthy, Senator and persecutor
Sir Ian McKellen, actor
Freddie Mercury, singer, Queen.
George Michael, singer
Michaelangelo, Renaissance man
Harvey Milk, gay rights activist and martyr
Morrissey, singer
Martina Navratilova, tennis player
Sir Isaac Newton, scientist and celibate homo
Sinead O'Connor, singer
Rosie O'Donnell, talk show host
Joe Orton, playwright
Camille Paglia, author
Carl Panzram, serial killer.
Gilles de Rais, nobleman
Charles Nelson Riley, actor
Rimbaud, poet
Cesar Romero, actor
Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of Franklin D. Roosevelt [bisexual]
RuPaul, drag queen
Sappho, poet
Dick Sargent, second Darrin on Bewitched
Dan Savage, advice columnist
Matthew Shepard, martyr
Siegfried and Roy, magicians
Richard Simmons, fitness guru
Socrates, philosopher [bisexual]
Annie Sprinkle, sexpert
Gertrude Stein, author
Jeff Stryker, actor
Andrew Sullivan, conservative gay columnist, barebacker
Pëtr Ilich Tchaikovsky, composer
Scott Thompson, comic
Billy Tipton, jazz musician, lifelong male impersonator
Andrew Tobias, writer
Alice B. Toklas, cookbook author
Lily Tomlin, actor
Pete Townshend, The Who [bisexual]
Alan Turing, genius
Gus Van Sant, filmmaker
Versace, fashion designer
Gore Vidal, writer
Bruce Vilanch, joke writer
Andy Warhol, artist [bisexual]
John Waters, filmmaker
Oscar Wilde, writer
Tennessee Williams, playwright
There is nothing fabulous about Doug Henning.
The wanna-be David Copperfield.
BernardR is dabbling in sarcastic reverse psychology.
CK, the only thing it actually will reverse is the notion he is sane.
BernardR wrote:J. L. Nobody says that there was nothing wrong with my post.
Rex Red posts material which cannot be empirically proven to be true.
Others just babble and babble.
I post a list--An actual list of people--they are very prominent people---just the existence of this list PROVES that the world would have been much much worst off without Homosexuals. There are those in our country who would force homosexuals into the closet. We would be a great deal poorer.
I ask those who are doubters to examine the list below. It is a list with some of the best minds of our time.
NOONE CAN DOUBT THAT!!!
It also contains some of the worse scum our planet has ever produced. Insofar as it does, it is essentially no different from a list of heterosexuals.
Homosexuals have indeed been given a bad time by heterosexuals throughout history...aided, it might be noted by the dictates of gods...
...but you are going overboard here.
Quote:Because of the neanderthal and fundamentalist nonsense in our land, the contributions of Homosexuals to the world has never been appreciated.
The contributions of all the supposed homosexuals listed below...HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED. That is why they are prominent, Bernie. You have gone apeshyt on this issue....and are grossly overstating the case. By doing so...you are damaging the proposition of "unfairness towards homosexuals"...which, it would not surprise me, is actually your purpose.
Quote:Below is a list of those famous people who were homosexual. HOWEVER, IF THEY HAD NOT BEEN PERSECUTED IN THE PAST, I AM SURE THAT WE WOULD FIND THAT AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF GENIUS WAS HOMOSEXUAL...HOMOSEXUAL AND GENIUS ARE ALMOST SYNONYMS.
Heterosexual and genius bear the same relationship.
Left-handedness and genius bear the same relationship.
Humans and genius bear the same relationship.
You've gone apeshyt, Bernie.
As for the specific:
Quote:... I AM SURE THAT WE WOULD FIND THAT AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF GENIUS WAS HOMOSEXUAL...
Well, I guess this would be a good time to remind folks that 87.6% of all statistics are made up right on the spot....usually by people who have absolutely no good reason to come up with the stat they've come up with. (Or "up with which they've come"....if you are anal.)
