Homosexuality v. Christianity -- A FEW QUESTIONS:

Cephus, I really like that pin on Religion. Where can we buy it?

Okay, that does it. I like kittens. And I like... So okay, you've just ruined my life, Cephus.

I have cats also so I'm glad I'm a confirmed secularist!

The "other" maliagar doctrine forum has been locked. ;(

I'm not sure why that other thread was locked. There were a few barbs being thrown -- AT Maligar and FROM Maligar -- but none were out of hand.

That thread should be unlocked immediately.

The power to lock down a thread should not be censorship.

Meh, forget about it. It can be rebuilt.

---

Perhaps an exhausted administrator or moderator?

---

Wouldn't have been me, maliagar, I don't have the power to lock threads.

I'm not sure if this is an example of insufferable condescension or just extreme denseness. You deem it unnecessary to define what you mean by "communion," and then you use the notion of "communion" to defend your position. Since you don't seem to be that dense, maliagar, I'll just assume that you're being patronizingly evasive.



No, quite clearly A&E didn't know the difference between right and wrong before partaking of the fruit of the tree. Otherwise, the Bible is wrong when it describes the serpent as telling Eve: "Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:4-5 (emphasis added).

I'm sure you're hung up on this point because, in fact, the notion of fault and punishment without intent is inimical to our values. We simply don't think it's right to punish people who are incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong. Yet God most certainly can, because, in the case of A&E, he did.



Oh, wait, maybe you are that dense. I already provided this evidence, twice, but for your benefit I'll do it again: Gen. 2:16-17. God warned A&E not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If God didn't anticipate (or, if you will, predict) that A&E might do this, why bother with the warning?



You said God took a "risk," I'm merely quoting you. It's one of the few definitive, non-evasive statements that you've made in this entire thread. I can't possibly let go of it -- otherwise, there would be nothing left of your position.



Of course possibilities lead to prediction. Nothing else could.



Well, you "proved" that A&E weren't 50-foot tall apes (although I find no biblical evidence for even this assertion). Other than that, you haven't touched my analogy.



I'll go over this slowly: A teacher takes no sort of risk when testing a student. The student either passes or fails, but there is no element of risk in that scenario for the teacher, who merely administers the test. In the same fashion, if God was testing A&E, then he wasn't taking a risk. Now, maliagar you said that God both administered a test and took a risk -- how could He do both?



Well done, maliagar! You deny me the use of "propensities" and "predictions" based on the unknowability of pre-lapsarian humans, yet you use the undefinable notion of "communion" to defend your notion of pre-lapsarian human propensities and predilictions. Quite a tour-de-force of evasion and intellectual dishonesty, I must admit.

Rather than further beat this particular deceased equine, let me ask you one question, maliagar: can God ever make a mistake?

If you answer anything other than "no" to that question, then I'd be willing to continue this pleasant little exercise. If, on the other hand, you answer "no," then I'll have to conclude that your initial query (where you asked "Can you tell me of ONE mistake made by God in the Bible?") was just a case of common trolling. After all, if, by definition, God is infallible, then asking for instances of God's mistakes in the Bible is not a request for information, or evidence, or even for some rational debate. Rather, it's a blatant troll.

Hey, JLNobody: Do you realize you're the only one in A2K who has ever had the guts of publicly agreeing with something I said (despite our other differences)?

I love you, man!!! :wink: I also have feelings, you know...

One of the signs that the phenomenon known as "group think" may be going on:

1. Members agree on everything they say; no internal dissent (usually guided by one or two "authority figures"), and
2. Members disagree with everything an outsider says (suspicious unanimity vis-a-vis "the other", due to complex internal dynamics).

But you've shown that group think is not our destiny, regardless of the passions, acts of trust, and leaps of faith involved.

:wink:

It doesn't take guts Maliagar. It takes teh willingness to cede a small valid point when the whole is BS.

I too agree with that small point about elitism. I disagree with your larger attempt at illustrating your own superiority.

It was indeed unnecessary to explain "communion" (for it was enough to prove that you had not considered a third possibility).



No, I didn't use the word "communion" to defend anything. I used the word "communication", as in being able to talk to each other and share.



You're free to assume anything that pleases you. But I'm taking care of your views point by point (whether you see it--or care to admit it--or not).



How could this description be wrong? [By the way, I don't reject the notion that there are mistakes, errors and inconsistencies in the biblical books, but that's another discussion. We are talking here about your King Kong parallel and God's "mistake"]



The biblical story shows the serpent as a deceiving creature, and A&E as a couple who let themselves be deceived to the point of disobeying God.



Certainly. That doesn't fit with our Christian values. But that was not Adam and Eve's case (at least as the story goes).


That's what you haven't proven. Are you saying that Adam and Eve didn't know that they shouldn't disobey God?

- The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Gen 2:16-17)

Nothing in the text authorizes you to think that Adam did not understand that (1) his Creator had given him an order, (2) the limits of his freedom had been set, (3) there were some things he should not do, (4) and the consequence of disobedience was death.


Very simple - See verses 15 and 16:
"The LORD God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and care for it. The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden..."

It had nothing to do with "propensities". It had to do with the fact that the entire garden of Eden was under Adam's care. He was charged with cultivating it. He was free to go anywhere, and would have stumbled upon that particular tree sooner or later. But that particular tree was decreed as off limits by God. ["Knowledge" in biblical parlance means "intimacy" (as when Adam knew Eve). Therefore, that tree was forbidden for God did not want Adam and Eve to become "intimate" with evil]

Once again, when you introduce "predictable propensities" into the equation, you're reading too much into the text. I accept that, as a matter of probability, Adam would sooner or later come across that tree. And for that ocassion, the prohibition was issued. And A&E had the choice of being free, and choosing to obey (the third option, which you haven't denied).



You've read the whole thread? :wink: Nothing is definitive, for in these dialogues one can always define more precisely what one means (you don't deny that possibility, do you? It's called openmindedness).

But let's continue which the "risk" word, which you like so much. I already explained that for God it was a risk in the sense of a father having a son that might one day disobey. But you think this father-son example is less parallel than your King Kong story, without explaining why.



Wrong. Possibilities lead to probabilities. Of course, you can take care of those probabilities, but this has nothing to do to the "sinful" propensities you were talking about. I already made the point that NOTHING in the text authorizes you to speak of Adam and Eve's propensities (either you missed this completely or you're conveniently ignoring it).



I'm starting to get the feeling that you're really missing it all...



I'll go over this even more slowly:

A father grants his teen son increasing degrees of freedom. There is always the risk that the son will misuse his freedom. But the father is not making a mistake in granting that freedom. Freedom is at the essence of being a human. The teen who misuses his freedom is failing the test of being a responsible human--which involves, among other things, staying in good terms with his father.



You have a bureaucratic understanding of a teacher is. The relationship father-son is intimate, and the father suffers when the son makes a mistake. And the Genesis story is about father and son/daughter. [Some teachers with a more vocational approach to their craft may also suffer when a student fails.]



I just showed that this analogy does not apply either. I wonder if you'll see the point.



I know, but thanks anyway. :wink:



Wrong. I mentioned it to open your mind to a third POSSIBILITY, which you hadn't considered.



I could also start giving you funny names and adjectives (it's so muuuuch fun - see the other threads), but I'm refraining myself just a bit more. :wink: (Only when I finally realize that the other person is not really listening, will not do it, and is only interested in chasing away their own fears.)



First, take care of the points I've made. But seriously. :wink:

You say too many things, and it shows that there are a bunch of distinctions you're unaware of. The first one: Exegesis and theology. So, can God make a mistake? What answer would you want? Theological or exegetical?

[First, deal with your King Kong parallel, and then we'll see]

Rather a strict unforgiving god - in my view: Make one mistake, and you have committed the ultimate sin. Most humans learn by example and personal mistakes. God sure didn't give A&E that same leeway. A "loving" god would understand the potential of wrong-doings by all humans. Evidently, he didn't understand what he created in the first place. Ignorance is no excuse. c.i.

Answer in any fashion that you see fit.

Sophistry is difficult to disguise.

So do I, 4 of them in fact. So maybe all those repressed Catholics had better stop playing with themselves. They'll go blind *AND* kill kittens!

I believe they are already blind but they could go mute.

I'd like to welcome this new addition to the crowd.

He's increasingly unable to repress his phobias, eager to join the light weights around here, and dying to be taken as a joke...

Should we call him.... Cephobia?

:wink:

Maliagar,

Please discontinue the name calling.