• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Intelligent Design support letter to the editor

As far as I'm aware, and I might be wrong on this. The prohibitions on homosexuality are one of those Old Testament things that is not included in the new covenant, like not eating shellfish or wearing clothes made of two fabrics.

Is that a viable interpretation of the Bible in your eyes?

First, thanx for your calm and decent response. Second, please note that I was not the one bringing this subject into the spotlight and that my post was a response to an accusation
of being a homophobe and of bashing people who choose that lifestyle. I personally don't like to bring up this subject due to the extreme irate reactions which arise. So I try to avoid it since I am not here seeking debate but merely wishing to shed some light on Biblical issues the best I can without trying to stir up severe controversies. That being said, let me answer your question as briefly and as politely as I can.

The moral law was not abolished per se. What was abolished was the punishment required for those sins and the sacrificial requirements related to those specific sins. These can be found in Deuteronomy, which expands on the Ten commandments which are a synopsis. Leviticus also, mentions them as well.

Please take note that if we claim that one serious moral law was abolished and is OK now. then we are obligated to say that all others are OK. That would mean that incest is now OK, theft, murder, cursing at God, disrespecting our parents,idolatry, adultery, fornication etcetera are now all OK.

Which of course they aren't'. They are things which are not to be practiced and we are told not to practice them in both the OT and the New. In short, both Hebrew and Greek scriptures are in accord. Here ius an example:

OT Scriptures:

Deuteronomy 5:18
Neither shalt thou commit adultery.


Proverbs 6:32
But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
==============================================

NT Scriptures:

Matthew 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

So there really is no targetting or bashing soely of any particular group. As you can see, heterosexual relations are also included to a certain extent and are limited. However, the Bible is definitely clear both in the OT and the NT that homosexuality is not an approved practice just as it is clear about adultery and all other sexual matters. Is it easy to follow these requirements? No it isn't. That is understood. And that includes for heterosexuals as well.

Example:

I once met a fellow who said he could never be a Christian because he just could not refrain from committing adultery. He continually boasted about how he though being married had women all over the city and even had children by them. In fact, he said he'd prefer death to having to refrain from adultery. But one thing he didn't say-to his credit-he didn't say that what was clearly written wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Galatians 5:19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

So there really is no targetting or bashing soely of any particular group. As you can see, heterosexual relations are also included to a certain extent and are limited.
Sure there is.

First of all, if you allow homosexuals to marry, "fornication" is no longer an issue.

Second, you've been claiming that dietary laws (for example) have been repealed by the new testament, but here we have "uncleanness" listed just as plain as the rest of them. How can that prohibition not include eating "unclean" foods such as pork?

So, basically, you're selectively (and arbitrarily) choosing which "laws" apply to modern life, and you're stacking the deck so that some people violate those laws by engaging in the same physical acts that others (who are presumably NOT in violation) engage in.

Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it, that's targeting and bashing a specific group.
 
Sure there is.

First of all, if you allow homosexuals to marry, "fornication" is no longer an issue.

But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we? And if we disagree with what it says, then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes. The second one is illogical. Similar to reading the Constitution and insisting that cruel and unusual punishment doesn't include torture. Or that freedom of worship isn't really guaranteed but that it has to mean something else. To which I would say as well, write your own constitution.


Second, you've been claiming that dietary laws (for example) have been repealed by the new testament, but here we have "uncleanness" listed just as plain as the rest of them. How can that prohibition not include eating "unclean" foods such as pork?


Because we are specifically told in the Bible that the foods which were formally tagged as unclean under law are no longer to be viewed that way. While we are specifically told in the same Bible that the practice that you want the Bible to approve is not approved. As simple as that.


Actually, gentiles were never under obligation to avoid those foods because gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Such dietary restrictions were for the nation of Israel. That is a basic Bible teaching which anyone who has taken the time to read the Bible is familiar with.

So, basically, you're selectively (and arbitrarily) choosing which "laws" apply to modern life, and you're stacking the deck so that some people violate those laws by engaging in the same physical acts that others (who are presumably NOT in violation) engage in.

Sorry, no matter how you try to spin it, that's targeting and bashing a specific group.

Not spinning anything. Are all these other groups whose practuices are not apprpoved of targeted as well? All these people who are doing all these things could come on this board complaining that they are being targetted. Yet no one else comes forth with that complaint. Strange!


As for choosing and picking, neither I nor anyone else has the right to be arbitrarily choosing what is or what isn't applicable to Christians. Actually, such a demonic practice is inexcusable since the Bible is clear on such things. At least to those who have taken the time to read and study it it is. For those who haven't, then it is far more logical to simply ask for help in understanding the Bible instead of accusing those who have studied it for decades of misinterpreting what it says.

Acts 8

30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?

31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
 
Last edited:
The right, and the wrong interpretations.

Ahh, thank God He came down and told you specifically there was only one correct interpretation to a document that spans centuries written from the point of view of multiple authors who had multiple aims in mind when they wrote it, and then cleverly gathered by another organization who rejected or accepted based on their own agenda.

That sure clears things up for me!
 
But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we?

Good idea!

Deuteronomy 24:1-2 | Luke 16:18-19 1When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. | 18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. | 19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Divorce: OK | Divorce: NOT OK

And if we disagree with what it says...

Ermmm... Given that this is a collection of books that says (Matthew 5:17-20) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled", it disagrees with what it says

...then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

I vote for option 1:
#2 doesn't apply... its NOT clearly written
#3 doesn't apply... I don't need a bible in order to live my life

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes

What can you see, when wearing my shoes, that I am unaware of?

The second one is illogical.

Please explain the logic that supports the idea that it IS clearly written

And, if you know, please explain why you don't even address the option to reject
 
Last edited:
I really wish I could engage others in this discussion but every time I attempt it I get a barrage of ad hominems, recriminationsa, condemnations, and other such irrelevancies

There is also the problem of shielding my eyes from the blinding holiness of the sinless.
 
Last edited:
Why do you suppose it is different for gay folks?
Don’t know except that it is probably different in a lot of cases.

As an atheist, I've found that I get everything I pray for.

Has that not been your experience?
No,
I've found that I get everything I pray for.


If you get everything you pray for how come you still don’t believe in God, or haven’t you prayed for that to be reveled to you?




Maybe your common sense might help you read the next chapter of Romans, where Paul warns his readers of the folly in condemning others... it might just make you stop and think long enough to understand that "plane stupid" is what happens when blinkered fanatics believe that it is their divine duty to make repeated attacks on innocent people going about their private business



I guess you missed this part and only see what you want to see.


They have to answer, not me.
All I could do is try to talk to them and not judge them.
Let them know how God feels about it.
I also understand that it might go deeper in their psychology that can’t be fixed here, except by God and tell them this also.
Whatever it is, it is their will, freedom of choice.

I should have added that I have my own things to ansewer for.

The idea here is to get better not worse, for me I stopped smoking, it been a little over three weeks.

Some get worse and then you have ,

Now if only "common sense" would keep the pedophilia in the clergy from being attracted to little kids--after all, they have "god" on their side (plus, as a bonus-- the threat of hell!)


I would have to say he is skeptical of what he portrays.
And so what lead him there?

A step further into depravity, I agree with the law on this.

But the differance is I would never be friends with one of these, if I could help it.
 
Last edited:
Don’t know except that it is probably different in a lot of cases.

Or could it be that there is the same amount of choice in all cases - i.e., no choice? Could you choose to be gay?



If you get everything you pray for how come you still don’t believe in God, or haven’t you prayed for that to be reveled to you?
If this is humour, then well played sir. If this is sincere, then yikes - you just set a new standard for obtuseness.
 
Last edited:
But since we are considering this subject from a strictly biblical point, then we would have to see what the Bible says about marriage-wouldn't we? And if we disagree with what it says, then we have several options,

1. Reject
2. Deny what is clearly written
3. Write our own Bible.

To me the third is the most logical if I were in your shoes. The second one is illogical. Similar to reading the Constitution and insisting that cruel and unusual punishment doesn't include torture. Or that freedom of worship isn't really guaranteed but that it has to mean something else. To which I would say as well, write your own constitution.
I think door number 1 is the best choice here, rejecting an outdated and inconsistent source for something which is more consistent, and which more fairly satisfies the needs of all people living today, rather than those of patriarchs living dozens of centuries ago.

Because we are specifically told in the Bible that the foods which were formally tagged as unclean under law are no longer to be viewed that way. While we are specifically told in the same Bible that the practice that you want the Bible to approve is not approved. As simple as that.
Not as simple as that at all. The bible contradicts itself on this point as it does on most points. We can either

1. Reject it as too unreliable and inconsistent to use in formulating a worthwhile set of ethics, or
2. Pick and choose those passages which conform to our existing prejudices, and find excuses to wave away those which don't, or
3. Enact laws which embody every prescription and proscription as the inerrant word of God, as any good theocracy should. Where it's inconsistent, the laws will be inconsistent; where it's unfair, the laws will be unfair, but who are we to question?

Once again, door number one appears to be the way to go.

Actually, gentiles were never under obligation to avoid those foods because gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law Covenant. Such dietary restrictions were for the nation of Israel. That is a basic Bible teaching which anyone who has taken the time to read the Bible is familiar with.
The ten commandments were also given to the nation of Israel, so I repeat my earlier assertion that if we're justified in rejecting dietary laws for this reason, we're justified in rejecting the ten commandments.

Not spinning anything. Are all these other groups whose practuices are not apprpoved of targeted as well? All these people who are doing all these things could come on this board complaining that they are being targetted. Yet no one else comes forth with that complaint. Strange!
Society doesn't impose a penalty on adulterers, fornicators, or shrimp eaters. It does impose a penalty on those who wish to form a legally-recognized exclusive union with a person of the same gender. I don't want to speak for anyone, but I suspect that if the legal situation was made equitable, no one would give a damn about the tongue clucking and scowls of disapproval from those who lived by a different set of lights.

As for choosing and picking, neither I nor anyone else has the right to be arbitrarily choosing what is or what isn't applicable to Christians.
And yet, you do it. I don't blame you, really; you're forced to do it by the inconsistent edicts contained in your own holy book. "Here's the law," "That's not important now," "Yes it is, I haven't repealed even the least of the laws," "Oh, wait, here's a more important law -- Love your neighbor as yourself -- " which seems to override the first law, unless you ignore it...
 
I guess you missed this part and only see what you want to see.
edge said:
All I could do is try to talk to them and not judge them.
Let them know how God feels about it.

I did read that part

Do you appreciate that from what you wrote, it can be inferred that your ARE (perhaps unwittingly) judging

If you're not judging, then what do you want "to talk to them" about?
What is the "it" that your god has feelings for?
 
Thanks Jeff and arti

:confused: Nominated for what? where?
Nominated for the Language Award on Forum Communities. When I saw "plane stupid" I had a similar thought, but you beat me to it.
P.S., The "Nominate" button is below here........................................x
 
Last edited:
Nominated for the Language Award on Forum Communities. When I saw "plane stupid" I had a similar thought, but you beat me to it.
P.S., The "Nominate" button is below here........................................x

Yes it was profoundly ironic... but edge doesn't have the capacity to appreciate the message. At least others did.

Religion can make people "plane" stupid. Faith can kill.
 
Obviously so can skepticism.
Two sides of the same coin believing the same thing.

Right. Because skeptical terrorism is the scourge of civilization. :rolleyes:

Fit me out for a suicide vest Father Dawkins.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom