Bogie

It would appear that John is overly concerned with grammar. The following example reminds me of Yoda...or the Amish:

"But homosexuality the bible very clearly in black and white letters condemns."

And, exactly what are "black and white letters"? Does he mean something like "unequivocal terms"? :huh:

Bogie

Starshark

Taking what BJ has said on face value - I neither know nor care about his history on this or other boards - he hasn't begun to address Pervy's main attack, that the Bible has been mistranslated. It seems to me (I only read BJ's argument quickly, correct me if I'm mistaken) that BJ has ignored the main premise of Pervy's argument and is relying on translated passages to prove his case. Unless he can somehow establish that these translations have more weight than the 'original', he's going to be sunk in this debate.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Just to clarify things a bit, posts each round are submitted concurrently for this debate, not in turns. Since the FDD forum is fully moderated, we can keep posts in storage before we validate them. When we get Pervy and John's posts, we then validate them both at the same time, making both posts appear simultaneously.

It's quite a nifty tool which makes concurrent debates possible.

- NS, FD Moderator

Starshark

Gawd-damn modernated technology. In my day it was affirmative/negative/affirmative/negative/affirmative conlude/negative conclude and we were happy!

CJD

Don't worry; I'll closely watch Pervy's translations and deductions, if BJ does not. By the way, our default position ought to rely on the work of scholars that have gone before us. If we disagree with them, then we ought to have a good reason. For instance, why in the world would I hold an actual Hebraist's translation suspect and not Pervy's (both of whom we know carry baggage to the text)? Credentials do mean something, Mr. Manifesto. We live in a world where needing 'experts' is a simple fact of life; there is far too much information out there to arrogantly walk around thinking otherwise.

I do appreciate that Pervy stated the obvious: that one's biases color one's translation. I just hope that he doesn't become the object of his own derision.

CJD

Nice Squirrel

Um pardon me, but we Liberal Christians can be considered of greater Faith than any Literalist. We are not cowering in apologetics and misgarbled translations of disjointed out of context passages in attempts to prove obidience like a beaten child, but wear our Faith on our shoulders and bear it on our backs through love, faith, hope and charity and worship through acts as well as thoughts. And sin is more than what is listed in the Bible and biblical texts.

Sorry folks, I was rubbed the wrong way by this guy.

Johnny Skeptic

Even if the Bible does condemn homosexuality, that does not reasonably prove that God condemns homosexuality. Why should anyone trust human proxies presuming to speak for God? If God has an opinion on this matter, then let him say so himself IN PERSON. Why would God have any reasons to oppose homosexuality? What is wrong with homosexuality?

Chili

I would say never mind what the bible says on this and look at God as the first cause of creation wherein God is the leading edge of creation. With God being the first casue we become the second cause as co-creator and that does not speak well for homosexuals wherein the polar opposites are missing to be co-creator with God. Would this not be how God speaks to us?

David Vestal

What does "the leading edge of creation" mean? Merely that god is the "first cause?"

How exactly are we co-creators, being merely creations?

WHY? Why does what precedes that sentence not speak well of homosexuals? Is it because they don't actually "create" babies? What if, through sperm donations and other methods, they DO have babies?

That didn't make any sense to me at all. Please rephrase.

Chili

It means that evolution begins when creation ends while creation itself is what makes evolution possible which therefore is the leading edge of evolution and hence the first cause of life for the living. The living are manifestations of God with a given mandate to be alive.

So yes, if God is first cause he is also exhausted by the first cause and needs us to make life known as second cause. We are the created essence of God as Lord God here on earth and are co-creator with God as 'like god' to modify and change the essence of God in us. Ie. in our existence of being are we Lord God and in our rational 'like god' mode are we co-creators with God to modify the material existene of Lord God down the road and for generations to come.

So God is the involuntary first cause, Lord God is the sense perceptive second cause and like god is the responsive third cause and therefore co-creator with the first cause.Not babies per se but creation in general which always is the product of a rout between a pair of opposites that are needed to create and conceive the created.

I think that the aim here is the survial of the fittest. You may have noticed that involuntary creation is not good enough in a compettitive environment where our senses must guide us to change the essence of the created. We are the manifestation of the 'created' and our creations will be the manifestion of us.