The Meaning of Life

[Felasco]

Start the thread, make your case, and then watch it turn to dust before your very eyes.

[reasonvemotion]

You chose the subject, if you wish to continue you set it up and run with it.

Frankly I wouldnt know where to begin and as you have been there before, you can cut and paste. LOL

[chaz wyman]

C.W. wrote:

If you were reading, I reflected on how people understand christianity in general terms and so few know the scriptures in detail.

In China alone 100 million copies of the Scriptures have been printed. The Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed in 1455. "The French philosopher Voltaire, a skeptic who destroyed the faith of many people, boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. Voltaire died in 1728, but the Bible lives on". The Bible has been read by more people and printed more times than any other book in history and has been translated into over 1,400 languages.

Can prove or disprove "so few" know the scriptures in detail?
The scriptures have not changed since 325AD, but how to live a Christian life has changed enormously. Think about it!
It would have made more sense if you had said fewer people who read and know the Scriptures live their lives accordingly.

Hello? Knock knock!! Are you receiving me???

It does not matter a rat's arse about the content of the scriptures, though they support my case more than yours.
The content of the scriptures is not the same as the set of norms and moral values demanded in the US by people who self identify as "Religious".
If the answer to being religious could be found in scripture then , as it has not changed in 1687 years, being religious would not have changed - however IT HAS. Being 'religious' has changed enormously because people take what they want from scripture and ignore the rest, but mostly they just go along with the priest and what he says.
But the survey showed that the moral message does not affect moral behaviour in any significant way. Identifying as 'religious' means that behaviour is the same as those that identify as 'atheist', non-religous, or agnostic.
The only difference found was the higher incidence of the use of porn amongst the religious.

You can ignore it if you want, but quoting scripture at me won't help you account for it, and won'[t change the facts.
Any fool can find what they want from the bible and any fool can find a passage which contradicts it.
We can play that game if you like

[chaz wyman]

Start the thread, make your case, and then watch it turn to dust before your very eyes.

Many have made the case few have survived.

Why don't you make YOUR case and see how you get on?
It's easy to pick holes, not so easy to establish a case of your own.

[reasonvemotion]

Hello? Knock knock!! Are you receiving me???

It does not matter a rat's arse about the content of the scriptures, though they support my case more than yours.
The content of the scriptures is not the same as the set of norms and moral values demanded in the US by people who self identify as "Religious".
If the answer to being religious could be found in scripture then , as it has not changed in 1687 years, being religious would not have changed - however IT HAS

Some of us sleep.



"Man's" true nature has remained the same. We are corrupt, dishonest, immoral today as we are also perfectly wonderful, fine and genuine. The scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness as it was in the past as it still is today.
.


Quran 2:6

As for those who disbelieve it is the same for them whether you warn them or not warn them, they cannot believe.

[Felasco]

You chose the subject, if you wish to continue you set it up and run with it.

The subject was to be your claim that homosexuality is an abomination.

If you've lost interest in making that claim, I agree that is a wise plan, and the case is closed.

[chaz wyman]

You chose the subject, if you wish to continue you set it up and run with it.

The subject was to be your claim that homosexuality is an abomination.

If you've lost interest in making that claim, I agree that is a wise plan, and the case is closed.

I think her claim was something else - that the Scriptures say that homosexuality is an abomination. That is a different claim ,- unless you are a Biblical Literalist?

[Felasco]

I think her claim was something else - that the Scriptures say that homosexuality is an abomination. That is a different claim ,-

Ok, I'm willing to be corrected if needed.

Yes, homosexuality is an abomination according to the Scriptures.

This sentence does seem to be statement about scripture, not about the poster's own opinion. Good point Chaz.

What is natural about inserting a penis in an orifice that is meant to expel waste from the body?

I'm pretty sure this is not a quote from scripture, but the statement of a personal opinion. If that's incorrect, then I'm willing to be corrected on the original intent, which perhaps I've misunderstood.

[reasonvemotion]

Rem:

What is natural about inserting a penis in an orifice that is meant to expel waste from the body?

Felasco:

I'm pretty sure this is not a quote from scripture, but the statement of a personal opinion. If that's incorrect, then I'm willing to be corrected on the original intent, which perhaps I've misunderstood

.

Rom. 1.26, ........ women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Perhaps I assume too much, but the above Chapter and verses seem to indicate men and men performing the same role a woman and man would enjoy. With this in mind, penetration could only be achieved via the anus for two males imitating the natural roles of a man and woman.

But, I am aware, though I have never debated this topic, that it is full of twists and turns, interpretations, etc. I do recognise the futility of further discussion, but I would have been interested to read your opinion, as you have been privy to mine.


BUT my claim via the Scriptures on homosexuality still stands.

[Felasco]

With this in mind, penetration could only be achieved via the anus for two males imitating the natural roles of a man and woman.

I must be becoming shy and modest in my old age, as I suddenly find myself reluctant to spell out the other ways penetration can be achieved. It seems proper that some of the glorious mystery of sex be respected, so that folks can make their special discoveries on their own.

I do recognise the futility of further discussion, but I would have been interested to read your opinion, as you have been privy to mine.

And we can still do that if you really want to. But I'm waiting for you to start another thread, so that I'll know if you really want to, and out of respect for this thread. I'm also agreeable to letting it go. My reaction to your comments was likely too reactive, and this is my way of making sure I'm not amplifying such an error.

BUT my claim via the Scriptures on homosexuality still stands.

A ripe topic, for another thread.

[chaz wyman]

Rem:

What is natural about inserting a penis in an orifice that is meant to expel waste from the body?

Felasco:

I'm pretty sure this is not a quote from scripture, but the statement of a personal opinion. If that's incorrect, then I'm willing to be corrected on the original intent, which perhaps I've misunderstood

.

Rom. 1.26, ........ women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,

27, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Perhaps I assume too much, but the above Chapter and verses seem to indicate men and men performing the same role a woman and man would enjoy. With this in mind, penetration could only be achieved via the anus for two males imitating the natural roles of a man and woman.

But, I am aware, though I have never debated this topic, that it is full of twists and turns, interpretations, etc. I do recognise the futility of further discussion, but I would have been interested to read your opinion, as you have been privy to mine.


BUT my claim via the Scriptures on homosexuality still stands.

Do you personally hold this view to be true that homosexuality is unacceptable?

[chaz wyman]

With this in mind, penetration could only be achieved via the anus for two males imitating the natural roles of a man and woman.

Reducing homosexuality to buggery is like reducing music to noise.
Homosexuality is about love and desire; and those are not chosen, they are deep inclinations from innate tendencies, being perfectly natural.

There are many activities I do with my partner that are not natural by which I express my love; buying flowers, travelling together on a plane. I do not see why 'natural' has anything to do with expressing love, whilst the deepest feelings of love have everything to do with it.
Thus, by the same token If two men want to express their natural love, by buggering each other, then I fail to see what the problem is.
In reality it has nothing to do with what is natural , and everything to do with the personal disgust of the homophobe.

[Felasco]

I find that once again I must vote for the Chaz Wyman Party, and see now my rhetoric is not really needed, as we have an expert on homosexuality here to make the case, better than I can.

[chaz wyman]

I find that once again I must vote for the Chaz Wyman Party, and see now my rhetoric is not really needed, as we have an expert on homosexuality here to make the case, better than I can.

Is this touched by a hint of irony?

[Felasco]

Is this touched by a hint of irony?

I don't know what this means, but I often don't agree with you, so it's fun when I do.

I meant only that because you are gay, and I am not, if there's going to be a debate, you would be the more informed party to lead the charge for the opinion we share.