|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2004 02:49:28 AM · #301 |
Originally posted by RonB:
OK. Let's go back to your original charge. You infer that God is a Man because Genesis 1:27 says, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
|
My Genesis doesn't contain your Genesis' Chapter 1.
Originally posted by RonB:
Fine. The Greek word translated "man" in that text is "'Adam" ( surprised? ) which really means something more akin to mankind or person. Later, Genesis 2:23 says, "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." In that text, the Greek word translated "Man" is 'IYSH, meaning a male person specifically. Note that in the second text the word Adam, is, surprisingly, in the Greek, 'Adam. So the text could have been translated "And Man said, This is not bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Finally, the ancient Greek texts do not even contain the words He, Him, His - they are inserted by the translators to maintain readability. For that matter, the Greek word translated "God" is Elohiym, a plural for the word Elowahh, the singlular word for god. ( FYI, the Elohim is/are God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit ). |
My understanding is that "Elohim" (as used in the original J text) is actually a term used to describe gods (divine beings) in general, not the trinity as you suggest.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 03:03:06 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought the original texts which became the Bible were written in Aramaic, not Greek. |
My understanding is that the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible) is the basis for the Christian Old Testament. The adoption of the Jews' sacred text by the Christians must have been a sore point as Aramaic translations (from Hebrew, no?) were then used by the Jews instead.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2004 10:34:16 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought the original texts which became the Bible were written in Aramaic, not Greek. |
For the OLD Testament, the base texts were Aramaic, Greek, and Latin - though for the most part, those were translations from earlier texts in Hebrew, the original language.
For the NEW Testament, the majority of original texts were in Greek, the predominant lanugage of scholars at the time. |
|
|
|
11/09/2004 11:20:01 AM · #304 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Very true, but only to a point - that being that, according to the Bible, believers should not judge those outside the faith ( i.e. non-believers ), but should judge those within the faith ( believers ). The Apostle Pauld says in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 5 verses 9-13 ( NIV ):
"I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people -- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Hence a believer should not judge a gay non-believer, but should judge a gay man who professes to be a believer. |
Just as the hetero/homo distinction is an oversimplification (see "Kinsey scale"/"spectrum of sexuality" or the book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male), it's my opinion that faith-based beliefs fall into some spectrum (or some N-dimensional cloud could it be parameterized) too. Judeo-Christian belief systems are now so fractured as to require (hyperbole alert) several degrees to understand the differences between some pairs of them. What it means (to me) is that human judgement is changing over (and all the) time: some people prefer to update their belief systems accordingly. If it helps, perhaps it would be simpler if you accepted that anyone who is gay and professes to be a believer, cannot share your identical beliefs. That is, they must always exist outside your church. Perhaps that's just a hornet's nest of a different size. Still, I do believe that even the individual will choose to accept or create whatever interpretation happens to suit them at the time. |
Simpler, perhaps. But that is not the course of action that the Bible instructs us to take. In the text I quoted, it says that believers should not even eat with another believer who is sexually immoral. Yet, it is not the option nor right of people to presume that one exists outside "your" church ( the "church" being the body of believers, not a building or a specific congregation or denomination ). That determination is reserved for God.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Surely it is severely presumptuous to know how anyone will be judged come Judgement Day: |
Not really ( for believers, that is ). The Bible is quite clear about how not just anyone, but everyone will be judged. And the judgement is quite simple - is your name inscribed in the book of the Lamb or not?
If it is, you enter into the kingdom of heaven; if not, then you are banished. |
Then surely it is severely presumptuous to pretend knowledge of the names in the book of the Lamb; the label someone a 'sinner' or 'morally corrupt' (I do not quote you specifically) is near tantamount to claiming this knowledge. I do not claim that your particular interpretation of the Bible is incorrect, but it appears (to me) there are many interpretations of it. If the Bible is the singular moral basis for Christ-based religions, how is one interpretation favoured over another? |
It would be presumptuous, indeed, to pretend or even claim knowledge of the names in the Book of the Lamb. But it is not presumptuous to label someone a 'sinner' since 1) all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and 2) a large number of sins are described in the Bible, many of which can be ascertained with certainty based on empirical evidence. As someone once said, "Beauty may be only skin deep, but Ugly goes right to the bone."
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
worry only about your own spiritual path and let everyone else worry about theirs. |
Believers believe that it is wrong to love someone to death. They, instead feel compelled to love others from death - eternal death, that is. |
Call me obtuse, but you'll have to help me connect the dots between what I said and your response. |
One of the attributes of a believer is concern for the spiritual well being of others - both those who already profess belief, and those that do not. Your suggestion is like asking a smoker who is dying of lung cancer to not attempt to convince the other smokers in his family to kick the habit before its too late.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
How does gay marriage fit into my world view? When two people who love each other (this is my presumption on why people get married) want their union recognized by the law, by the government, and/or by their church/God/insert-other-spiritual-entity-here, we should all celebrate that. It's the civilized thing to do. |
Christians should not be expected to celebrate that which is contrary to God's will.
And true Christians are not civilized. Jesus says in the Bible ( John 15:19 ), "If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.". Believers may be IN the world, but they are not OF the world. That being said, Believers are instructed to obey the laws of the land unless the law imposes upon them that which is contrary to God's will. For example: Roe vs. Wade permits abortion, but does not require abortion - so it does not impose itself upon a believer - unless the believer happens to be a gynecologist and the law attempts to force him/her to actually conduct an abortion - then he/she must refuse - unless it it medically necessary to save the life of the mother. |
Hmm, yes celebrate is perhaps too liberal a word, a wish from an idealist perhaps. Let's use accept instead. |
Let's not. Let's use continue to disagree on its morality and effect on society.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
So, in that gay marriage "does not impose itself upon a believer", why the opposition? For that matter, why the opposition at all by believers to someone else's right to choose (abortion)? Perhaps their interpretation of acceptable amounts of protest/opposition is at the crux of it. There's something in "the good book" about casting the first stone or some such thing (which I assume is a metaphysical statement about the uncertainty of one's own "Lamb-ness"). |
Genocide in Rwanda does not impose itself on believers in the U.S. either. Should it, likewise, not be opposed? The majority of believers did not own slaves. Should they, then, be told that they shouldn't oppose it? Believers oppose many things that have an impact, or potential impact, beyond that which affects themselves.
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
It just seems strange to me that some people want to remove/create laws that allow/deny others the same civil rights they are afforded, especially when they are personally unaffected (i.e. it doesn't change their current 'sin' status). |
The issue has been hijacked. The opposition is not to civil rights - it is to the corruption of the term marriage, which to many religions is reserved to describa a sacrament which unites a man and a woman in matrimony. If gays and lesbians would petition for "civil unions" which would carry ALL of the LEGAL rights and privileges, both at the state and federal level, I believe that there would be very little opposition. But I personally don't believe that gays and lesbians would accede to that distinction, because it doesn't carry with it the same cachet of moral acceptance, which I think is what they ar really trying to attain. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 10:04:15 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 10:04:15 AM EDT.
|
